Obama's Balls OK?

[HowardRoark]

Jesse Jackson had the misfortune of being overheard saying, "See, Barack been, um, talking down to black people on this faith based ... I want cut his balls off ... Barack ... he's talking down to black people." Jackson appeared to make a stabbing or cutting motion with his hand as he made the remarks.

I was wondering how long it would take before The Left started turning on Obama just like they did Bill Cosby. Well, at least Barack can blame such hateful/hurtful thoughts and speeches on his “typical white” grandma.

Jesse went on to say, "My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.''

Collective moral responsibility? I wish he would stop pushing HIS morals on me. And anyway, what about the separation of Church and State?

At least he was honest when using the word “collective”. We better get used to that one.

[texaspackerbacker]

I was wondering exactly what Ol' Jesse had said. I heard it was something; I read his apology; But the mainstream media seemed to be kinda stonewalling the actual words he said.

The significance of this is that all of these leftists--just like Obama's elitist private comments about normal Americans with their faith and guns--have a totally different line in private than in public. They know damn well that everything they stand for is an anathema to good normal people, and the only way to make their sick anti-American agenda happen is to get in power by hook or by crook, and then inflict their crap on people.

Contrast that with OUR SIDE--which REFLECTS the views and attitudes of good normal people, and consequently has no problem with being totally honest in discussing views and issues.

That contrast, in large part, is the reason why OUR candidate came roaring back in 2000 and 2004, after being down in the polls about this time of year. Will it happen again? Damn Straight! Count on it!

[Harlan Huckleby]

collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.''

Collective moral responsibility? I wish he would stop pushing HIS morals on me. And anyway, what about the separation of Church and State?

he means that we as a people have a moral obligation to help uplift the poor and struggling. This is value at the center of Christianity, and also shared by other religions as well as non-religous people.

[texaspackerbacker]

Damn good thing your little piece of spin amounted to two lines instead of just one, Harlan. Ol' Jesse ought to hire you to euphemize for him--or is it euthanize?

[Bretsky]

Jesse Jackson had the misfortune of being overheard saying, "See, Barack been, um, talking down to black people on this faith based ... I want cut his balls off ... Barack ... he's talking down to black people." Jackson appeared to make a stabbing or cutting motion with his hand as he made the remarks.

I was wondering how long it would take before The Left started turning on Obama just like they did Bill Cosby. Well, at least Barack can blame such hateful/hurtful thoughts and speeches on his “typical white” grandma.

Jesse went on to say, "My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.''

Collective moral responsibility? I wish he would stop pushing HIS morals on me. And anyway, what about the separation of Church and State?

At least he was honest when using the word “collective”. We better get used to that one.


Hey Howard

Welcome to the Forum !!!

[Harlan Huckleby]

I like Jesse Jackson, he's a down-to-earth guy. He is balanced. When he had a talk show, he often had conservatives on and gave them a lot of time and respect. He is not a knee-jerk anything.

There have been a few times when he pissed me off. But Jackson is far from the Angry Negro that he is often charactured as. He's very much a thinker.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I like Jesse Jackson, he's a down-to-earth guy. He is balanced. When he had a talk show, he often had conservatives on and gave them a lot of time and respect. He is not a knee-jerk anything.

There have been a few times when he pissed me off. But Jackson is far from the Angry Negro that he is often charactured as. He's very much a thinker.

Jesse's problem aint' that he is angry, it is that he is uppity.

Just wish the liberals hadn't stirred up things in the south. Dem darkies were much happier before they figured out how bad things were for them.

[Harlan Huckleby]

you're confused. OBama is uppity.
wait a minute, Sharpton is angry.

what's left? Jackson is sleepy.

Uppity, Angry, and Sleepy, the three black dwarfs.

[Scott Campbell]

As a Republican, I feel it my moral obligation to bristle at the thought of uppity blacks - just to fulfill Tryone's stereotype.

[Iron Mike]

you're confused. Obama is uppity.
wait a minute, Sharpton is angry.

what's left?


Happy Negro.

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t288/kuroitaka/Avatares/Happynegro.jpg

[Tyrone Bigguns]

As a Republican, I feel it my moral obligation to bristle at the thought of uppity blacks - just to fulfill Tryone's stereotype.

Tryone is filled with rage that a white person can't get his name right. :roll:

[Joemailman]

Lighten up. Happens to Farve all the time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Lighten up. Happens to Favre all the time.

Tryone doesn't care about white on white mispellings.

[HowardRoark]

collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.''

Collective moral responsibility? I wish he would stop pushing HIS morals on me. And anyway, what about the separation of Church and State?

he means that we as a people have a moral obligation to help uplift the poor and struggling. This is value at the center of Christianity, and also shared by other religions as well as non-religous people.

It concerns me anytime someone starts talking about morals and government. The old "slippery slope." There are many people who believe we have a moral obligation for "Zero Population Growth." Should the U.S. Federal Gov't dictate how many kids I can have? It already happens elsewhere.

Radical Muslims believe they have a moral obligation to kill Christians. I would hate for that to ever become policy in the U.S.

I think, actually know, the Christian church already does A LOT to help the underprivileged. And, I think that is a good thing. And moral.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone ain't even black.

Harlan, Ol' Jesse is hardly a thinker. What he is--on the good side--is a guy who has these attacks of honesty--painful honesty from the liberal perspective.

That, to me, is a refreshing, albeit rare thing for those elitist assholes who want to inflict their grossly unpopular anti-American socialist agenda on the American people.

[bobblehead]

collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.''

Collective moral responsibility? I wish he would stop pushing HIS morals on me. And anyway, what about the separation of Church and State?

he means that we as a people have a moral obligation to help uplift the poor and struggling. This is value at the center of Christianity, and also shared by other religions as well as non-religous people.

I agree fully with this. We are morally obligated to create a society where the downtrodden can get jobs and support their families. We are morally obligated to get out of the way of those that create and innovate and raise the standard of living of everyone.

That is what you meant isn't it??

[HowardRoark]

collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.''

Collective moral responsibility? I wish he would stop pushing HIS morals on me. And anyway, what about the separation of Church and State?

he means that we as a people have a moral obligation to help uplift the poor and struggling. This is value at the center of Christianity, and also shared by other religions as well as non-religous people.

I agree fully with this. We are morally obligated to create a society where the downtrodden can get jobs and support their families. We are morally obligated to get out of the way of those that create and innovate and raise the standard of living of everyone.

That is what you meant isn't it??

As long as this does not require capital, then it is OK. Capital is evil, and should be confiscated. Well, not all capital. Just capital above $250,000/year.

What? You say that the capital above $250,000/yr. is typically the capital that actually produces new jobs and innovation?

Greedy bastard.

[sheepshead]

Ever notice it's the Democrats pointing out to us the colors of a mans skin CONSTANTLY??? like Daily?

[HowardRoark]

I am usually not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I DO believe that Obama certainly has read The Prince. He’s got some Machiavellian tendancies.

The so called “public divorce” with Rev. Wright. Could that have worked out any better for Barack? How else could he get that issue behind him so quick?

Now this. The one thing for certain is that Jesse’s comments will help Obama in the polls. White voters who might have otherwise been on the fence about voting for a black man will look upon the Rev. Jackson’s attack as a reason to vote for Obama.

Where is Oliver Stone?

[Harlan Huckleby]

collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.''

Collective moral responsibility? I wish he would stop pushing HIS morals on me. And anyway, what about the separation of Church and State?

he means that we as a people have a moral obligation to help uplift the poor and struggling. This is value at the center of Christianity, and also shared by other religions as well as non-religous people.

I agree fully with this. We are morally obligated to create a society where the downtrodden can get jobs and support their families. We are morally obligated to get out of the way of those that create and innovate and raise the standard of living of everyone.

That is what you meant isn't it??

I believe it is possible to be pro-business and be in favor of insuring that all boats are lifted. For instance, the biggest problem we have right now is inferior public education, especially in poor areas, and fixing that is not anti-business. I am for low business taxes and free trade.

[Scott Campbell]

I am for low business taxes and free trade.



I thought you were for high taxes and free handouts?

[bobblehead]

collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.''

Collective moral responsibility? I wish he would stop pushing HIS morals on me. And anyway, what about the separation of Church and State?

he means that we as a people have a moral obligation to help uplift the poor and struggling. This is value at the center of Christianity, and also shared by other religions as well as non-religous people.

I agree fully with this. We are morally obligated to create a society where the downtrodden can get jobs and support their families. We are morally obligated to get out of the way of those that create and innovate and raise the standard of living of everyone.

That is what you meant isn't it??

I believe it is possible to be pro-business and be in favor of insuring that all boats are lifted. For instance, the biggest problem we have right now is inferior public education, especially in poor areas, and fixing that is not anti-business. I am for low business taxes and free trade.

so you support tommy thompsons school voucher plan that would break the teachers union?

