Very interesting. What about making the insurance optional? If you want to enjoy the benefits, you can pay in. If you don't, you don't pay a thing, but you can't make a claim against it. In that way, it wouldn't be coecrive, but rather a comprehensive insurance plan that happens to be run by the government. That seems to balance fairness with safety.

Have you looked at the innovative ways Muslims have worked out finance, given the Koran's prohibition against ribbah, the lending of money at interest? (among other things, this is part of how they just awarded the Nobel Prize to the Grameen guys)

As I understand it, the Koran expressly forbids lending at interest because of the caravan-era model, where somebody would loan you gold coins and if you failed to pay him back plus, he'd take you and your wife and kids as slaves: sorta problematic, especially if (as was typical of caravans) somebody (like your creditor) might raid your caravan: a real multiplier tactic for a moneylender. Imagine lending 50 to a guy who promises it will yield you 60 cuz he can use it to make 200, then you ROB the 200 and also get the guy's total wealth... such a deal.

Much like the Jewish and Christian bans on usury, except that the way modern Muslims have gotten past it is by interpreting it as a question of RISK, of a kind of mutual ownership, rather than the purely capitalist concept of the money itself doing the work.

I forget how many there are (I think 7 or 8) legit ways for a Muslim to loan or borrow money (e.g., mortgages), but as I understand it, the essence of 'em all is that the lender ALSO assumes the risk of the enterprise.

Basically, if you borrow money to start a business, you agree to pay back that amount plus something, and the amount you owe increases as time goes by -- unless the business fails, in which case that affects how much you owe.

(If that's not exactly right, I'm pretty sure it's close.)

IIRC, this was also considered as an alternative to deposit insurance back in the 30s, when we got the FDIC and FSLIC, the latter experience definitely suggesting it might be worth another look.

Whaddaya think?

Mr. Hacker

I am sure you don't mean to have the effect of slamming democrats, but can't you find a better way to begin your post than by asserting something straight out of Ken Mehlman's book?

Perhaps, like, I think I have a vision for the Democratic Party that will help them with the middle class.

Geez!

I am in total agreement with the policies and the emphasis on security over opportunity. [I would encourage Jacob not to repeat the same points about insecurity--I think the readers either know that's what you stand for, or they already know what the keyword "insecurity" means--just get right to the central idea of you post, in this case universal insurance].

In terms of policy, though, I would place more emphasis on the potential of addressing economic security for simultaneously helping grown the economy and provide jobs. Families and people secure from drastic dives into poverty will be able to take greater risks as well as have the chance to build up their capital and grow wealthier in the long term. Obviously "opportunity" goes hand-in-hand with security, but so does wealth and growth (over the long term, at least).

Very interesting. What about making the insurance optional?
Posted by: American Hawk on October 13, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

The point of insurance is to spread risk. If people opt-out, then there's a smaller pool amongst-which to spread that risk.

If only sick people buy insurance, then the plan will not be financially solvent.

The only reason Social Security works, is because EVERYBODY pays in.

I think that 'Insurance and Opportunity' as a phrase is descriptive, but not persuasive. For one thing, 'Insurance' is not an attractive word for most people, so leading with it is an ineffective choice.

"Opportunity with Insurance" is a better phrase, in my opinion.

More colloquially, 'Risk, Rewards, and Insurance'.

Agree with EdSez.

For myself, I think wrapping it up in the notion of freedom works. Talking about how Social Security allows us more independence in our retirenment years. Or instead of financial insurance, I think of the opportunities Financial Freedom would afford me, knowing I had health insurance and a retirement plan even if I stepped out of a 9-5 to launch my own business.

Insurance and Security are all kinda "trust us, we'll look out for you" words. Not very Horatio Alger if you ask me. But Freedom and Independence? Now that's the America I want to talk about!

As you can probably tell, I've been in marketing and brand development for too long.

great ideas, but any vision that starts with "insurance" is sure to turn people right off. how about a catchier name?

I think that 'Insurance and Opportunity' as a phrase is descriptive, but not persuasive.

