The scary woman from Queens

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

being articulate is not intelligent. she said low unemployment is bad, because it means people are working two or more jobs. that’s one of the stupidest things you will ever hear. then there’s her belief that there’s such a thing as free college. beyond stupid. could care less how articulate she is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you go to her congressional district in Queens you will find that many people have 2 jobs to be able to afford to live there and that low unemployment is not that great if the available jobs are not good.
She also says we as a society should choose #1 to make Healthcare affordable for all and #2 public college tuition affordable for all.
Of course that is the simplistic answer, she is a political candidate not an economist.
You may think that those are unwise investments of tax dollars but look at how those dollars are currently spent and what we get for our investment as a society.
Do you also think she is incorrect about how Congress is bought and paid for?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you go to her congressional district in Queens you will find that many people have 2 jobs to be able to afford to live there and that low unemployment is not that great if the available jobs are not good.
She also says we as a society should choose #1 to make Healthcare affordable for all and #2 public college tuition affordable for all.
Of course that is the simplistic answer, she is a political candidate not an economist.
You may think that those are unwise investments of tax dollars but look at how those dollars are currently spent and what we get for our investment as a society.
Do you also think she is incorrect about how Congress is bought and paid for?

I'm not denying that some people have to work two jobs. What I'm saying, is that when I take a second job, or a tenth job, unemployment does not decrease. It only decreases when I go from having zero jobs, to having more than zero jobs, whether I have 1 or 10 doesn't matter.

May come as a shock to you., but conservatives also want everyone to have great healthcare and access to affordable education. But we don't think it's as simple as the feds saying "it's now free", because that doesn't make it devoid of cost.

You make something more affordable by making it more efficient (in the case of college, there are WAY too many professors making boatloads of money for working barely part time hours). You don't make anything more efficient, by putting the feds in charge of it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not denying that some people have to work two jobs. What I'm saying, is that when I take a second job, or a tenth job, unemployment does not decrease. It only decreases when I go from having zero jobs, to having more than zero jobs, whether I have 1 or 10 doesn't matter.
So she was wrong or misspoke, haven't we all?

May come as a shock to you., but conservatives also want everyone to have great healthcare and access to affordable education. But we don't think it's as simple as the feds saying "it's now free", because that doesn't make it devoid of cost.
Does that also make them Morons?

You make something more affordable by making it more efficient (in the case of college, there are WAY too many professors making boatloads of money for working barely part time hours). You don't make anything more efficient, by putting the feds in charge of it.

Where is your evidence that professors are The driving factor in the increased cost of college? All the evidence I see is that they are a contributing factor, but not the largest.
You also did not rebut her views on Congress, I would say that you cannot agree with anything a "liberal" says but....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Where is your evidence that professors are The driving factor in the increased cost of college? All the evidence I see is that they are a contributing factor, but not the largest.
You also did not rebut her views on Congress, I would say that you cannot agree with anything a "liberal" says but....

"So she was wrong or misspoke, haven't we all?"

That is a fair point, I sure have been wrong and have mis-spoke. But I admit it when I do. Has she? And I'm not asking to get elected to a position where I am writing federal law.

"Does that also make them (conservatives) Morons?"

Nope. Conservatives believe that to make something cheaper, you actually have to somehow reduce the cost of that something. Liberals believe you can make something free, by having the feds provide it. One of those two ideas is, in my opinion, moronic. The other is completely in line with mathematical reality.

"Where is your evidence that professors are The driving factor in the increased cost of college?"

If you looked at the financial statements of a typical college, what do you really think the biggest expenses are? It will be faculty tuition & expenses, and building construction.

"All the evidence I see is that they are a contributing factor, but not the largest."

Too bad you didn't share any of that evidence.

"You also did not rebut her views on Congress"

I haven't seen her views on Congress. She's an admitted socialist who has made huge promises of freebies with zero ideas of how to pay for it, she doesn't know what unemployment is (but she'll say anything to make the GOPs unemployment rate sound like it's a bad thing), she thinks Israel invaded Palestine, and she was at a rally with Bernie Sanders where a shout out was given to a convicted cop killer, and as far as I know, she didn't speak against it.

I don't know every single detail of her platform. But I know more than enough. And I want her right where she is, getting invited to make speeches all over the country, I want the DNC to convince voters in purple states that she is the future of the party.

