Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,623,335 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Conservatives are against a federal minimum wage, since the Cost-of-Living varies greatly from State-to-State.
States and local governments that set minimum wages higher than Market Wages, cause Labor Substitution. Employers want value for their money so they substitute in one way with higher qualified candidates, leaving the least educated and least skilled to suffer. Employers substitute in another way by seeking automation or other cost-reduction measures, like limiting hours worked.
It is Income is redistributed, not Wealth since you cannot exactly redistribute a parcel of land or a stock or bond certificate.
Income redistribution is nothing short of theft. If you want to voluntarily surrender your money, go ahead, but leave the restivus out of your hair-brained redistribution schemes.
The majority of Conservatives recognize the local school districts, fire and police are a matter of Opportunity Costs. What Conservative are against, is the often lavish waste of money by local governments.
Unions are a political agency. There is nothing that Unions accomplished that would not have been achieved through the judicial system, as pertinent cases were already wending there way through the system. It would have only taken about 10 years to develop a body of case law that was favorable for employees.
Conservatives are against government-sponsored healthcare for reasons Liberals refuse to recognize, such as rationing, delaying, diluting or denying care, not to mention the costs are over-burdening.
The way to achieve a health society is to force people to pay for health plan coverage based on the risks they voluntarily assume.
The obese can go walk a few miles everyday, instead of taxing the snot out of others.
What you're really saying is you couldn't soak the young and the healthy to pay for the costs of the obese and others who live risky Life-Styles.
You've yet to prove that. In the first place, you cannot have a nationalized healthcare system like Britain, Sweden, Portugal or Spain (read National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, US Supreme Court 183 L. Ed. 2d 450 (2012)).
Secondly, a system like Germany's would be grossly in effective on a federal level (but might work at the State level).
And finally, "Medicare-for-All" would require an increase in the HI Payroll Tax from 1.45% to 12.8% per employer and employee, and that would only cover 80% of current medical expenditures (assuming government really can reduce costs by 20%).
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income.
Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Source: How Germany is reining in health care costs: An interview with Franz Knieps pp. 29-30
So how's that work exactly?
You collect $2.9 TRILLION in taxes, but healthcare costs are actually $3.2 TRILLION. Do you just delay, dilute or deny healthcare? Or do you grab money out of the General Fund and balloon the federal debt?
You can't price it based on risk, because that leaves people with genetic conditions or cancer S.O.L. And generally people who have really bad conditions aren't able to make a lot of money to pay bloated premiums. Catch 22.
And we could have a nationalized system. We would have had one of FDR hadn't died in his Fourth Term. Would prob require a constitutional amendment. And it will prob happen before I die (I'm 34 now)
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,623,335 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Restricting the number of students admitted should have nothing to do with price.
That's like saying the only way to restrict how many people see a movie at the 7:30 showing is by raising the price. No, all they have to do to keep the number of seats sold to the same number of seats in the theater.
You obviously don't understand economics. In a free market, buyers compete, when there are more buyers than there is product, either the price gets increased to lower demand, or if the cost is kept low, you get shortages unless you increase supply
This is a serious question. Considering conservatives are against minimum wage
A major reason I'm against $15/hr minimum wage because toilet scrubbers or fry cooks will be making the same as a college grad in an entry level job (there are too many threads about college grads barely making anything).
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
I'm not against it because I believe in a certain level of redistribution. Not totally communistic, but enough to at least get people educated and get them healthcare, which helps society as a whole.
Where is the government going to get money to give everyone healthcare and education past the K-12 system? They have to get it from somewhere.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,623,335 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevdawgg
A major reason I'm against $15/hr minimum wage because toilet scrubbers or fry cooks will be making the same as a college grad in an entry level job (there are too many threads about college grads barely making anything).
Where is the government going to get money to give everyone healthcare and education past the K-12 system? They have to get it from somewhere.
Not everyone uses healthcare services at the same time, and not everyone utilizes education at the same time. The point is when someone is qualified for an education, they can get it. Or if someone has a medical emergency, they can get treated without having to file for bankruptcy
I never said that taxes wouldn't have to be increased.
If the Republicans hadn't strongarmed, we could have had the public option.
for the first two years of thr obama administration, the republicans could not block anything the democrats wanted to do, thus if the democrats had truly wanted a european style health care system, they could have built it with no problem. but they didnt want it right then. they wanted to build a system that would in fact collapse on itself, so they could replace it with a single player system, during the clinton administration.
You obviously don't understand economics. In a free market, buyers compete, when there are more buyers than there is product, either the price gets increased to lower demand, or if the cost is kept low, you get shortages unless you increase supply
Nothing forces colleges to raise their prices faster than expenses. Colleges make the choice to do so. If you want to place blame for the ever increasing cost of college, blame the ones taking advantage of it.
This is a serious question. Considering conservatives are against minimum wage, against redistribution of wealth, against the commons (i.e. publicly funded things like police, schools, fire, etc), against unions, against healthcare. Really, what are they 'for'? And don't use the old personal responsibility line, because that isn't the question.
Conservative ideology is about the individual.me myself and I, give nothing of yourself to others,its all mine and you cant have any.
Liberal ideology is more about society as a team or all boats rising at the same rate,may cost the individual higher taxes but for your taxes you get many social programs and benefits.Liberals show more compassion to their fellow man whereas conservatives lack understanding of the concept.
Conservative ideology is about the individual.me myself and I, give nothing of yourself to others,its all mine and you cant have any. Liberal ideology is more about society as a team or all boats rising at the same rate,may cost the individual higher taxes but for your taxes you get many social programs and benefits.Liberals show more compassion to their fellow man whereas conservatives lack understanding of the concept.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They have to get it from somewhere.