Yeah. See, me, I'd just call it a "real ownership society", where by providing more security for workers, we free them to take the risks to become owners, rather than the fake Republican "ownership society" that just rewards present capitalists at the expense of workers.

But that's just me.

The idea that better social insurance leads people to take productive investments that are risky is now well understood in economic theory.

A progressive income tax can insure people against bad outcomes from their risky investments, leading them to invest more. For instance, our bankruptcy laws are a form of social insurance that encourages people to take a chance on a new venture. Starting a new business is a lot more appealing if failure won't land you in debtor's prison. This favorable insurance effect on investment incentives can be stronger than any reduced incentives to invest from higher marginal tax rates.

When there is more than one form of risk the results favoring social insurance are even stronger. Under standard assumptions about how people feel about risk, people will take more risky investments (borrow to go to college or start a small business) if other "background risks" such as unexpected medical costs are reduced.

Modern economics is full of such intuitive results, which is why conservatives no longer trust economics.

But while today we still have limited liability for American corporations, increasingly we have full liability for American families.

You know, I think you've got your slogan right there. That exactly captures what is happening.

Another slogan that one might apply to all this is, "it takes a village." Heh.

Imagine lending 50 to a guy who promises it will yield you 60 cuz he can use it to make 200, then you ROB the 200 and also get the guy's total wealth... such a deal.

Not to go off on a tangent, but this seem a tad bizarre, even for religious thinking. I mean, isn't the real problem here the raiding of the caravan, not the lending at interest? What if I lend at zero percent, and then steal all your shit - does that make it ok?

And now, back to the topic at hand...

I'm sure conservatives will take real strong ownership of the trillions of dollars in debt they have rung up over the last 12 years that they have controlled the government too, won't they? Ownership means being responsible for your liabilities as well as your assets. These assholes don't get that...

General:

I cannot recall ever seeing so many snide and snivelling little liberals get something so wrong at once. Your man Dean's campaign slogan should more accurately say "More Maoist bullshit from the liberal scum" I suggest that you all jam that in your crack pipes and smoke it.

The Americanist:

Have you looked at the innovative ways Muslims have worked out finance, given the Koran's prohibition against ribbah, the lending of money at interest?

Have you stopped to consider that these people are so poor that they barter navel lint with one another and carry knives to defend themselves against highway bandits? I guess not. And you wonder why I think you're a moron.

Gregor:

I think I have a vision for the Democratic Party that will help them with the middle class.

Yes, install the ideals and concepts of Chairman Mao and put a bullet in the head of everyone who works for a living. That will certainly win you liberal scum an election or two in the coming years. You have a wonderful Soviet first name--perhaps the installation of a new politburo with no-necked fellows is more to your tastes, yes?

The delightful Mr. Hacker said:

This vision—which I call an “insurance and opportunity society”—is starkly opposed to the ideal of an “ownership society” outlined by conservative critics of the welfare state.

There already is an ownership society and liberals are trying to destroy it. I am so sorry that you have never worked a day in your life and now you want the government to give you everything so that you can sit back on your mattress pad and ingest drugs and hallucinate about your ability to change the world.

Here's the dog that barked: yesterday, the Dow hit an all-time high and liberals were heard to utter nary a whimper.

The triumph of Capitalism is swift and complete. Liberals are left with nothing but their theories and their drugs.

nr: yesterday, the Dow hit an all-time high and liberals were heard to utter nary a whimper.

that's 6-years after the previous high...

in between...

3-trillion added to the national debt..

whoopee

You're all commie scum. Every one of you. Put your tongue back into Bush's bunghole or else!

Hey Norman Rogers did you find the Commie under your bed yet? He is gonna come and get you.

I find your lack of faith in Capitalism disturbing. Soon, I will unleash the full power of the Free Market on you Rebel Scum. Your faith in your drugs is your weakness.

Whose yer daddy?

Norman Rogers is a geriatric old fool who thinks Republicans have a lock on piety and that capitalism is a political philosophy, not an economic one. Someone so obviously feeble-minded can never be taught anything, so don't bother, the mocking replies are best.

