Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
85. I'm not trying to rebut...
Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:05 PM
Sep 2015

...I'm trying to have a discussion.

And yes, globalization is largely a ruse to mask the real agendas of the multinational corporations, which is of course all about maximizing profits to the exclusion of any other goal.

Cheaper goods is not an unalloyed good. Denying this is stupid. Yes we are remotely and not so remotely losing the ability to support ourselves. We no longer manufacture clothing or furniture in this country, except for small-scale specialized enterprises. What we do is ship our raw goods overseas -- using fossil fuels to do so -- and then import those same goods as finished products, again using fossil fuels to do so. Do you really not see the environmental costs of doing things this way?

Also, importing manufactured goods from abroad often means poorer quality. Importing pet food from China resulted in the sickness and death of pets here. I don't say this to demonize China, but rather to point out that this globalization often removes the manufacturers from seeing first hand the consequences of their shoddy practices, and therefore removes incentives to do it better.

I am not advocating against all international trade, but we really do need to re-think a lot of it based on environmental concerns as well as societal concerns -- not just for the US but for those other countries as well. Mexican farmers is just one example of the deleterious effects of so-called "free trade". There are many others.

But to get back to health care: if you truly think that $200 on consumer goods can be equated to $200 on health care then I don't think we can have a productive discussion. Your thinking is totally bottom-line and dollar-driven. My thinking is that we must consider the underlying reality: societal, environmental, human well-being.