[Harlan Huckleby]

so you support tommy thompsons school voucher plan that would break the teachers union?

i didn't realize that was the goal of school choice.

[mraynrand]

so you support tommy thompsons school voucher plan that would break the teachers union?

i didn't realize that was the goal of school choice.

It may not be the goal, but it may be a consequence. Still, answer the question - are you in favor of school vouchers?

[Harlan Huckleby]

answer the question

after answering it, will you be shouting "AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN!" until I break?

I am against school vouchers for the purpose of union busting or weakening public education.

I am for school vouchers, or any other approach, that can be shown to bring results. The outcome of Tommy Thompson's experiment has been mixed.

The only problem I have with vouchers is that they should not be alloted in dollar amounts. They should be given as "tuition for one semester", or some such thing. Otherwise they just become a partial subsidity for attendance at expensive private schools that are still going to be out of reach of many families.

[HowardRoark]

answer the question

after answering it, will you be shouting "AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN!" until I break?

I am against school vouchers for the purpose of union busting or weakening public education.

I am for school vouchers, or any other approach, that can be shown to bring results. The outcome of Tommy Thompson's experiment has been mixed.

The only problem I have with vouchers is that they should not be alloted in dollar amounts. They should be given as "tuition for one semester", or some such thing. Otherwise they just become a partial subsidity for attendance at expensive private schools that are still going to be out of reach of many families.

I agree with your assessment that it will not change the upper end (upper end meaning highest tuition) of the education system. That’s how the math would work. But on the other side of the equation, it surely would wash out the worst of the teachers. You mentioned earlier that you are for rising tides that raise all ships. This is certainly one instance that would accomplish your goal.

As far as "tuition for one semester", I think that would actually make the system worse. Without some kind of currency, a market for education, how can the “Invisible Hand” reward the best and punish the worst educators?

I have never understood why intelligent, well spoken friends of mine who are teachers in the government school system are so afraid of a free market in their business. Clearly they would end up better off, but yet they are afraid. Why the fear?

[Harlan Huckleby]

As far as "tuition for one semester", I think that would actually make the system worse. Without some kind of currency, a market for education, how can the “Invisible Hand” reward the best and punish the worst educators?

Whether the voucher is for "a semester tuition" as opposed to a fixed dollar amount has nothing to do with the Invisible Hand you speak of. Although it does create another problem (cost control) that I haven't thought through.


I have never understood why intelligent, well spoken friends of mine who are teachers in the government school system are so afraid of a free market in their business. Clearly they would end up better off, but yet they are afraid. Why the fear?

Vouchers have the potential to make public schools even worse. If the public schools are largely abandoned, they become a struggling repository for the people who can't leave, for one reason or another. Private schools don't serve the VERY expensive demands of special needs students, for instance. Some poor people may not be able to afford the transportation and hidden costs of a private school, even with vouchers.

Public schools are a core of our society. They need to be fixed, not abandoned. IF closing some public schools and having a greater mix of private schools helps improve quality, great. But we should be very skeptical. The disparity in education in this country is a disgrace. I doubt that vouchers are targeted to close this gap. We have experiments underway, lets see what the results show.

[Scott Campbell]

Public schools are a core of our society. They need to be fixed, not abandoned.


I see. So how many of your own kids have you put in public school?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Public schools are a core of our society. They need to be fixed, not abandoned.


I see. So how many of your own kids have you put in public school?

Not your shining moment.

Harlan and the rest of us childless adults have PAID for your children to attend public schools.

Just say thank you. It is the least you can do.

[Scott Campbell]

Just say thank you.


I thank you Tryone. Society thanks you. For not having children. :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Just say thank you.


I thank you Tryone. Society thanks you. For not having children. :lol:

Keep up the snide remarks and Ty will impregnate many white women.

Ty is just waiting to fulfill his destiny as a shiftless, worthless black man.

[Scott Campbell]

Just say thank you.


I thank you Tryone. Society thanks you. For not having children. :lol:

Keep up the snide remarks and Ty will impregnate many white women.

Ty is just waiting to fulfill his destiny as a shiftless, worthless black man.


For all your bragging to Ziggy about that big imaginary black penis of yours, it's kind of ironic that you're barren.

[MJZiggy]

I have never understood why intelligent, well spoken friends of mine who are teachers in the government school system are so afraid of a free market in their business. Clearly they would end up better off, but yet they are afraid. Why the fear?

Welcome to the forum, Howard.

I think it could boil down to the fact that they have no way of knowing what the free market will determine a good teacher to be. By what criteria are they judged? Parents who aren't paying attention to their kids' education now aren't gonna magically start when they get vouchers, so there's no guaranteeing that the teachers will get the support necessary for them to excel.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Just say thank you.


I thank you Tryone. Society thanks you. For not having children. :lol:

Keep up the snide remarks and Ty will impregnate many white women.

Ty is just waiting to fulfill his destiny as a shiftless, worthless black man.


For all your bragging to Ziggy about that big imaginary black penis of yours, it's kind of ironic that you're barren.

White women can't handle the big imaginary penis.

A blessing, yet a curse.

[MJZiggy]

Just say thank you.


I thank you Tryone. Society thanks you. For not having children. :lol:

Keep up the snide remarks and Ty will impregnate many white women.

Ty is just waiting to fulfill his destiny as a shiftless, worthless black man.


For all your bragging to Ziggy about that big imaginary black penis of yours, it's kind of ironic that you're barren.

White women can't handle the big imaginary penis.

A blessing, yet a curse.

Well, we could, if it weren't quite so...imaginary...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Just say thank you.


I thank you Tryone. Society thanks you. For not having children. :lol:

Keep up the snide remarks and Ty will impregnate many white women.

Ty is just waiting to fulfill his destiny as a shiftless, worthless black man.


For all your bragging to Ziggy about that big imaginary black penis of yours, it's kind of ironic that you're barren.

White women can't handle the big imaginary penis.

A blessing, yet a curse.

Well, we could, if it weren't quite so...imaginary...

Ty always knew you were a size queen. :oops:

Ty is so over you...you are too skinny. Skinny white girls with no asses aren't for ty.

[HowardRoark]

As far as "tuition for one semester", I think that would actually make the system worse. Without some kind of currency, a market for education, how can the “Invisible Hand” reward the best and punish the worst educators?

Whether the voucher is for "a semester tuition" as opposed to a fixed dollar amount has nothing to do with the Invisible Hand you speak of. Although it does create another problem (cost control) that I haven't thought through.


I have never understood why intelligent, well spoken friends of mine who are teachers in the government school system are so afraid of a free market in their business. Clearly they would end up better off, but yet they are afraid. Why the fear?

Vouchers have the potential to make public schools even worse. If the public schools are largely abandoned, they become a struggling repository for the people who can't leave, for one reason or another. Private schools don't serve the VERY expensive demands of special needs students, for instance. Some poor people may not be able to afford the transportation and hidden costs of a private school, even with vouchers.

Public schools are a core of our society. They need to be fixed, not abandoned. IF closing some public schools and having a greater mix of private schools helps improve quality, great. But we should be very skeptical. The disparity in education in this country is a disgrace. I doubt that vouchers are targeted to close this gap. We have experiments underway, lets see what the results show.

I think we might be having a little Rashomon issue here. From my perspective, there will always be so called “inequities” in the system; there will still be $30,000/yr. prep schools, and the average kid will still never be able to afford going to that school. That is not the issue. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me that a goal of your “fix” would be equal access for all kids. I don’t believe that is possible. The issue is that the education system seems to not be working too well.

How would you determine the dollar value of a generic “semester tuition” voucher. Could I then throw in some of my own money and go to a better school? If not, what will keep the real good teachers from leaving the profession if they don’t think the pre-determined value of a “voucher” is adequate? This system would push out the good teachers, and further diminish the system.

And as far as the public/government schools being largely abandoned, who cares? That means they were not educating our kids properly. On the flip side, if government schools are all that are left, why would I care? The market will determine who best educates our children.

BTW, Tyrone. You don’t pay for my kids, but thanks for keeping those hooligans off the streets in Scottsdale.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Mr. Roark,

If your kids attend public schools then Ty pays for them. If they attend private schools..then good for you. Keep them away from the minorities and lower socio economic types. Not a good idea to have them mingle with the lower classes.

Please have them attend private college as well. We need more white people attending them. THey are becoming inundated with non deserving minorities..taking up space that could be reserved for rich ne'r do wells and legacies.

P.S. Ty pays for your children's teacher training regardless of school. I'm also quite confident that if they attend a private school and have any low income children atttending..ty is paying. And, Ty is quite confident that your children's school is applying for IDEA grants.