You cannot embrace socialism in a huge, heterogeneous country, if you've given it two seconds of rational thought. It's just not possible. Socialism can maybe work in a tiny country with rich natural resources, and very strict immigration, say Norway, where everyone has an oil well in their backyard, so everything can be provided, as long as they don't let too many people in. If we tried that here, we'd be Venezuela within ten years.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

" And I'm not asking to get elected to a position where I am writing federal law.

"Does that also make them (conservatives) Morons?"

"

No, but it is moronic to lie about what someone said either intentionally or because you didn't take the time to listen to what said said and said your nonsense anyway.

I bet you are o.k. with a guy who writes federal law also pulls his pants down, yells America! and rushes his naked back end at an "Isis terrorist."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

No, but it is moronic to lie about what someone said either intentionally or because you didn't take the time to listen to what said said and said your nonsense anyway.

I bet you are o.k. with a guy who writes federal law also pulls his pants down, yells America! and rushes his naked back end at an "Isis terrorist."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do use hyperbole and sarcasm in many of my posts. Sorry for the confusion.

Let me be literal here if it helps. If a democrat was president, we all know she'd be talking about how great low unemployment is. But she wants to get elected (because despite her claims of socialism, a job p aying almost 200k a year is attractive to her)more than she wants to speak the truth (that the economy is pretty healthy), so she came up with an idiotic negative spin about why unemployment is so low, and that it's not a good thing. I can't prove that, it's my opinion, but I am certain I'm right, and so is everyone else who is honest

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I bet you are o.k. with a guy who writes federal law also pulls his pants down, yells America! and rushes his naked back end at an "Isis terrorist."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My preference would be a good person who implements policies I like. That wasn't a choice in 2016. The choice was between 2 morally bankrupt reptiles. One would do things I like, one would do things I hate. It wasn't a pleasant choice, but it was an easy choice.

I didn't elect him to date my mother or to be a role model. I elected him to help the economy, to kill terrorists, and to nominate judges who understand that they aren't supposed to advocate for causes they believe in, but rather abide by the constitution even when they don't like that outcome.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

My preference would be a good person who implements policies I like. That wasn't a choice in 2016. The choice was between 2 morally bankrupt reptiles. One would do things I like, one would do things I hate. It wasn't a pleasant choice, but it was an easy choice.

I didn't elect him to date my mother or to be a role model. I elected him to help the economy, to kill terrorists, and to nominate judges who understand that they aren't supposed to advocate for causes they believe in, but rather abide by the constitution even when they don't like that outcome.

I am talking about the congressman from Georgia. You say you don't want ocasio writing law , but you probably are fine with Spencer. And your evaluation of how conservative judges work is novel, but b.s. That isn't how it goes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"So she was wrong or misspoke, haven't we all?"

That is a fair point, I sure have been wrong and have mis-spoke. But I admit it when I do. Has she? And I'm not asking to get elected to a position where I am writing federal law.

"Does that also make them (conservatives) Morons?"

Nope. Conservatives believe that to make something cheaper, you actually have to somehow reduce the cost of that something. Liberals believe you can make something free, by having the feds provide it. One of those two ideas is, in my opinion, moronic. The other is completely in line with mathematical reality.

"Where is your evidence that professors are The driving factor in the increased cost of college?"

If you looked at the financial statements of a typical college, what do you really think the biggest expenses are? It will be faculty tuition & expenses, and building construction.

"All the evidence I see is that they are a contributing factor, but not the largest."

Too bad you didn't share any of that evidence.
https://www.npr.org/2012/06/26/15576...e-costs-higher
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-...nd-rising.html
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-skyrocketing/
https://www.mercatus.org/%5Bnode%3A%...atest-research

"You also did not rebut her views on Congress"

I haven't seen her views on Congress. She's an admitted socialist who has made huge promises of freebies with zero ideas of how to pay for it, Proves once again you didn't watch it, just condemn based on your preconceived notion, I disagree with her but she has a plan she doesn't know what unemployment is (but she'll say anything to make the GOPs unemployment rate sound like it's a bad thing), she thinks Israel invaded Palestine, Should Israel get a free pass, 100 years ago it didn't exist and she was at a rally with Bernie Sanders where a shout out was given to a convicted cop killer, and as far as I know, she didn't speak against it. Wrong rally

I don't know every single detail of her platform. But I know more than enough. And I want her right where she is, getting invited to make speeches all over the country, I want the DNC to convince voters in purple states that she is the future of the party.

