[Kosh]

So, do you have a plan for decreasing the wealth and income disparity among Americans?  Because it seems to me "fixing" this situation would require some very hefty redistribution policies, and those will kill wealth generation in this country, meaning no new wealth will be created to be redistributed.  Personally, I have no problem with the wealth disparity as I don't give a **** if someone really is that much wealthier than me as long as my standard of living isn't too far off from his, and really, I don't see those 1% wealthiest with hover cars, moon vacations, android servants, and immortality serums.

Oh, and interesting fact is that 43.4 percent of Americans pay no net federal income tax.  That means 65.5 million out of 151 million either pay nothing in federal income taxes once deductions are taken into account or are receiving funds from the government in excess of what they paid.  Source

Maybe more affordable housing and healthcare? The middle class is getting the crap kicked out of it because the costs of both those essential things has gone way up out of control. This would allow them to keep more of what they make. The difference in standard of living is that rich people can get whatever healthcare they need without going bankrupt. I'm not a fan of redistrobution, I'm a fan of equal opportunity.

[Liberator]

There's the rub, your concept of "equal opportunity", boils down to redistribution.  The keyword in that concept is opportunity, there's no guarantee that you can make enough money to be comfortable, but there's also no guarantee that you won't.  Most "rich" people are people who have done a lot with the opportunity provided to them.  If you work hard and manage your money intelligently, you will be comfortable.  Most "rich" people don't drive Bentleys and Benzes, hell most of them don't even drive new cars, they usually drive beaters that they paid cash for.  Then when it breaks, they can afford to go pay cash for another one.

[karajorma]

You've just redefined well-off as rich. They aren't the same thing at all.

[SpardaSon21]

Alright, I'm going to assume the latest rise in housing costs is probably due to there not being enough houses for everyone.  So I'm going to simply say that it takes a long time for housing to be built.  Going from planning to built takes a while, and local governments frequently force multiple reviews and restrictions on the builders which make housing construction take far longer than it should.

And don't blame health care issues on the free market, there is no health care free market.  States don't allow purchase of insurance across state lines, and they commonly force coverage mandates on insurers.  Since insurers have to cover those things, they might as well charge for them.   Also, defensive medicine is commonly practiced due to large malpractice suits, so doctors often order tests done just to cover their asses in case of trial lawyer.

The way the current system works is screwed up.  A person's insurance is most commonly provided by their employer, who gets a nice group rate for all of his employees.  That's good, until you consider that payments on health insurance provided by an employer are tax-deductible, whereas individual purchases are not.  This situation came about during WWII and its wage freeze.  Employers couldn't offer higher wages to attract qualified employees, so they needed another means of compensation, so they started offering health insurance.  In order to provide an incentive for that behavior, FDR went ahead and got Congress to pass a law making payments on employer-provided insurance tax-deductible, but he forgot to tell Congress to make individually-purchased insurance tax-deductible as well.  Also I believe that it is very hard or even impossible under current law for individuals to form their own groups for means of purchasing insurance under a group rate.

And, health insurance covers too much.  Imagine if auto insurance covered routine maintenance such as tire rotations, tire changes, and oil changes.  Do you think people would get tire rotations, tire changes, and oil changes done far more than necessary?  I sure think they would.  And proper car maintenance is almost as important as proper body maintenance in light of the fact car malfunctions can be hazardous to your health (see recent Toyota accelerations).

If the health care industry operated as a traditional free market, if you had a minor injury or illness you would pay your doctor a visit, you would know exactly how much your visit was going to cost you, and you would pay him directly for the provided services.  You would still have insurance, but it would be high co-pay and used only in cases of serious injury or illness.

[iamzack]

Health care should never be a free market industry. That's disgusting.

[Bob-san]

Health care should never be a free market industry. That's disgusting.

However, it is. And it's quite arguable that 98% of the world has benefited by the developments. There's no incentive to work if there's no benefit to be paid. Remember that decent pay is a hygiene factor; if you don't make enough money, your accommodations are lousy and your opportunity for satisfaction low. Good pay is allowing people to become motivated in different, higher, ways.

[Mongoose]

I'm not going to argue in favor of pure unrestricted capitalism, not even Adam Smith believed in that.  I am going to say that too much government intervention in the marketplace can and will retard productivity since the more regulation there is the more companies have to jump through hoops for the smallest things.  My state of California is a prime example of government run wild with regulation, and you can hear the flushing sound as we head down the toilet all the way in New Mexico and the state of Washington.