Unless of course rich folks don't ever have special needs kids...or if they do they send those types to public school.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think we might be having a little Rashomon issue here. From my perspective, there will always be so called “inequities” in the system; there will still be $30,000/yr. prep schools, and the average kid will still never be able to afford going to that school.

ok fine. but i sure as hell am not OK with vouchers being applied towards 30K prep schools.


a goal of your “fix” would be equal access for all kids. I don’t believe that is possible. The issue is that the education system seems to not be working too well.

A good education for ALL kids is certainly the goal. Why are you for vouchers? To improve education for half the kids? The critical educational problem is in the lower third economically.


How would you determine the dollar value of a generic “semester tuition” voucher. Could I then throw in some of my own money and go to a better school? If not, what will keep the real good teachers from leaving the profession if they don’t think the pre-determined value of a “voucher” is adequate? This system would push out the good teachers, and further diminish the system.

I am completely confused by what you are saying. Why would you be throwing in extra money - the idea is that the voucher pays full tuition. Now, there would have to be some limit on it. And if you want to send your kid to some extremely expensive prep school, you'll have to do it without a voucher.

MAybe you can explain how vouchers will work in your ideal view. Would your plan allow all kids from very poor areas to attend good private schools? That sounds like quite an expensive undertaking!


And as far as the public/government schools being largely abandoned, who cares? That means they were not educating our kids properly. On the flip side, if government schools are all that are left, why would I care?

I think you are being completely unrealistic about the degree to which private schools can replace public schools. What is your plan to accomodate the HUGELY burdensome special needs students? Currently private schools just don't take them.

[bobblehead]

answer the question

after answering it, will you be shouting "AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN!" until I break?

I am against school vouchers for the purpose of union busting or weakening public education.

I am for school vouchers, or any other approach, that can be shown to bring results. The outcome of Tommy Thompson's experiment has been mixed.

The only problem I have with vouchers is that they should not be alloted in dollar amounts. They should be given as "tuition for one semester", or some such thing. Otherwise they just become a partial subsidity for attendance at expensive private schools that are still going to be out of reach of many families.


Personally I'm against vouchers. I'm against subsidies in general. All vouchers are going to do is raise the price of private schools. The only good I see from them is that they might bust the teachers union and display the flaws in public education.

Incidentally I don't have kids so it doesn't affect me much, I don't mind paying for public schools though, I merely look at it as paying back my own education. I think the schools are a mess now and its hard to see how they are going to get better with politicians using school money as the pawn for gov't spending.

I saw a liberal democrat proving her own point by accident the other day. She was quite disgusted that half the schools in the nation were below average. The humanity of it. But I give her credit, she did accidentally convince me that our schools are inadequate.

The problem with the voucher concept is this. How do you decide who gets them. Some kid in a piss poor school gets one and goes to a great school. OK, now how about the kid in a merely below average or average school. Why should kid one get to go to a better school than kids 2 and 3?

[MJZiggy]

The couple problems I have with vouchers are these:

1. How are we going to find enough private schools in this country with enough openings to accommodate every kid from a crappy school.

2. Like I mentioned in another thread, if the kid has no parental support, it doesn't matter whether we've paid for that kid to go to a decent school or not. He will either succeed or fail in the better school the same as he'd succeed or fail in the bad one.

3. If my taxes are paying for schools, and under a voucher program, they seemingly would be, why then do I have to fork over extra money, because they've failed with the first money I gave them. They need to fix what's broken, not pay so they can break something else.

4. How did we go from Barack Obama's balls to school vouchers?

[HowardRoark]

The couple problems I have with vouchers are these:

1. How are we going to find enough private schools in this country with enough openings to accommodate every kid from a crappy school.

2. Like I mentioned in another thread, if the kid has no parental support, it doesn't matter whether we've paid for that kid to go to a decent school or not. He will either succeed or fail in the better school the same as he'd succeed or fail in the bad one.

3. If my taxes are paying for schools, and under a voucher program, they seemingly would be, why then do I have to fork over extra money, because they've failed with the first money I gave them. They need to fix what's broken, not pay so they can break something else.

4. How did we go from Barack Obama's balls to school vouchers?

1. Once a monopoly is broken up it is amazing how new and better things pop up. Look at the phone business once Ma Bell was busted up.
2. A-men. Agree completely.

3. I don't think it should be a new, extra system. It would be a replacement system.

4. If Jesse doesn't cut off Obama's balls, he might have the courage to do the right thing. Vouchers.

[HowardRoark]

I think we might be having a little Rashomon issue here. From my perspective, there will always be so called “inequities” in the system; there will still be $30,000/yr. prep schools, and the average kid will still never be able to afford going to that school.

ok fine. but i sure as hell am not OK with vouchers being applied towards 30K prep schools.


a goal of your “fix” would be equal access for all kids. I don’t believe that is possible. The issue is that the education system seems to not be working too well.

A good education for ALL kids is certainly the goal. Why are you for vouchers? To improve education for half the kids? The critical educational problem is in the lower third economically.


How would you determine the dollar value of a generic “semester tuition” voucher. Could I then throw in some of my own money and go to a better school? If not, what will keep the real good teachers from leaving the profession if they don’t think the pre-determined value of a “voucher” is adequate? This system would push out the good teachers, and further diminish the system.

I am completely confused by what you are saying. Why would you be throwing in extra money - the idea is that the voucher pays full tuition. Now, there would have to be some limit on it. And if you want to send your kid to some extremely expensive prep school, you'll have to do it without a voucher.

MAybe you can explain how vouchers will work in your ideal view. Would your plan allow all kids from very poor areas to attend good private schools? That sounds like quite an expensive undertaking!


And as far as the public/government schools being largely abandoned, who cares? That means they were not educating our kids properly. On the flip side, if government schools are all that are left, why would I care?

I think you are being completely unrealistic about the degree to which private schools can replace public schools. What is your plan to accomodate the HUGELY burdensome special needs students? Currently private schools just don't take them.

Speaking of special needs students, how do you do that thing where you put a box around certain parts text? That would seem pretty useful. I usually need to get on the short bus when it comes to these internets.

Again, I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I think there is a “greater good” for all citizens of a country to pitch in to have an educated society. I think that monopolies ALWAYS bring DOWN the quality of a product. There is, generally speaking, a monopoly in the business of educating our children. I think most people agree that we have an education problem in this country. Or, is that just campaign rhetoric in order to get more money for “the kids?” I am just connecting the dots.

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial. For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.

I send my kids to private school. I have to prioritize financially to allow my kids to go to private schools. But the reality of it is that vouchers won’t change my situation. It will save me money, but my kids are going to private regardless. Same as the kid who goes to the prep school, this won’t change their life.

Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

[Charles Woodson]

The couple problems I have with vouchers are these:

1. How are we going to find enough private schools in this country with enough openings to accommodate every kid from a crappy school.



1. Once a monopoly is broken up it is amazing how new and better things pop up. Look at the phone business once Ma Bell was busted up.


Wait what do you mean, i go to a ""prep school"" down here in miami, and will tell ya that my school, and alot of other prep schools have huge waiting lists.

[mraynrand]

Vouchers would by far have the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

This is true in Cleveland, where the parochial schools are filled with voucher (and non-voucher) kids who have given up on the public schools. And this answers the question about parenting that Zig mentioned - kids who are moved tend to have parent(s) that are involved and care - and they naturally do better. That's why fatherless households tend to be such a disaster. Even more worrisome is the stat that 1:10 births in the US are to mexican americans and of these new births only HALF of the mothers have high school educations. Get that? 1 of every 20 new births in this country is a mexican american with a mother WITHOUT even a high school education. Exclusive of race is the general problem that today's new parents may not be equipped to make sure their kids are properly educated, simply because they lack the basic skills and family structure that strongly correlate with successfully educated kids. It's going to take a lot of balls to change this.

[Scott Campbell]

I think we might be having a little Rashomon issue here. From my perspective, there will always be so called “inequities” in the system; there will still be $30,000/yr. prep schools, and the average kid will still never be able to afford going to that school.

ok fine. but i sure as hell am not OK with vouchers being applied towards 30K prep schools.



Why not? What difference should it make?

Or are you discriminating against people because of their wealth again?

[texaspackerbacker]

Vouchers might help in a behavioral or motivational sense, but they only marginally address the real problem: the attitudes and behavior of the students.

As little as 2 or 3 troublemaker students in a class of 20-30 can destroy the learning environment. Quality of teachers is often a matter not of how effectively they can prepare and teach, but to what degree they can stem the tide of poor classroom discipline. And very few have much success in this area. There simply are no magic bullets, and most teachers, principals, and school districts are hamstrung from getting rid of the troublemakers.