You cannot embrace socialism in a huge, heterogeneous country, if you've given it two seconds of rational thought. It's just not possible. Socialism can maybe work in a tiny country with rich natural resources, and very strict immigration, say Norway, where everyone has an oil well in their backyard, so everything can be provided, as long as they don't let too many people in. If we tried that here, we'd be Venezuela within ten years.

Last I knew none of my relatives in Norway had an oil well, all worked and made a living. None have been bankrupted by failing to have great health.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Last I knew none of my relatives in Norway had an oil well, all worked and made a living. None have been bankrupted by failing to have great health.

"Should Israel get a free pass"

No, but we shouldn't say they invaded Palestine either.

Funny, you are more critical of my mistakes, than you are of hers. And she wants to write federal laws, I'm not someone who impacts your life.

You claimed I make mistakes because I'm prejudiced against liberals. Using your logic, do you presume she's lying about Israel because she doesn't like the Jews? You have fun wrestling your way out of that.

"Wrong rally"

She was at a rally to stump for a candidate, and a convicted cop killer received a shout out at that rally. Is that true, or is that false?

Your party has made cop killer Abu Mumia Jamal a hero. Good for you.

"Last I knew none of my relatives in Norway had an oil well"

Again, it's called hyperbole. They have a lot of oil, and they have mostly white people. If you moved Mexico to the southern border of Norway, and made it an open border, Norway would look a lot different in a few years.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Should Israel get a free pass"

No, but we shouldn't say they invaded Palestine either.
In 1967 Israel invaded Palestine
Resolution 242 was passed in the wake of the June ’67 war and called for the “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” While the above argument enjoys widespread popularity, it has no merit whatsoever.

The central thesis of this argument is that the absence of the word “the” before “occupied territories” in that clause means not “all of the occupied territories” were intended. Essentially, this argument rests upon the ridiculous logic that because the word “the” was omitted from the clause, we may therefore understand this to mean that “some of the occupied territories” was the intended meaning.

Grammatically, the absence of the word “the” has no effect on the meaning of this clause, which refers to “territories”, plural. A simple litmus test question is: Is it territory that was occupied by Israel in the ’67 war? If yes, then, under international law and Resolution 242, Israel is required to withdraw from that territory. Such territories include the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

The French version of the resolution, equally authentic as the English, contains the definite article, and a majority of the members of the Security Council made clear during deliberations that their understanding of the resolution was that it would require Israel to fully withdraw from all occupied territories.

Additionally, it is impossible to reconcile with the principle of international law cited in the preamble to the resolution, of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. To say that the U.N. intended that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war would fly in the face of this cited principle.

One could go on to address various other logical fallacies associated with this frivolous argument, but as it is absurd on its face, it would be superfluous to do so.

Funny, you are more critical of my mistakes, than you are of hers. And she wants to write federal laws, I'm not someone who impacts your life.

You claimed I make mistakes because I'm prejudiced against liberals. Using your logic, do you presume she's lying about Israel because she doesn't like the Jews? You have fun wrestling your way out of that.

"Wrong rally"

She was at a rally to stump for a candidate, and a convicted cop killer received a shout out at that rally. Is that true, or is that false?
False

Your party has made cop killer Abu Mumia Jamal a hero. Good for you.thats the guy who has been in prison for the last 40 years for a crime he was convicted of, his other crime that really pisses you off is that he is a virulent writer and activist that spends his time pursuing issues that are important to him. But as I have said many times before I am not a democrat, but then lets look at who some republicans have called great lately: Putin, Dutarte, Kim, all of whom have killed a lot more people than one police officer

"Last I knew none of my relatives in Norway had an oil well"

Again, it's called hyperbole. They have a lot of oil, and they have mostly white people. If you moved Mexico to the southern border of Norway, and made it an open border, Norway would look a lot different in a few years.

Norways border is more open than ours
Average annual immigrant inflow as a percent of population
.9% of Norways population
.4% of USAs population

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I would say that you cannot agree with anything a "liberal" says but....