The truth is conservatives don't really believe in free markets. They believe in rigged markets. If they had to truly compete on equal terms in both the marketplace of ideas and in the marketplace of goods and services, most would fail miserably. Look at George W. Bush - he has failed at everything he has every done, but because of the way the system is rigged to favor the wealthy and those with the right last name, he has failed his way right to the top.

Mr. Rogers (he probably wears a red sweater too) is a crotchety old shit-for-brains who really should stick to something he is qualified for, like changing his colostomoy bag, and leave intellectual discourse for the more able.

Oooh! "Insurance and Opportunity!" That just rolls off the tongue. It's a wonder we don't hold both houses of Congress already!

P.S. Norman Rogers = comic genius.

If only sick people buy insurance, then the plan will not be financially solvent.

The only reason Social Security works, is because EVERYBODY pays in.

I'm always suspicious of anything that's supposed to benefit me being forced on me at gunpoint.

Do only sick people, or people with wrecked cars, or burned up houses, buy private insurance now?

Heck, do only dead people buy life insurance?

Why does the idea of free choice in anything economic give liberals weeping hives?

If cradle-to-grave socialism is really the key to entrepeneurial progress, where is most of this activity happening now? Where is most of the innovation and progress coming from?

Heck, do only dead people buy life insurance?

The correct analogy for the argument you are trying to make would be "Do only people who are going to die buy life insurance?", to which the answer is "yes", inconveniently for your argument which relies on the answer being "no".

If cradle-to-grave socialism is really the key to entrepeneurial progress, where is most of this activity happening now?

In places with "cradle-to-grave socialism", since that's what you appear to label any government intervention in the marketplace, and since every place on earth with significant economic activity has quite a bit of that.

Mr. Jacob Cracker:

In The Great Risk Shift, I argue that an insurance and opportunity agenda must include the preservation and improvement of existing social insurance programs, like Social Security, but simply cannot end there.

No, George W Bush rightly proposed allowing people join the ownership society by privatizing Social Security and you liberal scum opposed him. Guess what? You've relegated millions to abject poverty and left America weakened. Celebrate your victory over common sense, liberals.

Our framework of social protection is overwhelmingly focused on the aged, even though young adults and families with children face the greatest economic strains. It emphasizes short-term exits from the workforce, even though long-term job losses and the displacement and obsolescence of skills have become more severe.

My Communist radar is going active. Beep beep beep beep! What I can't figure out is whether I should just assume Fidel Castro wrote your book and gave you a nickel for the use of your name or whether Kim Jong Il has you on his Friends List on MySpace.com.

It embodies, in places, the antiquated notion that family strains can be dealt with by a second earner—usually, a woman—who can easily leave the workforce when there is a need for a parent at home. Above all, it is based on the idea that job-based private insurance can easily fill the gaps left by public programs—when it is ever more clear that it cannot.

Pardon me if I object to the idea that my hard-earned money, which is Hoovered up by yon Federales, is going to subsidize some dingbat's holiday from reality because her doctor screwed up her Prozac dosage. Get off your blubbery ass and work for a living, liberals! The world doesn't owe you a free ride. I realize that you want everyone to be able to tune out, turn on and drop out in order to bring a kind of Pax Liberalia to America, but it ain't going to happen, GI.

This means the emphasis should be on portable insurance to help families deal with major threats to income and big blows to household wealth. It also means that these promises should be mostly separate from work for a particular employer: a commitment that moves seamlessly from job to job.

Do you seriously believe a venture capitalist is going to hire some rube who walks in, blows snot out of his nose, and says that he has a pre-existing commitment from his last job that guaranteed that he could take a month off work when his Vietnamese potbelly pig gets the swine flu? It's bad enough when some sad sack in a wheelchair comes in looking for a job and good health care benefits--guess what, Wheelie? You should have thought about that before you quit your job downtown.

Yes, this will sometimes mean that government has to take the lead, but it will also mean a system of economic protection that’s more family friendly, more conducive to having kids, more supportive of obtaining new skills, more accommodating of employers buried under the cost of their benefit obligations—in short, more supportive of a large productive workforce that will lessen the strain on programs for the aged.

