(regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare) Dick, Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)? 1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only. 2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it. 3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently. 4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure. 5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.) 6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing. 7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country. My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have. This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands. Cheers.
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
My Position On The Solution to Healthcare
(regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare) Dick, Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)? 1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only. 2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it. 3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently. 4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure. 5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.) 6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing. 7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country. My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have. This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands. Cheers.
-
We Have Given The Left Enough Rope. #Conservative #Libertarian #tlot #tcot #Trum
We Have Given The Left Enough Rope. #Conservative #Libertarian #tlot #tcot #Trump @MartianHoplite #NewRight https://t.co/XpkNiDRiox
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 18:26:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845703358908391424
-
MY POSITION ON THE SOLUTION TO HEALTH CARE Dick, (regarding the republican failu
MY POSITION ON THE SOLUTION TO HEALTH CARE
Dick, (regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare)
Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)?
1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only.
2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it.
3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently.
4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure.
5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.)
6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing.
7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country.
My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have.
This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 15:05:00 UTC
-
Have Given The Left Enough Rope. #Conservative #Libertarian #tlot #tcot #Trump @
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/845703358908391424/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=845703358908391424We Have Given The Left Enough Rope. #Conservative #Libertarian #tlot #tcot #Trump @MartianHoplite #NewRight https://t.co/XpkNiDRiox
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 14:26:00 UTC
-
LET ME UNDER MINE YOUR HIGH MINDEDNESS IN POLITICAL ORDERS Social orders must ad
LET ME UNDER MINE YOUR HIGH MINDEDNESS IN POLITICAL ORDERS
Social orders must adapt to the conditions in which they function. All human beings seek predictability – a steady state – and it is normal for ascendent males to seek a steady state in which to prosper. But it is also rational for those who are uncompetitive to seek a steady state in which they do not need fight in the market for survival.
Fascism = War
Market Fascism = Peace
Market Liberalism = Windfalls
If you are seeking a steady state rather than to organize society according to its competitive needs, you are not in fact, seeking markets, but to circumvent the market – the market order. You are simply trying to do so at an inter-polity scale, rather than an intra-polity scale.
Think about that before you claim the moral high ground and say we should organize society as such and such.
We should organize society according to the market conditions in which it operates. And to do that requires training people to NOT require a steady state in order to function.
So far, only the Singapore and Swiss models approach this strategy.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 13:01:00 UTC
-
Fascism = War ‘Market Fascism’ = Peace Classical Liberalism = Windfalls
Fascism = War
‘Market Fascism’ = Peace
Classical Liberalism = Windfalls
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:53:00 UTC
-
UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES @Eli I don’t think universalism ha
UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES
@Eli
I don’t think universalism has to be ‘taught’. It’s just the rational choice when you are wealthy enough to gamble on the potential to increase the scale of cooperation. Conversely, non-cooperation in a condition of wealth where you forgo opportunities for cooperation is costly. These are evident in all walks of life.
I think universalism arises in periods of empire (colonialism) and declines in periods of contraction – and now that the gains of the enlightenment have been equi-distributed across the world, I think that we are in a period of contraction so that particularism is returning to the ‘natural state’ of man.
I have been looking at history as progressions through economic phases, and the demand for different abilities at each phase and scale and I see a world where calories are of little coast and consequence but VALUE to one another is reduced to zero OTHER than political value. This is what we are ‘intuiting’.
This is a ‘return to normal’ so to speak.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:45:00 UTC
-
MARKET VS ARMY Oliver: Family, tribe, market (speed), vs army and corporation (p
MARKET VS ARMY
Oliver:
Family, tribe, market (speed), vs army and corporation (power).
This question has been around forever.
Welcome to the desert of the real. (so to speak)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:12:00 UTC
-
Education: Returning to The Teaching of Rule
EDUCATION: RETURNING TO RULE Our ‘Education’, back when only the aristocracy and it’s imitators could obtain an education, was not to manage, as was true in the as through the 19th century; was not to teach one to be an employee, or labor as it was in the early 20th, or a tax slave, as it become in the mid 20th through today, but to RULE over Territory, military, production, and family, successfully. There is no reason we cannot return to our traditional profession: RULE. And there is no reason we cannot return to teaching how to rule. 1) Fitness, Hunting, Sport, Games, and War? Absolutely. 2) Economics, Ethics, Natural Law, Contracts, Institutions, Group Strategy? Of necessity. 3) Reading, Arithmetic, Accounting, Mathematics, Programming, Engineering and Physics? Hmm. Only basics. 4) Aesthetics, Art, Myth, Literature, History? it can’t hurt. 5) Psychology, Sociology, Politics? It’s a waste of time – it’s false. 6) Religion, Philosophy, Pseudoscience? It can only hurt. THE RESTORATION IS SIMPLE. RETURN TO OUR MAJOR INDUSTRY AND EXPORT: RULE.