You could say that, and once again, you would be demonstrably wrong. I agree with liberals on some of the big issues...I am opposed to the death penalty, I support gay marriage, I'm in favor of banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines.

On the economy in particular, liberals are impervious to arithmetic, observable results, empirical evidence, and common sense. They try an idea, it fails spectacularly, and that doesn't EVER cause them to re-think anything. Here in CT, we have been an experiment in pure economic liberalism for 40 years, it's been a disaster. What do the dems propose? Higher taxes, bigger spending. They aren't capable of responding to empirical evidence. It's mind-boggling. Can you explain it?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you go to her congressional district in Queens you will find that many people have 2 jobs to be able to afford to live there and that low unemployment is not that great if the available jobs are not good.
She also says we as a society should choose #1 to make Healthcare affordable for all and #2 public college tuition affordable for all.
Of course that is the simplistic answer, she is a political candidate not an economist.
You may think that those are unwise investments of tax dollars but look at how those dollars are currently spent and what we get for our investment as a society.
Do you also think she is incorrect about how Congress is bought and paid for?

There is this peculiar notion that if private business entities charge so much that not everyone can afford their product it is because they are too greedy. But if public entities are "unaffordable" for all, it is because everybody isn't paying enough.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There is this peculiar notion that if private business entities charge so much that not everyone can afford their product it is because they are too greedy. But if public entities are "unaffordable" for all, it is because everybody isn't paying enough.

That's simple isn't it?
From The Grumpy Economist
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/
Single payer sympathy?
A July 30 2018 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled "The tax and spend health care solution"
Why is paying for health care such a mess in America? Why is it so hard to fix? Cross-subsidies are the original sin. The government wants to subsidize health care for poor people, chronically sick people, and people who have money but choose to spend less of it on health care than officials find sufficient. These are worthy goals, easily achieved in a completely free-market system by raising taxes and then subsidizing health care or insurance, at market prices, for people the government wishes to help.
But lawmakers do not want to be seen taxing and spending, so they hide transfers in cross-subsidies. They require emergency rooms to treat everyone who comes along, and then hospitals must overcharge everybody else. Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full amount their services cost. Hospitals then overcharge private insurance and the few remaining cash customers.
Overcharging paying customers and providing free care in an emergency room is economically equivalent to a tax on emergency-room services that funds subsidies for others. But the effective tax and expenditure of a forced cross-subsidy do not show up on the federal budget.
Over the long term, cross-subsidies are far more inefficient than forthright taxing and spending. If the hospital is going to overcharge private insurance and paying customers to cross-subsidize the poor, the uninsured, Medicare, Medicaid and, increasingly, victims of limited exchange policies, then the hospital must be protected from competition. If competitors can come in and offer services to the paying customers, the scheme unravels.
No competition means no pressure to innovate for better service and lower costs. .....
...

As usual, I have to wait 30 days to post the whole thing. It synthesizes some of my earlier blog posts (here here here) on how cross subsidies are worse than straightforward, on budget, taxing and spending.

Let me here admit to one of the implications of this view. Single payer might not be so bad -- it might not be as bad as the current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, VA, etc. mess.

But before you quote that, let's be careful to define what we mean by "single payer," which has become a mantra and litmus test on the left. There is a huge difference between "there is a single payer that everyone can use," and "there is a single payer that everyone must use."

Most on the left promise the former and mean the latter. Not only is there some sort of single easy to access health care and insurance scheme for poor or unfortunate people, but you and I are forbidden to escape it, to have private doctors, private hospitals, or private insurance outside the scheme. Doctors are forbidden to have private cash paying customers. That truly is a nightmare, and will mean the allocation of good medical care by connections and bribes.

But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, and follows from my Op-Ed. A single bureaucracy that hands out vouchers, pays full market costs, or pays partially but allows doctors to charge whatever they want on top of that would work. A VA like system of public hospitals and clinics would work too. Like public schools, or public restrooms, you can use them, but you don't have to; you're free to spend your money on better options if you like, and people are free to start businesses to serve you. And no cross-subisides.