I just wish your state would stop putting asinine warning labels on anything resembling an electronics product.  No, California, I am not going to get lead poisoning by handling my joystick cable.

[iamzack]

Health care should never be a free market industry. That's disgusting.

However, it is. And it's quite arguable that 98% of the world has benefited by the developments. There's no incentive to work if there's no benefit to be paid. Remember that decent pay is a hygiene factor; if you don't make enough money, your accommodations are lousy and your opportunity for satisfaction low. Good pay is allowing people to become motivated in different, higher, ways.

And that's why there aren't any public school teachers.

Kinda unfortunate that our doctors' main motivation is money.

[Nuke]

I'm not going to argue in favor of pure unrestricted capitalism, not even Adam Smith believed in that.  I am going to say that too much government intervention in the marketplace can and will retard productivity since the more regulation there is the more companies have to jump through hoops for the smallest things.  My state of California is a prime example of government run wild with regulation, and you can hear the flushing sound as we head down the toilet all the way in New Mexico and the state of Washington.

I just wish your state would stop putting asinine warning labels on anything resembling an electronics product.  No, California, I am not going to get lead poisoning by handling my joystick cable.

qft! lead is harmless! unless you eat it!

you cant work with this new solder theyre using. i tried to salvage some voltage regulators off an old mobo, and the solder wouldn't ****ing melt with my so called high temperature soldering iron! there are more toxic materials in electronics than lead (i cant name them off the top of my head and im too lazy to look for a source), and i think focusing on lead was a dumb thing to do. all its doing is making fully functional components impossible to salvage. know how many times i had a board die because of a 5 cent component?

[Bob-san]

Health care should never be a free market industry. That's disgusting.

However, it is. And it's quite arguable that 98% of the world has benefited by the developments. There's no incentive to work if there's no benefit to be paid. Remember that decent pay is a hygiene factor; if you don't make enough money, your accommodations are lousy and your opportunity for satisfaction low. Good pay is allowing people to become motivated in different, higher, ways.

And that's why there aren't any public school teachers.

Kinda unfortunate that our doctors' main motivation is money.

Not quite and not universally. Being highly-paid is a hygiene factor; they have 4 years of undergrad plus at least 8 more years of postgrad education, as well as up to 2 years for fellowship. If you sit for a decade after you have your bachelor's, odds are you have skills well and above that of most everyone else. Simply paying off that education is expensive, not to mention most doctors that I know at least 40+ hour weeks, commonly as high as 50 or 60 hours.

[iamzack]

Our education system is pretty broken as well. Why the hell should doctors have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to be doctors?

[Scotty]

Because it takes tens of thousands of man-hours to teach them how to be doctors?  Because then they remake those tens of thousands of dollars?

[iamzack]

But why do the doctors have to pay to become doctors? They're vitally important to the rest of society, after all. Why doesn't society invest in them a bit more?

[Qent]

But "society" does. More people will continue to become doctors until there is no more profit to be made in that industry.

[iamzack]

Okay, I'll be more straightforward. The government should take on more of the costs of creating and maintaining doctors. Right now the pharmaceutical industry tends to fill that role. That's ****ed up.

[Nuke]

i think doctors need to be better protected from malpractice suits. what happens is they get malpractice insurance, which in turn requires doctors to do unnecessary tests for their coverage to apply. and those tests are paid for by the patients. patience have to me insured, doctors have to be insured, im sure there are insurances paid by emts, rescue personal and hospitals as well. as long as health care revolves around insurance, it will be a cash whore.

but back to my original point, people such as police officers are protected in the event they accidentally shoot someone in the line of duty. why cant the same kind of protection be extended to doctors?

[Scotty]

Okay, I'll be more straightforward. The government should take on more of the costs of creating and maintaining doctors. Right now the pharmaceutical industry tends to fill that role. That's ****ed up.

Yes.  Let's have the government spend billions more a year on something that already happens as it is.  Brilliant.

[iamzack]

We have trillions to blow on "defense."

[Scotty]

That's the point.  The government already spends waaay too much money.

[iamzack]

So it would just be too much to take some of the money we spend on killing people and occupying peaceful countries and use it to, I don't know, take care of our own? Good health care isn't a luxury. It's a right.