I used to do a blog focused on illegal immigration and this is one of the foundational lies the communists use to keep the border open and illegal aliens streaming in. Back in the 70's meat packing plants paid Americans excellent wages and meat was not expensive but they got greedy and took a number of steps to push Americans out of those jobs replacing them with disposable aliens they could pay for shit and the savings were definitely NOT passed along to the customers. How could you have a nation if you had to keep importing people you could pay poorly?
@mjdigspigs@sickburnbro I grew up in Chicago area kitchens and even back in the 80's it wasn't weird for me to be the only English speaking American working there.
@Escoffier@sickburnbro I was in much need of a job about 20 years ago and there was a candle factory in town. Work was mundane, smell was overwhelming. They were doing cucumber melon. Lasted less than a week. Would have kept it if anyone there spoke English. How are you supposed to do such mundane work for such little wages when you can't even shoot the shit with your fellow slave??
The economy would adjust itself. If we didn't have mass migration we wouldn't have to pay punitive taxes to underwrite welfare for foreigners, then we could afford more expensive meat.
@CrustyB@sickburnbro “One thing we learned in the 1990s was that a surefire way to reconnect the fortunes of working people at all skill levels, immigrant and native-born alike, to the growing economy is to let the job market tighten up. A tight job market pressures employers to boost wage offers to get and keep the workers they need. One equally surefire way to sort-circuit this useful dynamic is to turn on the immigrant spigot every time some group’s wages go up.”
@s2208@CrustyB@Escoffier I mean obviously "Jared Bernstein" sounds extremely jewish, so he probably is - but what I'm saying is I don't think he's bragging. I think he is saying he does think having workers get paid appropriately is useful. His reasoning for WHY it is good is probably different.
>it's what our system is built upon. Bold of you to assume I have any interest at all in preserving the existence of the current system. I'm ready to roll the dice on pretty much anything that stands a chance of replacing it these days.
Take hospitals - the senior-docs who were the board-of-dirs at a non-profit hospital wanted the best tools for their practice, and happy customers, so kept the place nice and modern.
Health insurance was more like a credit-union - simply operated in the interest of its members.
The cost of filling in the uninsured-gap, in that system, would have been a tiny-fraction of today's govt-subsidies - because a massive-portion of the money spent on "health care" goes into Wall St's pockets, instead of providing care/services. Then, enter Black-Rock, enforcing DEI, to further wreck quality via reverse-meritocracy.
@PopulistRight@drake_koefoed@sickburnbro@CrustyB I ran the congressional campaign for the head of the Chicago Minutemen when she ran for Rahm Emmanuel's seat when he followed Obama to Washington.
Part of my duties was researching her position papers. An interesting realization i had was that insurance for Healthcare breaks the 'Crazy Eddy' rule.
You know how there used ti be those commercials for the type of place that would be called 'Crazy Eddy?' who had super low prices because he...
Eliminated the middle man?
Health insurance is just purposefully inserting a middle man into the process with all the usual outcomes. Higher prices mostly.
@sickburnbro@CrustyB@Escoffier Healthcare was also less expensive, because the insurance orgs were regulated to be not-for-profits, and most hospitals were not-for-profits, run by the senior-docs who practiced there.
Obamacare was the "solution" in the "problem reaction solution" chain of events, which was started by 'de-regulation', which made costs skyrocket. In fact, Obamacare-type legislation, including the "individual mandate," was first proposed by Senate Republicans - written by the Heritage Foundation. They needed "left-cover" to pass it, hence Obama's role.
@Escoffier@drake_koefoed@PopulistRight@CrustyB the problem with heathcare is that it is an truly unbounded problem - we have so many illnesses that we don't have a simple "take 14 days of this medicine and it will clear up"
We need to get back to a basic truth which is that your health problems are your problems, they're your debt, and not someone else's. It's not your "right" to have someone else pay for your health care. You either need your savings, your insurance or other people's charity, not the theft & slavery of Marxist Socialism.
no doubt wall street is the problem. the more competition, the more cost associated with that. so if the people in charge just want money, they do whatever it takes to win, no matter how evil.
we also had a lot more general prosperity. like carpenters used to be able to buy a house. sub dividers used the crews for their first market. when the sites got too far away you could sell and move.
my dad, on one income, bought a house in redwood city ca in the 60s. he was a traveling salesman for an aluminum extrusion company. years later with us long gone, that house sold for $3M. nobody was buying it with any one income where you worked for what you got. the financialization of the economy, diverting the wealth to the non working wall street parasites
@drake_koefoed@sickburnbro@CrustyB@Escoffier Competition does not increase costs, other than advertising-costs borne by all players. That is one reason why Big-Pharma could not advertise prescription drugs to the general-public, before the 80s. However, there was corruption in the medical-journals at that time (still is, today).