Vouchers and charter schools--which are one of the chief beneficiaries of vouchers--help this primary problem in the sense that they allow parents to get their kids out of the adverse learning environment--away from the troublemakers. Of course, some, mainly on the liberal side of the spectrum, oppose this because it smacks of a limited return to segregation.

[Scott Campbell]

The problem with the voucher concept is this. How do you decide who gets them. Some kid in a piss poor school gets one and goes to a great school. OK, now how about the kid in a merely below average or average school. Why should kid one get to go to a better school than kids 2 and 3?


Vouchers should calculated at the average amount of money it takes to put a kid through public school. If people want to apply that amount to partially pay for a public education, then so be it. If the public schools are competitive, then people will leave their kids there.

As in all things with price tags, the wealthy have more options than the poor. School is no different.

[Scott Campbell]

As little as 2 or 3 troublemaker students in a class of 20-30 can destroy the learning environment.


I think liberals would rather hold back the other 28 rather than risk being unfair to the 2 troublemakers. I think the real benchmark needs to be the overall output of the school systems. Are we getting a better overall product (well educated students) as a result of public policy. We can't allow the bottom 5% screw up the overall product. We compete against countries in a global economy that won't sacrifice the potential of the exceptional in the name of being fair to the slackers.

[mraynrand]

As in all things with price tags, the wealthy have more options than the poor. School is no different.

This is true, but it doesn't stop kids from getting a great - GREAT - education. This is what I ask my liberal friends: IF I gave you 140K, do you think you could educate 20 kids for 9 months? Not one has answered no. And 7K/kid is pretty much the bottom of the barrel amount that the fed gives out to schools in the worse areas with the lowest local tax bases. The point is that it doesn't take much to educate youngsters. They don't need fancy school buildings, sports facilities and computers and brand new text books. If you look at a lot of studies, you actually find that mixed aged/grade schools actually perform better - the younger kids have role models for behaviour and they get extra guidance from older kids while the teacher teaches other kids. And kids are taught to be independent - significantly in learning to think for themselves. But it all depends on kids coming from home structures where discipline exists. That's why these voucher programs tend to work - because it selects for children with involved parents.

[sheepshead]

Abolish the teachers union and pay teachers incentive laden contracts based on student performance. Give them the potential to double their income immediately.

[Scott Campbell]

The point is that it doesn't take much to educate youngsters.



Correction - it shouldn't take much to educate youngsters. But there's a massive government beaurocratic empire, and a bloated union infrastructure that we need to support too.

[GoPackGo]

Abolish the teachers union and pay teachers incentive laden contracts based on student performance. Give them the potential to double their income immediately.

I agree with that. John McCain's position on education is similiar :whist:

[mraynrand]

The point is that it doesn't take much to educate youngsters.



Correction - it shouldn't take much to educate youngsters. But there's a massive government beaurocratic empire, and a bloated union infrastructure that we need to support too.

Accepted. Except for the NEED part.

[Scott Campbell]

The point is that it doesn't take much to educate youngsters.



Correction - it shouldn't take much to educate youngsters. But there's a massive government beaurocratic empire, and a bloated union infrastructure that we need to support too.

Accepted. Except for the NEED part.

Need can work very well, if you substitute liberals for we.

[texaspackerbacker]

As little as 2 or 3 troublemaker students in a class of 20-30 can destroy the learning environment.


I think liberals would rather hold back the other 28 rather than risk being unfair to the 2 troublemakers. I think the real benchmark needs to be the overall output of the school systems. Are we getting a better overall product (well educated students) as a result of public policy. We can't allow the bottom 5% screw up the overall product. We compete against countries in a global economy that won't sacrifice the potential of the exceptional in the name of being fair to the slackers.

I wholeheartedly agree, Scott, but how can we make it happen? That is the question. That liberal attitude of dragging down the majority so as to not be unfair to the minority has been thoroughly institutionalized in our laws and court cases over the last almost half century. It will not easily be overturned or overcome.

[GoPackGo]

I wholeheartedly agree, Scott, but how can we make it happen? That is the question. That liberal attitude of dragging down the majority so as to not be unfair to the minority has been thoroughly institutionalized in our laws and court cases over the last almost half century. It will not easily be overturned or overcome.

You give the teachers financial incentives to deal harshly with problem students who drag down the rest of the class. I guarantee, if the class is being dragged down by individuals and the test scores and grades cause a teacher to miss a bonus, they won't let that happen again.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

You are turning your back on the current problem of a disgracefull distribution of educational opportunity. The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.


Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial.

This is an ideological pure approach that will make a bad situation far worse. The public schools will be choked for funds, and left to deal with ALL the students with behavior problems, the special ed kids who require $100K of staff to deal with each of the them, and the poor kids who can not afford the incidental and direct costs of getting to private schools. And the vouchers will of course raise the cost of private schools.

You started out complaining about your friends in education who tremble at introduction of competition into their business. Well, if it done in the unchecked way you advocate, it will destroy public education. How well is that Invisible Hand working in health care? 60M people have none. Your Ayn Rand Ideologically Certified approach can not work for all services that government delivers.


For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.....Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

Empty words. Who is going to build all these wonderful private schools in the inner city? I understand on a small scale it could help a select few.

You've created a free market where the quality of education is going to be tied directly to the amount that the consumer can afford to pay, just like with automobiles.

I have been open-minded to vouchers because I know there are some conservatives who genuinely want to use market forces to improve education from top to bottom, AND they are practical about it.

[HowardRoark]

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

You are turning your back on the current problem of a disgracefull distribution of educational opportunity. The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.


Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial.

This is an ideological pure approach that will make a bad situation far worse. The public schools will be choked for funds, and left to deal with ALL the students with behavior problems, the special ed kids who require $100K of staff to deal with each of the them, and the poor kids who can not afford the incidental and direct costs of getting to private schools. And the vouchers will of course raise the cost of private schools.

You started out complaining about your friends in education who tremble at introduction of competition into their business. Well, if it done in the unchecked way you advocate, it will destroy public education. How well is that Invisible Hand working in health care? 60M people have none. Your Ayn Rand Ideologically Certified approach can not work for all services that government delivers.


For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.....Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

Empty words. Who is going to build all these wonderful private schools in the inner city? I understand on a small scale it could help a select few.

You've created a free market where the quality of education is going to be tied directly to the amount that the consumer can afford to pay, just like with automobiles.

I have been open-minded to vouchers because I know there are some conservatives who genuinely want to use market forces to improve education from top to bottom, AND they are practical about it.

Three quick points, then I have to go for a run:

1. I am OK w/public education going away. As long as education improves, I don't care who does the educating.

2. For the special ed stuff, that should still be intact, but seperated from the overall education question.

3. There is no "invisible hand" in health care. THAT is the problem. The consumer is divorced from the buying decision in the current environment. The third party payer system takes away the "invisible hand."

[Harlan Huckleby]

3. There is no "invisible hand" in health care. THAT is the problem. The consumer is divorced from the buying decision in the current environment. The third party payer system takes away the "invisible hand."

I see. And all the people with pre-existing condition who can not get health insurance are the victims of third party payers. Nothing to do with profit.

You are not facing reality.

[swede]

Tryone doesn't care about white on white mispellings.

Hee hee...

[Scott Campbell]

Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.


For those unfamiliar with the weasel words "redistribution of resources", it means stealing from the rich.

[mraynrand]

The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.


Reality doesn't back you up. There has been a massive 'redistribution' over the past several decades to education and there has been no improvement in results. Doesn't the possibility EVER occur to you that throwing money at the problem doesn't solve the problem?

[bobblehead]

The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.


Reality doesn't back you up. There has been a massive 'redistribution' over the past several decades to education and there has been no improvement in results. Doesn't the possibility EVER occur to you that throwing money at the problem doesn't solve the problem?

My boss told me my job performance was subpar. I told him I needed more money and if he gave it to me the logical conclusion was that I would do a better job. He fired me.

[Scott Campbell]

My boss told me my job performance was subpar. I told him I needed more money and if he gave it to me the logical conclusion was that I would do a better job. He fired me.


:lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.


Reality doesn't back you up. There has been a massive 'redistribution' over the past several decades to education and there has been no improvement in results. Doesn't the possibility EVER occur to you that throwing money at the problem doesn't solve the problem?

Schools are still funded primarily by local property taxes, not by federal grants.

I don't claim to have the answers. But the idea that passing out vouchers to everyone and just letting the chips fall where they may is preposterous.

I watched an interesting interview with the founder of Teach for America:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/7/1/1/an-hour-on-education-with-bob-wise-and-wendy-kopp

She claims that if you survey the public about the reasons why poor students fail, the top three answers are lack of parental involvment, poor student motivation, and another factor related to families that escapes me. When she surveys her own teachers after they complete their work in inner city schools, these people cite entirely different factors: lack of commitment by teachers, poor teaching methods.