More likely to be used by a biker to take time off from his job at the beef rendering plant to build a crystal methamphetamime lab in the desert with his buddy Zeke.

I cannot stomach anymore of this walk down Vladimir Ilyich Lenin lane--liberals, your uncle Norman has something he'd like to whisper in your scabby little ears:

Get a job and stop waiting for a hand-out.

I can think of no greater example of Capitalism at work and liberals being wrong:

George Jefferson was a successful businessman, millionaire and owner of seven dry cleaning stores. He lived with his wife in a ritzy penthouse apartment on Manhattan's fashionable and moneyed East Side. "We're movin' on up!" intoned the musical theme of the show opener that featured George, Louise and a moving van in front of "their de-luxe apartment in the sky."

That's right liberals--and how are you going to take Mr. Jefferson's apartment away from him? Oh, by implementing Mr. Cracker's insane, Maoist ideas.

And you wonder why I'm tsking at you.

cmdicely:

In the context of the original statement, his concern was that only people who are going to die tomorrow buy life insurance.

My point is that most people buy insurance routinely when they are not in imminent need of a payout, and private insurance companies are, therefore, quite solvent without having (for the most part--see automobile requirements) to force people to buy their products under threat of fines and imprisonment.

Eat shit and die, Norman, you fuckin' retard.

Fred

I'm always suspicious of anything that's supposed to benefit me being forced on me at gunpoint.

So you are suspicious of the tax funded benefits provided by the US military and Coast Guard, local police, fire and EMS service? You must live your life simmering in a stew of suspicion.

Did you go to school? Do you have a college education? (Probably not, still….)

I have to admit, Norman is really funny, whether he realizes it or not. I was going to complain with measured seriousness of his having failed to make any substantive points that could be argued and against the foolishness of coming to a Democratic weblog with only the worst of intentions, but some halfway through his second post, I legitimately begin to crack up. I don't mean some this is any derisive sense, it really was just so unhinged and empty-headed that it either had to be a very concious act of comedy, or the sign of an honest to goodness lunatic.

I am intrigued by Professor Hacker's ideas, but I'm hesistant to embrace the expansion of publicly funded social insurance. In part I have a certain discomfort with them philosophically, however what I am really concerned about is the cost. The existing programs do threaten serious additional costs that could be crippling, and I fear the exacerbation of this with any expansion. I imagine that you are correct about the savings with no longer needing to subsidize 401(k) plans, but what I remain unnasured of is that a sort of perpetually solvent plan could be established on all counts.

The existing programs do threaten serious additional costs that could be crippling, and I fear the exacerbation of this with any expansion.

I am wondering when, and how, a serious and scholarly study will be put together that outlines the costs and the benefits that such a program as advocated by Mr. Hacker would engender. Yes a large increase in public sector spending would ensue, but what are the savings and how could they be calculated? It seems to me that tax receipts would increase as firms are able to operate more efficiently and profitably.

There would also be general economic growth spawned by alleviating a major cause of resource immobility as laborers would feel more able to move to better wage opportunities.

Similarly, as others have pointed out, our entrepreneurial class would be expanded, also providing more tax receipts as well as more jobs for others.

Then there is the mult-billion dollar rat hole caused ad hoc medical care.

If such a study has been put together, Mr Hacker, I would love to read it. If none exists, you need to vigorously lobby to see one gets started.

I don't think economic security will sell. It's to much like bread for the masses. I think the metaphorical frame for what we want should be investing for the future. We should ask for self-discipline, sacrifice and hard work to get out of the hole Bush has dug for us. People will buy it if it is real and the sacrifice is spread all up and down the income scale.

An investment is something you sacrifice to pay for now so you will receive greater benefits in the future. A good investment keeps paying and paying.

There should be easy entry programs for college, on the job training, and even basic schooling--that's investing in the future. So would a national transportation system that maximized fuel efficency for the delivery of goods from all over. And then there needs to be a lot spent on cleaning up, fixing the holes, redesigning the dikes, and putting in adequate scanners for nuclear materials in our ports. These are all investments in the future.