Yes - the other major problem with folks covering their own medical costs/insurance, is that MOST Americans live hand-to-mouth - cannot find $400 cash in an emergency.
@PopulistRight@Escoffier@sickburnbro@CrustyB "The ONLY reason a corporation is needed, is to raise RISK CAPITAL. Medical has a guaranteed-market, due to the human condition, so this is a STUPID system to use for that function. "
there is nothing that can raise capital like a sovereign currency issuer. and it can even invest 10 in something that turns out to be worth 9, and just go right on. you needed a new hospital, you built it.
since essentially everything is a need in one way or another, the things that are natural monopolies should be run by people who just get a reasonable salary, and anything that pays pays the people.
"Health insurance is just purposefully inserting a middle man into the process with all the usual outcomes. Higher prices mostly."
a public funding system is not a middle man. it's just us, building up a kitty big enough to take care of us.
insurers spend a lot of money denying coverage. a system of and for us would not deny coverage, and that's often cheaper than denying it, so there is a lot to save
@drake_koefoed@Escoffier@sickburnbro@CrustyB In the Good Old Days - Not-For-profit insurers did not try to block paying out legit-claims, because their charters made "the insured" their primary interest. Contrast to "the shareholder's profits" being the primary interest of "for-profit health insurance," now. This is why docs did not need an army of staff to get paid, back then.
The ONLY reason a corporation is needed, is to raise RISK CAPITAL. Medical has a guaranteed-market, due to the human condition, so this is a STUPID system to use for that function.
For stuff like smart-phones, a for-profit system is well suited - though, even in this case, "planned obsolescence" must be criminalized. I could do a long-tangent here on lightbulbs and computer chips (Intel AND Apple) ... see the film "The Lightbulb Conspiracy" for a brief primer on that subject: youtube.com/watch?v=BWJC5ieUAe4
I think the biggest example of a misalignment is that with investments into healthcare, something that merely treats an issue rather than curing it is going to be worth a lot more money without a societal investment.
@drake_koefoed@Escoffier@sickburnbro@CrustyB I want doctors to be relatively wealthy - like they were, when we had the best health-care in the world. I want the best and brightest to become docs vs some other high-paying profession. It wasn't doc's salaries which created this problem.
We were not short on hospitals in those days, because the non-profit hospital org could easily get a bank-loan at very low interest to expand, if the need / business was unfilled in an area. There was very low-risk to the bank, of the loan going unpaid - because old people are going to need periodic "repair" - and a smaller % of younger folks.
Where a govt-financed system may be needed, is in primary-residence home-loans, as RFK-Jr has proposed. But, this cannot be based on Fed-Reserve money, to be paid back at a higher interest rate than the low-interest loan, thus becoming a tax-funded subsidy / ponzi-scheme.
I do not say this in aversion to going after the elite who used corrupt-practices to 'de-home-own' millions of Americans. I would fully-support a law to force Blackstone/Blackrock to sell their residential real-estate holdings back to those the banks foreclosed-upon post-2008-crash - and at the bargain-price the banks sold those homes to THEM (blackstone), but refused to offer the former-homeowners on a re-finance.
@sickburnbro@Escoffier@drake_koefoed@CrustyB Good was formerly done by the NIH and at universities - the unis then being state-subsidized vs corporate-funded. We would need to rewind parts of this back to the 70s, and other parts to pre "Rockefeller Medicine" days - dig out all the rot.
@PopulistRight@Escoffier@drake_koefoed@CrustyB indeed, I think there were a lot of useful ways to do things before, but I also think we've gotten most of the easy wins out of modern medicine.