In other words, the public sees the problem as an essentially hopeless cause that they can throw up their hands and walk away from. The teachers with direct exposure see the problem as difficult but solveable.

[HowardRoark]

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

You are turning your back on the current problem of a disgracefull distribution of educational opportunity. The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.


Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial.

This is an ideological pure approach that will make a bad situation far worse. The public schools will be choked for funds, and left to deal with ALL the students with behavior problems, the special ed kids who require $100K of staff to deal with each of the them, and the poor kids who can not afford the incidental and direct costs of getting to private schools. And the vouchers will of course raise the cost of private schools.

You started out complaining about your friends in education who tremble at introduction of competition into their business. Well, if it done in the unchecked way you advocate, it will destroy public education. How well is that Invisible Hand working in health care? 60M people have none. Your Ayn Rand Ideologically Certified approach can not work for all services that government delivers.


For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.....Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

Empty words. Who is going to build all these wonderful private schools in the inner city? I understand on a small scale it could help a select few.

You've created a free market where the quality of education is going to be tied directly to the amount that the consumer can afford to pay, just like with automobiles.

I have been open-minded to vouchers because I know there are some conservatives who genuinely want to use market forces to improve education from top to bottom, AND they are practical about it.

Concerning this Ayn Rand Ideologically Certification that I supposedly have, I thought I would respond.

I chose Howard Roark as a name last year. I am not some kind of Rand sycophant; I just had to pick a name, and liked the character. I decided to keep the name (clearing throat) when I go to new forums for consistency. My avatar is Compay Segundo. I recommend his music, especially in the summer.

A few problems w/ Rand:

1. Her characters are not really characters, merely vessels to show her philosophy. She kind of just beats the some theme over and over again.
2. The paradox of the “heroic man” who takes risks, works hard and accomplishes things….he usually, once the success occurs, turns into a flabby, weak person with his/her wealth accumulated wealth.
3. She, like Marx, had to completely dismiss God.

Other than that, I really don’t care a whole lot about it. I will not be writing an essay anytime soon. I do agree with her ideas in general though, and think it would be a good idea for people to read her books.

I especially find the episode when Frank Reardon’s nut case brother asks him, hat in hand, for a donation for his Socialist group to be poignant. He insists that it has to be given in secrecy; the Socialists would be appalled taking a donation from such a crude Capitalist, but yet they need the cash. Sound familiar?

[Scott Campbell]

Harlan and the rest of us childless adults........


Childless, as in you've never had any?

[Harlan Huckleby]

DAmn, I had a really interesting conversation with a teacher friend this eve, talked about some of the education issues. She's taught at West High in Madison for 30 years, has many contacts in the Milwaukee school system as well. She teaches African American History, so has a lot of contact with minorities.

West High was rated the second best high school in the nation not so long ago. They may have slipped the last couple years, but they still are about as good as public education gets.

Anyway, she does confirm what Ayn suggesed: money really is not the primary issue when comparing a school like WEst with the Milwaukee high schools. Teachers in Milwaukee actually have far more money to acquire educational materials, etc. because they are a distressed school system eligible for Federal grants. Teachers who move from Milwaukee to Madison are shocked at how tight things are financially in a far superior school.

The main difference, according to my friend, is security. The Milwaukee schools are essentially over-run by drug gangs. And they have a hard time hiring security personnel because it is so dangerous! Madison is also starting to have gang problems. Can you imagine how tough it is to be a teacher in such an unhealthy environment!?

I thought some more about vouchers. You are not going to have private schools establishing themselves in inner cities in large numbers. Why would a private enterprise move to a location where the customers can't afford to pay much, and where it is more expensive to get people to work there!? Forget it.

Vouchers can be PART of the solution, but are no overall fix. The voucher approach has to be applied in a monitored and targeted way.

And vouchers do in fact destroy public schools. The good students, who can serve as role models, are all sucked out of the public schools.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This is how it's going to be through November.

http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/nascar/cup/news/story?id=3483761

The link to the article on ESPN's home page reads "NASCAR team in sponsorship talks with Obama." Yet, in the article it states:


BAM team spokesman Rhett Vandiver told The Associated Press on Friday that the team has made a sponsorship proposal to the Democratic presidential hopeful's campaign, and has made similar proposals to the campaign of Republican John McCain and at least one third-party candidate.

It's going to be all about Obama.

[Scott Campbell]

The good students, who can serve as role models, are all sucked out of the public schools.



I see. And what should we learn from that?

[mraynrand]

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

You are turning your back on the current problem of a disgracefull distribution of educational opportunity. The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.


Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial.

This is an ideological pure approach that will make a bad situation far worse. The public schools will be choked for funds, and left to deal with ALL the students with behavior problems, the special ed kids who require $100K of staff to deal with each of the them, and the poor kids who can not afford the incidental and direct costs of getting to private schools. And the vouchers will of course raise the cost of private schools.

You started out complaining about your friends in education who tremble at introduction of competition into their business. Well, if it done in the unchecked way you advocate, it will destroy public education. How well is that Invisible Hand working in health care? 60M people have none. Your Ayn Rand Ideologically Certified approach can not work for all services that government delivers.


For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.....Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

Empty words. Who is going to build all these wonderful private schools in the inner city? I understand on a small scale it could help a select few.

You've created a free market where the quality of education is going to be tied directly to the amount that the consumer can afford to pay, just like with automobiles.

I have been open-minded to vouchers because I know there are some conservatives who genuinely want to use market forces to improve education from top to bottom, AND they are practical about it.

Concerning this Ayn Rand Ideologically Certification that I supposedly have, I thought I would respond.

I chose Howard Roark as a name last year. I am not some kind of Rand sycophant; I just had to pick a name, and liked the character. I decided to keep the name (clearing throat) when I go to new forums for consistency. My avatar is Compay Segundo. I recommend his music, especially in the summer.

A few problems w/ Rand:

1. Her characters are not really characters, merely vessels to show her philosophy. She kind of just beats the some theme over and over again.
2. The paradox of the “heroic man” who takes risks, works hard and accomplishes things….he usually, once the success occurs, turns into a flabby, weak person with his/her wealth accumulated wealth.
3. She, like Marx, had to completely dismiss God.

Other than that, I really don’t care a whole lot about it. I will not be writing an essay anytime soon. I do agree with her ideas in general though, and think it would be a good idea for people to read her books.

I especially find the episode when Frank Reardon’s nut case brother asks him, hat in hand, for a donation for his Socialist group to be poignant. He insists that it has to be given in secrecy; the Socialists would be appalled taking a donation from such a crude Capitalist, but yet they need the cash. Sound familiar?

I agree with what you write about Rand. Plus, children were virtually absent from her novels. She could at least talked about how to educate them using vouchers. I enjoyed Rand mostly because it was a stark representation of radical socialism in action, in novel form. Hume and Kant are interesting if you like philosophy, but they didn't write good novels. Actually, I believe that everything you need to know about human psychology and nature can be found in the pages of Dostoevsky's Novels, novellas and short stories. Fyodor kicks the shit outta Ayn.

[MJZiggy]

The good students, who can serve as role models, are all sucked out of the public schools.



I see. And what should we learn from that?

That good students are snobs?

[HowardRoark]

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

You are turning your back on the current problem of a disgracefull distribution of educational opportunity. The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.


Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial.

This is an ideological pure approach that will make a bad situation far worse. The public schools will be choked for funds, and left to deal with ALL the students with behavior problems, the special ed kids who require $100K of staff to deal with each of the them, and the poor kids who can not afford the incidental and direct costs of getting to private schools. And the vouchers will of course raise the cost of private schools.

You started out complaining about your friends in education who tremble at introduction of competition into their business. Well, if it done in the unchecked way you advocate, it will destroy public education. How well is that Invisible Hand working in health care? 60M people have none. Your Ayn Rand Ideologically Certified approach can not work for all services that government delivers.


For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.....Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

Empty words. Who is going to build all these wonderful private schools in the inner city? I understand on a small scale it could help a select few.

You've created a free market where the quality of education is going to be tied directly to the amount that the consumer can afford to pay, just like with automobiles.

I have been open-minded to vouchers because I know there are some conservatives who genuinely want to use market forces to improve education from top to bottom, AND they are practical about it.

Concerning this Ayn Rand Ideologically Certification that I supposedly have, I thought I would respond.

I chose Howard Roark as a name last year. I am not some kind of Rand sycophant; I just had to pick a name, and liked the character. I decided to keep the name (clearing throat) when I go to new forums for consistency. My avatar is Compay Segundo. I recommend his music, especially in the summer.

A few problems w/ Rand:

1. Her characters are not really characters, merely vessels to show her philosophy. She kind of just beats the some theme over and over again.
2. The paradox of the “heroic man” who takes risks, works hard and accomplishes things….he usually, once the success occurs, turns into a flabby, weak person with his/her wealth accumulated wealth.
3. She, like Marx, had to completely dismiss God.