And, of course, one of the best possible investments, as Clinton proved, is paying down the national debt and balancing the budget: Investments all.

TRANSLATIONS:

Hard working Republicans should have to give their hard earned tax dollars so slacker Democrats can have insurance in case their crack funds run low.

TOH

National Health Care needs to be presented as capitalist Freedom. The freedom to have your own business, to be an entrepreneur without the baggage of who you hire. The Freedom to change jobs without the mystery or mirage of the new health insurance situation. The Freedom to go out on a limb with new ventures. The Freedom to entice Toyota to build their plants in our country. The Freedom to plan ahead. The Freedom to stay home and raise a family or care for others. The Freedom to go to school, to improve yourself. The Freedom to marry someone not in perfect health. The Freedom to live with dignity when ill. The Freedom to have medical hope no matter who you are.

This will strengthen marriages, lessen the financial strains, and eliminate half the bankruptcies. It will lower auto insurance and homeowner liabilities rates, and reduce lawsuits, since we’ll all get the care without costing each other.
It will lower public liabilities, such as schools and parks.
It will equalize the country = same basic boat = freedom to be decent.

This type of program for all would Strengthen marriage and families.
It would probably lower all manufacturing costs and lower college liabilities (loans/credits/costs). It would lower auto insurance and homeowner liability rates by reducing lawsuits.
It would make a better America by equalizing our country = same basic boat = freedom to be decent.

Shorter Norman Rogers = The Objective Historian :)

I do agree with Paul A. Brvmmer, though, that ol' Normie, at least on this thread, has been pure comedy gold.

The Jeffersons quote really sealed *that* deal.

"Movin' on up ... " LOL !

Bob

Norman Rogers = The BIG Jeffrey Lebowski !

OMG I crack myself up sometimes :)

Bob

Bob:

Sorry, but I don't see Norman or the Objective Historian (no self-parody there, sheesh..) to be funny at all. He perpetuates a myth that simply is a lie and liberals need to beat back ferociously and that is that Democrats (or the smaller group, liberals) are a "drain" on the American system. My own life experiences suggest just the opposite - the people who I know who are liberal are extremely hard-working. Many work hard all day at their jobs and then volunteer in the evening or other times to help the poor, work on environmental projects, etc. On the other hand, I work in a white collar job and my observation is that many upper income conservatives are lazy slugs who surf the Internet all day, checking their mutual fund balances or reading propaganda off right-wing Websites. Of course, you can't generalize about any group, and I am sure there are lazy liberals, just as there are hard-working conservatives. But, we need to shout down this myth that the single mother who works three separate jobs to feed her children is somehow "lazier" than the white, high-income insurance agent sho chases his secretary around the desk all day. I know real-life examples of both.

I have seen this TOH's postings over on the History News website and he is a certifiable asshole who knows doodley-squat about history.

Getting to the Libertarian situation referenced earlier: Consider that Libertarianism is based on a logical fallacy. That is the idea that the economy and existing property claims are natural; a priori defaults that the government interferes in. That's rubbish. The government has imposed property claims and rules to begin with (what little percentage of land now claimed was really originally farmed etc. and passed down without interruption?), fiddles with the money supply (the way that impacts employment would deserve compensatory damages in any other case), the other part of which increases money in a way that allows taking of interest that wouldn't otherwise be possible in a hard-currency regime, etc.

"In The Great Risk Shift, I argue that an insurance and opportunity agenda must include the preservation and improvement of existing social insurance programs, like Social Security, but simply cannot end there."

No offence, but The Great Risk Shift sounds like a completely irrelevant book. The Republicans have been trying and continue to try to dismantle Social Security and all "existing social insurance programs." That's the fight that's going on right now, not a struggle over competing ideas about which policy initiatives and frameworks ought to be rolled out next. Evaluating the policy proposals in the Great Risk Shift may be a rewarding exercise on many levels (psychological, academic, theoretical interest, etc) but its proposals aren't remotely relevant to the political struggle we're actually in.