Whether we restrict provision with income and other tests, and thus introduce another marginal disincentive to work, or give everyone access and count on most working people to choose a better product, I leave for another day. It would always be an inefficient bureaucratic problem, but it might not be the nightmare of anti-competitive inefficiency of the current system.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That's simple isn't it?
From The Grumpy Economist
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/
Single payer sympathy?
A July 30 2018 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled "The tax and spend health care solution"
Why is paying for health care such a mess in America? Why is it so hard to fix? Cross-subsidies are the original sin. The government wants to subsidize health care for poor people, chronically sick people, and people who have money but choose to spend less of it on health care than officials find sufficient. These are worthy goals, easily achieved in a completely free-market system by raising taxes and then subsidizing health care or insurance, at market prices, for people the government wishes to help.
But lawmakers do not want to be seen taxing and spending, so they hide transfers in cross-subsidies. They require emergency rooms to treat everyone who comes along, and then hospitals must overcharge everybody else. Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full amount their services cost. Hospitals then overcharge private insurance and the few remaining cash customers.
Overcharging paying customers and providing free care in an emergency room is economically equivalent to a tax on emergency-room services that funds subsidies for others. But the effective tax and expenditure of a forced cross-subsidy do not show up on the federal budget.
Over the long term, cross-subsidies are far more inefficient than forthright taxing and spending. If the hospital is going to overcharge private insurance and paying customers to cross-subsidize the poor, the uninsured, Medicare, Medicaid and, increasingly, victims of limited exchange policies, then the hospital must be protected from competition. If competitors can come in and offer services to the paying customers, the scheme unravels.
No competition means no pressure to innovate for better service and lower costs. .....
...

As usual, I have to wait 30 days to post the whole thing. It synthesizes some of my earlier blog posts (here here here) on how cross subsidies are worse than straightforward, on budget, taxing and spending.

Let me here admit to one of the implications of this view. Single payer might not be so bad -- it might not be as bad as the current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, VA, etc. mess.

But before you quote that, let's be careful to define what we mean by "single payer," which has become a mantra and litmus test on the left. There is a huge difference between "there is a single payer that everyone can use," and "there is a single payer that everyone must use."

Most on the left promise the former and mean the latter. Not only is there some sort of single easy to access health care and insurance scheme for poor or unfortunate people, but you and I are forbidden to escape it, to have private doctors, private hospitals, or private insurance outside the scheme. Doctors are forbidden to have private cash paying customers. That truly is a nightmare, and will mean the allocation of good medical care by connections and bribes.

But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, and follows from my Op-Ed. A single bureaucracy that hands out vouchers, pays full market costs, or pays partially but allows doctors to charge whatever they want on top of that would work. A VA like system of public hospitals and clinics would work too. Like public schools, or public restrooms, you can use them, but you don't have to; you're free to spend your money on better options if you like, and people are free to start businesses to serve you. And no cross-subisides.

Whether we restrict provision with income and other tests, and thus introduce another marginal disincentive to work, or give everyone access and count on most working people to choose a better product, I leave for another day. It would always be an inefficient bureaucratic problem, but it might not be the nightmare of anti-competitive inefficiency of the current system.

This guy seems to believe in, and want, free market health care. Surprised you posted it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This guy seems to believe in, and want, free market health care. Surprised you posted it.

What I believe in and what I think is possible are different things
I think this approach could work it seems similar to the uk model
“But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, “
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What I believe in and what I think is possible are different things
I think this approach could work it seems similar to the uk model
“But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, “
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't that exactly what the Repubs were arguing for as an alternative to Obamacare before it was passed--government pay for those that were truly needy and let everyone else have what they had? And isn't the UK model not as successful, or less costly, as other models?

And why would you believe in something that is not possible?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Isn't that exactly what the Repubs were arguing for as an alternative to Obamacare before it was passed--government pay for those that were truly needy and let everyone else have what they had? And isn't the UK model not as successful, or less costly, as other models?

And why would you believe in something that is not possible?

The problem with income qualified programs is that they end up being detrimental to people being able to get ahead, “I can’t make that much I’ll lose my (blank)
If everyone’s primary care was funded, two things will happen.
Emergency rooms will no longer be primary care providers (they are not efficient at that) and medical conditions will be identified at earlier stages where the costs are lower. We currently fund those things directly and indirectly in possibly the most inefficient way possible.
I should have said probable not possible
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device