Other than that, I really don’t care a whole lot about it. I will not be writing an essay anytime soon. I do agree with her ideas in general though, and think it would be a good idea for people to read her books.

I especially find the episode when Frank Reardon’s nut case brother asks him, hat in hand, for a donation for his Socialist group to be poignant. He insists that it has to be given in secrecy; the Socialists would be appalled taking a donation from such a crude Capitalist, but yet they need the cash. Sound familiar?

I agree with what you write about Rand. Plus, children were virtually absent from her novels. She could at least talked about how to educate them using vouchers. I enjoyed Rand mostly because it was a stark representation of radical socialism in action, in novel form. Hume and Kant are interesting if you like philosophy, but they didn't write good novels. Actually, I believe that everything you need to know about human psychology and nature can be found in the pages of Dostoevsky's Novels, novellas and short stories. Fyodor kicks the shit outta Ayn.

Do you think I should read The Idiot? Or should I just stick to these forums?

[texaspackerbacker]

3. There is no "invisible hand" in health care. THAT is the problem. The consumer is divorced from the buying decision in the current environment. The third party payer system takes away the "invisible hand."

I see. And all the people with pre-existing condition who can not get health insurance are the victims of third party payers. Nothing to do with profit.

You are not facing reality.

Those who cannot afford simply do NOT go without treatment in the current system. They may use up available resources; They may end up with debt/bad credit, but they WILL get treated.

Whether that is fair and just or not becomes a moral question--as Bobblehead alluded to in the other thread. Should the government get into making "moral" decisions like that? Close call. We aren't talking about people failing to get treatment; We are talking about that treatment resulting in financial ruin.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Those who cannot afford simply do NOT go without treatment in the current system. They may use up available resources; They may end up with debt/bad credit, but they WILL get treated. .

This is a great misconception. Although it is true that if you got a bone sticking out, you will be treated in an emergency room. But most health issues really do not fall into this category. For instance, if a person needs some sort of surgery, not an immediate life threatening situation, but a need just the same, they simply will not do the procedure. A person without insurance has to pay in advance, and most people without health insurance do not have 20K available credit or savings.

[texaspackerbacker]

What type of "need" for surgery do you have in mind--that is a true need, but not immediate?

Cancer? Heart Bypass? Set a broken bone? Aneurism? Appendectomy? All of those and a good deal more would get done even without ability to pay. Kindly give a few examples that WOULDN'T happen--you know, like tummy tucks and nose jobs, along with anything a little more urgent you can dig up.

Wow! I think this thread has gone full circle--back to the surgery Dr. Jesse had in mind for Obama's balls.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You don't know what you are talking about. They will provide no non-emergency services without prepay. Hip replacement. An exam for severe symptoms - say blurry vision and migraine headaches.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'll give you those two, but I'd hardly call a limp and a series of tests "urgent" care.

Do you dispute any of the examples I mentioned? I doubt it.

[HowardRoark]

Those who cannot afford simply do NOT go without treatment in the current system. They may use up available resources; They may end up with debt/bad credit, but they WILL get treated. .

This is a great misconception. Although it is true that if you got a bone sticking out, you will be treated in an emergency room. But most health issues really do not fall into this category. For instance, if a person needs some sort of surgery, not an immediate life threatening situation, but a need just the same, they simply will not do the procedure. A person without insurance has to pay in advance, and most people without health insurance do not have 20K available credit or savings.

Harlan, I am too drunk to respond properly tonight, but I will tell you that when my time comes up in the cue at the Children's E.R., They put on a short (but impressive) fireworks display when I pull out my Insurance Card.

We already have Socialized Medicine. Just REALLY poorly run.

[MJZiggy]

Then how do you fix it? It's ok, I can wait til you're sober...

[HowardRoark]

Then how do you fix it? It's ok, I can wait til you're sober...

OK, better now.

I break ranks to a certain degree on this issue too. What I think should happen actually flies in the face of a true far Right/Libertarian. I have some personal history in the healthcare system, so I can empathize with the costs, and how quickly they could financially devastate someone.

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.

2. Those people who don’t have health insurance would then be looked at. The people who CHOOSE not to get insurance would now be exposed. No more trips to Vegas, Packer tickets, etc. instead of paying for health insurance. I think at least half of these “uninsured" we always hear about can afford to pay for insurance, but choose not to.

3. Those people who don’t have insurance AND have been determined that they really can’t afford it, would be helped. They would be given a “voucher” from the Fed. Gov’t and told to go buy insurance coverage. But they have to have coverage. This will get these people out of Emergency Rooms. That is where they now get their primary care. Bogs the system down. Get them in the system.

Overall though, I think HSAs and high deductible policies are a very good idea.

The bottom line is we have a cluster fuck right now. There is no denying that. The reason for this problem is that there are no consumer driven choices in healthcare. Things are paid for by a third party, nobody really cares about costs. ANYTHING that makes healthcare a more market driven industry will start fixing problems. The other option, Government taking over, is not the answer.

A true Conservative would never agree with any Government involvement. I am more of a realist. Unless we are ready to have uninsured people dying on the streets, we have to do something. We do it now anyway, but just really inefficiently.

[MJZiggy]

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I have a question. If we're going to require people to have health insurance, how do we track them? We can't even seem to track who's in the country much less whether they have coverage, and what's the penalty if they don't? And how do we enforce it?

It's the same idea as they had when talking about retirement benefits. People know they should save for retirement; know they should be socking money away to live on later--but too many just don't do it. People should buy health insurance, but too many just don't. I know that at my current salary, if I had to buy my health insurance, I would not be able to make it financially.

And just for the record, as it sounds like some are talking about different degrees of government involvement here, what I'm trying to discuss is not having the government run the healthcare system to the degree of controlling hospitals and doctors. I'm speaking specifically to health coverage and making sure that people have access to primary care without screwing up emergency departments and going bankrupt to do it.

[Scott Campbell]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.


Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

[bobblehead]

Then how do you fix it? It's ok, I can wait til you're sober...

OK, better now.

I break ranks to a certain degree on this issue too. What I think should happen actually flies in the face of a true far Right/Libertarian. I have some personal history in the healthcare system, so I can empathize with the costs, and how quickly they could financially devastate someone.

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.

2. Those people who don’t have health insurance would then be looked at. The people who CHOOSE not to get insurance would now be exposed. No more trips to Vegas, Packer tickets, etc. instead of paying for health insurance. I think at least half of these “uninsured" we always hear about can afford to pay for insurance, but choose not to.

3. Those people who don’t have insurance AND have been determined that they really can’t afford it, would be helped. They would be given a “voucher” from the Fed. Gov’t and told to go buy insurance coverage. But they have to have coverage. This will get these people out of Emergency Rooms. That is where they now get their primary care. Bogs the system down. Get them in the system.

Overall though, I think HSAs and high deductible policies are a very good idea.

The bottom line is we have a cluster fuck right now. There is no denying that. The reason for this problem is that there are no consumer driven choices in healthcare. Things are paid for by a third party, nobody really cares about costs. ANYTHING that makes healthcare a more market driven industry will start fixing problems. The other option, Government taking over, is not the answer.

A true Conservative would never agree with any Government involvement. I am more of a realist. Unless we are ready to have uninsured people dying on the streets, we have to do something. We do it now anyway, but just really inefficiently.

Thats not entirely true...a fanatical libertarian might be against any gov't invovlement, but most libertarians/conservatives actually understand gov't has a role. I openly said we need a disaster policy industry that is regulated somewhat heavily.

The reason I am so in favor of HSA's is because I think people get to make BETTER less expensive choices when they are paying. I would like to see a very competitive medical industry in which all people have a disastor policy and an HSA. Competitive being the key, we are in the mess of today due to ted kennedy's medalling since 1967 and slowly eroding any semblence of common sense from the healthcare market.

[texaspackerbacker]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.


Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

[Scott Campbell]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.


Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.


I won't pretend to have the solution. I surely don't. But I will support radically government mandated change, because the current system sucks. Though I would prefer to wait until after Harlan passes.

[bobblehead]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.


Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

Tex, in the climate we live, if people aren't insured, even thru their own stupidity, we are gonna end up with nationalized health care. So....the solution is, do we let that happen or look for a common sense solution. We have lost the war on letting people make their own stupid mistakes on this one, we have to focus on a battle of not nationalizing the entire industry now.

Furthermore, thanks to libs, medicare, and HMO's the industry has been damaged so we actually have to find a cure for what ills it at the moment. If the choice is leave it, nationalize it or fix it, I choose fix it.

[HowardRoark]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.


Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

You actually sound as though you agree with my ideas. The problem with the "system obsorbing" these costs (by the way, you are advocating Socialism there), is that it is done so ineffeciently. I am not kidding when I tell you that the uninsured kids in my town go to the E.R. whenever they want for primary care issues. The E.R. is NOT an efficient way to obsorb costs. I just got a bill, $770 from the pharmacy.....the only thing my kid received was a an I.V. w/fluids (i.e. water). I am paying for everyone else in line that night too.

The bottom line for your hard line is that you are willing to watch/smell uninsured cancer patients dying in the streets. Maybe I am not being ultruistic, maybe I would find it offensive to have to put up with the smell of dying people as I go about my business. It would ruin a good evening out.

I agree with you that we should not have to mandate anything. If people are too stupid to not take care of their health planning, they should have that right. But they also MUST suffer the consequences, and our society is not willing to live in some kind of Dickensonian environment.

[texaspackerbacker]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.


Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

Tex, in the climate we live, if people aren't insured, even thru their own stupidity, we are gonna end up with nationalized health care. So....the solution is, do we let that happen or look for a common sense solution. We have lost the war on letting people make their own stupid mistakes on this one, we have to focus on a battle of not nationalizing the entire industry now.

Furthermore, thanks to libs, medicare, and HMO's the industry has been damaged so we actually have to find a cure for what ills it at the moment. If the choice is leave it, nationalize it or fix it, I choose fix it.

WHY would you make such a claim? The only only only reason why people CHOOSING to be uninsured would cause any movement at all toward nationalized health care is the bogus propaganda being pushed by leftists which you guys seem to be buying into hook, line, and sinker.

WHY would you three obviously good conservatives (BHead, Howard, and Scott) see our current system as so flawed? We have the indisputably best quality of care in the world; We have CHOICE/FREEDOM--something which you guys in most contexts rever, but which you seem willing to throw in the trash here; And we have virtually everybody getting virtually every form of treatment they need.

Somebody spoke of inefficiency in the way the poor and uninsured are given care? That is miniscule in comparison to the horrendous inefficiency of what Obama and Hillary advocate/what Canada and other countries already have.

Having the system absorb the cost of treating the poverty cases--as is currently done--is somehow a form of SOCIALISM? How so? It is no different than when a store passes on the cost of shoplifting to other purchasers. Is THAT socialism?

The other way many low income/uninsured get treatment is through medical research programs. THAT is the answer to the liberal complaint that some poor fall through the cracks in non-life threatening situations.

So we have virtually everybody getting treated, we have as much choice and freedom as we could realistically hope for, and we have the best quality of care in the world. But something is WRONG with the system? I don't think so.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.


Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

You actually sound as though you agree with my ideas. The problem with the "system obsorbing" these costs (by the way, you are advocating Socialism there), is that it is done so ineffeciently. I am not kidding when I tell you that the uninsured kids in my town go to the E.R. whenever they want for primary care issues. The E.R. is NOT an efficient way to obsorb costs. I just got a bill, $770 from the pharmacy.....the only thing my kid received was a an I.V. w/fluids (i.e. water). I am paying for everyone else in line that night too.

The bottom line for your hard line is that you are willing to watch/smell uninsured cancer patients dying in the streets. Maybe I am not being ultruistic, maybe I would find it offensive to have to put up with the smell of dying people as I go about my business. It would ruin a good evening out.

I agree with you that we should not have to mandate anything. If people are too stupid to not take care of their health planning, they should have that right. But they also MUST suffer the consequences, and our society is not willing to live in some kind of Dickensonian environment.

It isn't just the uninsurered that use the ER wrongly.

Where should the unisured go for their primary care?

But, what do you expect from a culture that reacts instead of proacts?

[Freak Out]

Hey Texas...have you ever received medical care in another country other than at a US base? Have you experienced how the system works in Canada and Germany first hand?

[texaspackerbacker]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.


Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

Tex, in the climate we live, if people aren't insured, even thru their own stupidity, we are gonna end up with nationalized health care. So....the solution is, do we let that happen or look for a common sense solution. We have lost the war on letting people make their own stupid mistakes on this one, we have to focus on a battle of not nationalizing the entire industry now.

Furthermore, thanks to libs, medicare, and HMO's the industry has been damaged so we actually have to find a cure for what ills it at the moment. If the choice is leave it, nationalize it or fix it, I choose fix it.

WHY would you make such a claim? The only only only reason why people CHOOSING to be uninsured would cause any movement at all toward nationalized health care is the bogus propaganda being pushed by leftists which you guys seem to be buying into hook, line, and sinker.

WHY would you three obviously good conservatives (BHead, Howard, and Scott) see our current system as so flawed? We have the indisputably best quality of care in the world; We have CHOICE/FREEDOM--something which you guys in most contexts rever, but which you seem willing to throw in the trash here; And we have virtually everybody getting virtually every form of treatment they need.

Somebody spoke of inefficiency in the way the poor and uninsured are given care? That is miniscule in comparison to the horrendous inefficiency of what Obama and Hillary advocate/what Canada and other countries already have.

Having the system absorb the cost of treating the poverty cases--as is currently done--is somehow a form of SOCIALISM? How so? It is no different than when a store passes on the cost of shoplifting to other purchasers. Is THAT socialism?

The other way many low income/uninsured get treatment is through medical research programs. THAT is the answer to the liberal complaint that some poor fall through the cracks in non-life threatening situations.

So we have virtually everybody getting treated, we have as much choice and freedom as we could realistically hope for, and we have the best quality of care in the world. But something is WRONG with the system? I don't think so.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hey Texas...have you ever received medical care in another country other than at a US base? Have you experienced how the system works in Canada and Germany first hand?

Just curious, what part of Tex are you suggesting needs to be examined?

[HowardRoark]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.


Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

You actually sound as though you agree with my ideas. The problem with the "system obsorbing" these costs (by the way, you are advocating Socialism there), is that it is done so ineffeciently. I am not kidding when I tell you that the uninsured kids in my town go to the E.R. whenever they want for primary care issues. The E.R. is NOT an efficient way to obsorb costs. I just got a bill, $770 from the pharmacy.....the only thing my kid received was a an I.V. w/fluids (i.e. water). I am paying for everyone else in line that night too.

The bottom line for your hard line is that you are willing to watch/smell uninsured cancer patients dying in the streets. Maybe I am not being ultruistic, maybe I would find it offensive to have to put up with the smell of dying people as I go about my business. It would ruin a good evening out.

I agree with you that we should not have to mandate anything. If people are too stupid to not take care of their health planning, they should have that right. But they also MUST suffer the consequences, and our society is not willing to live in some kind of Dickensonian environment.

It isn't just the uninsurered that use the ER wrongly.

Where should the unisured go for their primary care?

But, what do you expect from a culture that reacts instead of proacts?

There would no longer be any uninsured. They would go to a pediatrician for their ear problems. During regular hours.

I don't believe proacts is a word.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.


Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

You actually sound as though you agree with my ideas. The problem with the "system obsorbing" these costs (by the way, you are advocating Socialism there), is that it is done so ineffeciently. I am not kidding when I tell you that the uninsured kids in my town go to the E.R. whenever they want for primary care issues. The E.R. is NOT an efficient way to obsorb costs. I just got a bill, $770 from the pharmacy.....the only thing my kid received was a an I.V. w/fluids (i.e. water). I am paying for everyone else in line that night too.

The bottom line for your hard line is that you are willing to watch/smell uninsured cancer patients dying in the streets. Maybe I am not being ultruistic, maybe I would find it offensive to have to put up with the smell of dying people as I go about my business. It would ruin a good evening out.

I agree with you that we should not have to mandate anything. If people are too stupid to not take care of their health planning, they should have that right. But they also MUST suffer the consequences, and our society is not willing to live in some kind of Dickensonian environment.

It isn't just the uninsurered that use the ER wrongly.

Where should the unisured go for their primary care?

But, what do you expect from a culture that reacts instead of proacts?

There would no longer be any uninsured. They would go to a pediatrician for their ear problems. During regular hours.

I don't believe proacts is a word.

You were talking about CURRENT SITUATION...in the usage of the ER.

So, i ask, again...where should uninsured go for primary care?

Proact: Of course it isn't a word. What is your point. You understood what i was getting at....like the old joke...progress/congress.

[HowardRoark]

You were talking about CURRENT SITUATION...in the usage of the ER.

So, i ask, again...where should uninsured go for primary care?

Proact: Of course it isn't a word. What is your point. You understood what i was getting at....like the old joke...progress/congress.

Some problem-solving techniques

There are many approaches to problem solving, depending on the nature of the problem and the people involved in the problem. The more traditional, rational approach is typically used and involves, eg, clarifying description of the problem, analyzing causes, identifying alternatives, assessing each alternative, choosing one, implementing it, and evaluating whether the problem was solved or not.