"Democrats need a clearer and more forward-looking economic vision, and I argue that they should embrace a vision that combines a commitment to economic security with a faith in economic opportunity."

This is pathetic, for two reasons. First, the idea that Democrats urgently need to "embrace" one set of detailed policy preferences or another right now is absurd. What Democrats need is to take back the reins of government and prevent further damage by a Republican Administration run amok. That's what's important. Jacob Hacker's position is roughly that of the guy who realizes that a gang of violent burglars has just broken into his house in the middle of the night, and wakes his wife up and demands that she engage in a debate about what lansdcaping choices "need" to be made. Interesting debate? Maybe. Top priority in light of what's going on? Not so much.

Second, repeating Republican memes about Democrats' lack of clarity and focus is damaging to Democrats and helpful to Republicans. In the world we actually inhabit, repeating these memes increases the risk to programs like Social Security.

qd铃声
来电铃声
经典铃声 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片

The opposite of "ownership society" is "non-ownership society." There have been other words for this throughout history.

On the other hand, I work in a white collar job and my observation is that many upper income conservatives are lazy slugs who surf the Internet all day, checking their mutual fund balances or reading propaganda off right-wing Websites.

So, your job is to watch what other people are doing on their computers?

Osama_Been_Forgotten wrote :The point of insurance is to spread risk. If people opt-out, then there's a smaller pool amongst-which to spread that risk. If only sick people buy insurance, then the plan will not be financially solvent. The only reason Social Security works, is because EVERYBODY pays in.

Other annuities are sold on a voluntary basis. They work just fine. E.g., many employee pension plans offer the retiree a choice of a lump sum or an annuity. These plans work, even though participation in the annuity is voluntary.

Social Security could work with a voluntary personal investment option, as Bush has proposed. It's been done for years in several other countries.

I think 'security & opportunity' is the phrase you're looking for...

'insurance' has negative connotations, I think most would agree.

Cheap Flights, Hotels, Airline Tickets, Car Hire & Holiday Packages
cheap flights to sydney
cheap flights to johannesburg
cheap flights to bangkok
cheap flights to beijing
cheap flight to thailand
discounted last minute flight
cheap international flight ticket
business class flight
cheap flights new zealand
cheap poland flight
cheap flights to dubai
cheap flights to prague
cheap flights to russia
cheap flights to japan
cheap flights to china
cheap flights thailand
cheap flights to riga
cheap flights to johannesburg
cheap flights to romania
Robots Cheep Flights
Robots Airline Flights
flights to anywhere

Recepies Recipes Collection
Recipes Cookbook Holiday Recipes Crock Pot Recipes
Crock Pot recepies Chicken recepies Slow Cooker recepies
pork chop chicken dinner cookie recepies
Recipies Cookbooks Recipes Cookbooks
seafood chili thanksgiving recipies Cookbooks
meatloaf recipie salsa tapas pot roast recepies

助听器协会网
天津助听器之家
中国助听器与耳聋康复网
中国助听器大全
斯达克助听器北京验配中心
丹麦助听器上海验配中心
湖南助听器网
名品助听器（南京）直销店
助听器价格查询网
北京助听器第一验配中心
上海助听器大世界
助听器中国聋儿康复网
中国助听器信息网
中国助听器折扣网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
中国名牌助听器直销网
国际品牌助听器(北京)直销中心
安徽助听器资讯网
助听器（广州）验配中心
贵州助听器信息港
中国聋人信息助听器交流黄页
广东助听器之窗
聋儿家长助听器交流网
广西助听器验配网
江苏助听器特价网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
甘肃助听器直销网
宁夏助听器网
广东助听器之窗
浙江助听器在线
山东助听器信息网
中国助听器联合交易网
中国特殊教育助听器信息网
拉萨助听器信息中心
上海助听器服务网
助听器
全国聋儿助听器展示交易中心
助听器资料库
北京崇文门助听器验配中心
广西助听器验配网
杭州助听器验配中心
非油品
中石化
非油品
中石化
进口轴承
噪音
消音