BTW, I do agree that health care for all can be achieved in various ways. But you need to realize, that in those countries where the private sector is still a part of their universal health care, those private entities are highly regulated. In this country, we have hobbled our own government from negotiating drug prices, and we have made it illegal for our own citizens to buy their drugs out of country -- when the same drugs in this country can cost hundreds of times more. Our own government and corporations consider us citizens -- oh, excuse me, consumers -- to be a captive source of revenue, nothing more. It's just wrong.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Interesting. leftofcool Sep 2015 #1
We are the biggest best ever nation! Human101948 Sep 2015 #2
OK. So why should we worry about those manufacturers? DanTex Sep 2015 #3
Manufacturing in most cases is productive... Human101948 Sep 2015 #8
Paper pushing is also productive. You can't have an economy without administrative and DanTex Sep 2015 #12
If paper pushing was efficient we would have the best damn healthcare ever... Human101948 Sep 2015 #16
I'm not saying that the current system is efficient, but I am saying that paper pushers DanTex Sep 2015 #20
So you would rather throw people out of work in the U.S. so you can have a bigger TV... Human101948 Sep 2015 #26
I wouldn't rather anything. DanTex Sep 2015 #30
Healthcare insurance companies are useless... Human101948 Sep 2015 #37
Well, no they aren't useless. They provide health insurance. DanTex Sep 2015 #38
I happen to have many acquaintances in the business... Human101948 Sep 2015 #41
US health insurance companies are literally death panels. n/t Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #74
Are you familiar with the dystopian parable of the shoe gnome? Chan790 Sep 2015 #71
Is he the same as the free trade gnome, the one that damages DanTex Sep 2015 #72
Their populations are 1/10th of ours. SonderWoman Sep 2015 #4
And?........ Armstead Sep 2015 #75
Except that health care still gets administered under any system and even countries with single Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #5
Regardless of the details, there is no doubt that large numbers of jobs will be lost in DanTex Sep 2015 #17
That was many words to simply repeat an unsupported assertion. Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #24
If there isn't a loss of jobs dsc Sep 2015 #49
The point being made is that private insurande would not necessarily disppear Armstead Sep 2015 #77
The real point is that those legions of people are employed to deny healthcare... Human101948 Sep 2015 #19
Why is it okay to lose IT jobs to either H-1B visa holders or to outsourcing? djean111 Sep 2015 #6
It's not an objection to single payer. It's a parallel between single payer and FTAs. DanTex Sep 2015 #10
H-1Bs are not for efficiency, they are for paying less in salaries. djean111 Sep 2015 #40
true to some extent portlander23 Sep 2015 #7
It's a dislocation in both cases. DanTex Sep 2015 #9
Efficiency portlander23 Sep 2015 #15
"The efficiency engendered by free trade is not shared by workers." DanTex Sep 2015 #18
But without jobs or with wages curtailed they lose out in the end... Human101948 Sep 2015 #21
Sure, as would health administrators under single payer. DanTex Sep 2015 #22
What are they, libertarians who would refuse to work for public health care? Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #28
That's because most doctors in the UK work for the government, NHS isn't just administrators. DanTex Sep 2015 #32
My suggestion is that all Americans get a guaranteed annual income... Human101948 Sep 2015 #29
This is the efficiency assumption portlander23 Sep 2015 #25
Your first claim, that most of the gains go to profits, I highly doubt. DanTex Sep 2015 #43
A little off topic portlander23 Sep 2015 #57
Of course the cost of manufacturing is tied to the price. DanTex Sep 2015 #58
This is a common misconception portlander23 Sep 2015 #59
Cost affects supply. If it costs more to produce something, then less people are willing DanTex Sep 2015 #60
Price is not directly related to cost portlander23 Sep 2015 #63
Call it indirect if you want, but cost affects price. Other things affect price too, for example DanTex Sep 2015 #66
Harvard Business Review portlander23 Sep 2015 #68
Yes, demand is part of the equation. As is supply. DanTex Sep 2015 #69
Way off topic portlander23 Sep 2015 #70
without resorting to "Magical Thinking" Capn Sunshine Sep 2015 #11
If we're counting on an infrastructure boom, then there isn't any reason to worry DanTex Sep 2015 #13
I guess not That seems to be the perception Capn Sunshine Sep 2015 #14
Which jobs are you expecting us to lose and how many can be made by stopping outsourcing TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #23
According to a quick google, there are about 500K health insurance workers in the US. DanTex Sep 2015 #27
Except health care and administration of it continues. The UK has about 64 million people and Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #31
The NHS is not just administrators, also doctors. DanTex Sep 2015 #34
We can cry for them and nothing will change, just like the 5-6 million manufacturing jobs gone... Human101948 Sep 2015 #36
Why do you think that most of the same jobs won't still be needed? TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #44
Well, if all the same jobs were still there and paid the same amount, then there wouldn't DanTex Sep 2015 #46
I suggest savings would be generated from uppermanagement, marketers, and shareholders TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #48
"Suggest" whatever you want, but when it comes down to numbers, either there's a massive DanTex Sep 2015 #50
Where do you get the idea that only labor costs contributes to systemic inefficiency? TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #65
Administrative costs are one of the common cost benefits that SP proponents cite. DanTex Sep 2015 #67
I think that is not one of the big sellingpoints of single payer. djean111 Sep 2015 #51
the lower level employees will still be needed. It is the PROFIT that will take the hit, all those msongs Sep 2015 #33
Profit is a small part of the costs. Without reducing the workforce, or at least cutting their pay, DanTex Sep 2015 #35
You keep making these assertions with no sources... Human101948 Sep 2015 #39
The only response I can give here is essentially a moral one... ion_theory Sep 2015 #42
The answer is pretty clear in my opinion TubbersUK Sep 2015 #45
The negatives of NAFTA extend far beyond the loss of US jobs. Garrett78 Sep 2015 #47
double take DonCoquixote Sep 2015 #52
Single payer and universal health care are not the same thing. Obviously. DanTex Sep 2015 #53
you still dodge the fact DonCoquixote Sep 2015 #54
What? I'm not denying that, I'm just denying that single payer is the only way to make DanTex Sep 2015 #56
way to push those gop talking points. nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #55
Democrats who enjoy criticizing Obama, are seldom consistent in how they view things when Hoyt Sep 2015 #61
Assholes United. Thats why. GeorgeGist Sep 2015 #62
This is a telling quote: TubbersUK Sep 2015 #64
Well, that's one of the causes, there are a lot of them. DanTex Sep 2015 #73
Grasping for straws... n/t Skwmom Sep 2015 #76
One obvious difference... ljm2002 Sep 2015 #78
You are correct, the jobs are moved elsewhere. DanTex Sep 2015 #81
The global argument is a ruse... ljm2002 Sep 2015 #83
Calling it a ruse is not a rebuttal. DanTex Sep 2015 #84
I'm not trying to rebut... ljm2002 Sep 2015 #85
Everyone knows that corporations only care about profit. That's a given. DanTex Sep 2015 #86
A large non government, nonprofit sector that is highly regulated with strong oversight TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #87
Let;s say nothing changes in halthcare. Those jobs could well be outsourced thanks to free trade Armstead Sep 2015 #79
single payer and displaced insurance workers Roy Ellefson Sep 2015 #80
Free trade agreements include that also. DanTex Sep 2015 #82
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»An interesting parallel b...»Reply #85