Another, more state-of-the-art approach is appreciative inquiry. That approach asserts that "problems" are often the result of our own perspectives on a phenomena, eg, if we look at it as a "problem," then it will become one and we'll probably get very stuck on the "problem." Appreciative inquiry includes identification of our best times about the situation in the past, wishing and thinking about what worked best then, visioning what we want in the future, and building from our strengths to work toward our vision.

1. divide and conquer: break down a large, complex problem into smaller, solvable problems.

2. Hill-climbing strategy, (or - rephrased - gradient descent/ascent, difference reduction) - attempting at every step to move closer to the goal situation. The problem with this approach is that many challenges require that you seem to move away from the goal state in order to clearly see the solution.

3. Means-end analysis, more effective than hill-climbing, requires the setting of subgoals based on the process of getting from the initial state to the goal state when solving a problem.

4. Trial-and-error (also called guess and check)

5. Brainstorming

6. Morphological analysis

7. Method of focal objects

8. Lateral thinking

9. Research: study what others have written about the problem (and related problems). Maybe there's already a solution?
Assumption reversal (write down your assumptions about the problem, and then reverse them all)

10. Analogy: has a similar problem (possibly in a different field) been solved before?

11. Hypothesis testing: assuming a possible explanation to the problem and trying to prove the assumption.

12. Constraint examination: are you assuming a constraint which doesn't really exist?

13. Incubation: input the details of a problem into your mind, then stop focusing on it. The subconscious mind will continue to work on the problem, and the solution might just "pop up" while you are doing something else

14. Build (or write) one or more abstract models of the problem

15. Try to prove that the problem cannot be solved. Where the proof breaks down can be your starting point for resolving it

16. Get help from friends or online problem solving community (e.g. 3form, InnoCentive)

17. delegation: delegating the problem to others.

18. Root Cause Analysis

19. Working Backwards (Halpern,2002)

20. Forward-Looking Strategy (Halpern, 2002)

21. Simplification (Halpern, 2002)

22. Generalization (Halpern, 2002)

23. Specialization (Halpern, 2002)

24. Random Search (Halpern, 2002)

25. Split-Half Method (Halpern,2002)

26. Restate problem, and blame Conservatives (Otown, 2008)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You were talking about CURRENT SITUATION...in the usage of the ER.

So, i ask, again...where should uninsured go for primary care?

Proact: Of course it isn't a word. What is your point. You understood what i was getting at....like the old joke...progress/congress.

Some problem-solving techniques

There are many approaches to problem solving, depending on the nature of the problem and the people involved in the problem. The more traditional, rational approach is typically used and involves, eg, clarifying description of the problem, analyzing causes, identifying alternatives, assessing each alternative, choosing one, implementing it, and evaluating whether the problem was solved or not.

Another, more state-of-the-art approach is appreciative inquiry. That approach asserts that "problems" are often the result of our own perspectives on a phenomena, eg, if we look at it as a "problem," then it will become one and we'll probably get very stuck on the "problem." Appreciative inquiry includes identification of our best times about the situation in the past, wishing and thinking about what worked best then, visioning what we want in the future, and building from our strengths to work toward our vision.

1. divide and conquer: break down a large, complex problem into smaller, solvable problems.

2. Hill-climbing strategy, (or - rephrased - gradient descent/ascent, difference reduction) - attempting at every step to move closer to the goal situation. The problem with this approach is that many challenges require that you seem to move away from the goal state in order to clearly see the solution.

3. Means-end analysis, more effective than hill-climbing, requires the setting of subgoals based on the process of getting from the initial state to the goal state when solving a problem.

4. Trial-and-error (also called guess and check)

5. Brainstorming

6. Morphological analysis

7. Method of focal objects

8. Lateral thinking

9. Research: study what others have written about the problem (and related problems). Maybe there's already a solution?
Assumption reversal (write down your assumptions about the problem, and then reverse them all)

10. Analogy: has a similar problem (possibly in a different field) been solved before?

11. Hypothesis testing: assuming a possible explanation to the problem and trying to prove the assumption.

12. Constraint examination: are you assuming a constraint which doesn't really exist?

13. Incubation: input the details of a problem into your mind, then stop focusing on it. The subconscious mind will continue to work on the problem, and the solution might just "pop up" while you are doing something else

14. Build (or write) one or more abstract models of the problem

15. Try to prove that the problem cannot be solved. Where the proof breaks down can be your starting point for resolving it

16. Get help from friends or online problem solving community (e.g. 3form, InnoCentive)

17. delegation: delegating the problem to others.

18. Root Cause Analysis

19. Working Backwards (Halpern,2002)

20. Forward-Looking Strategy (Halpern, 2002)

21. Simplification (Halpern, 2002)

22. Generalization (Halpern, 2002)

23. Specialization (Halpern, 2002)

24. Random Search (Halpern, 2002)

25. Split-Half Method (Halpern,2002)

26. Restate problem, and blame Conservatives (Otown, 2008)

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

[HowardRoark]

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

What's your question?

[Freak Out]

Did Texas do the cover for New Yorker this month?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

What's your question?

The question was where should the uninsured go for primary care?

But, i think you are in Tex's camp that they are taken care of...you just don't like the solution.

P.S. I answered you post on einhorn..though, i dont' think you'll like what you have to read.

[HowardRoark]

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

What's your question?

The question was where should the uninsured go for primary care?

But, i think you are in Tex's camp that they are taken care of...you just don't like the solution.

P.S. I answered you post on einhorn..though, i dont' think you'll like what you have to read.

Did you get hit in the head by a rock this weekend?

We are just killing time talking about SOLUTIONS. What the fuck is your solution. I spelled mine out, much to the chagrin of Tex.

Where they go now for care is irrelevent to this thread. Where should they go? That is the question.

Why so hostile? I just wanted to know if you knew Einhorn. I know he is of your vintage and part of town.

I think he has an interesting story.

I was at dinner w/some people who brought up the RJC, wanted to know your thoughts.

Breathe.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

What's your question?

The question was where should the uninsured go for primary care?

But, i think you are in Tex's camp that they are taken care of...you just don't like the solution.

P.S. I answered you post on einhorn..though, i dont' think you'll like what you have to read.

Did you get hit in the head by a rock this weekend?

We are just killing time talking about SOLUTIONS. What the fuck is your solution. I spelled mine out, much to the chagrin of Tex.

Where they go now for care is irrelevent to this thread. Where should they go? That is the question.

Why so hostile? I just wanted to know if you knew Einhorn. I know he is of your vintage and part of town.

I think he has an interesting story.

I was at dinner w/some people who brought up the RJC, wanted to know your thoughts.

Breathe.

You brought up a specific point about cost to you..and how the uninsured were bringing up the costs...while the fact is that it isn't just the uninsured.

The point, which you fail to grasp or..can't determine why i'm asking..isn't about solutions...because for Tex he doesn't believe there is a problem.

If the uninsured use the ER as primary care then everything is ok. But, you are wrong...the ER isn't primary care...never is. While it may satisfy the "first POC" it hardly fulfills the nature of consultation or based in the community. The people that arrive at the ER have a problem. They arent' arriviing there to get little jonny's physical so he can play soccer.

The point is was trying to bring...slowly, was your definition of primary care. Which then could lead you into a real discussion with Tex...as i want no part in your discussion.

Where should the go? That is what i asked you several times. Are you high? WHat part of "where should the uninsured go for primary care" dont' you understand. Right NOW!

Hostile: I'm not hostile. Not angry. But, it is kinda rich that you have come and either attacked me, made disparaging comments, etc. and now ask why i'm hostile. You have basically come on this board and attacked liberals/dems and called them dumb.

Einhorn: I'm still trying to reconcile how some one so smart like him can be so stupid like you and your fellow conservs paint anyone who is liberal or dem. How can it be? What is wrong with him? How can someone who is so obviously interested in making money and ferreting out ne'er do wells be a dem?

And, yes, i'm VERY familiar with him...more so his parents. And, they would be more inclined to agree with my positions than yours. That is from FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

RJC: I gave you my thoughts. If you don't like them or don't like the tone..that is your problem. What did you think my thoughts were gonna be? They are great?

C'mon...republican jews. Why don't you ask me next about jews for jesus?

[HowardRoark]

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

What's your question?

The question was where should the uninsured go for primary care?

But, i think you are in Tex's camp that they are taken care of...you just don't like the solution.

P.S. I answered you post on einhorn..though, i dont' think you'll like what you have to read.

Did you get hit in the head by a rock this weekend?

We are just killing time talking about SOLUTIONS. What the fuck is your solution. I spelled mine out, much to the chagrin of Tex.

Where they go now for care is irrelevent to this thread. Where should they go? That is the question.

Why so hostile? I just wanted to know if you knew Einhorn. I know he is of your vintage and part of town.

I think he has an interesting story.

I was at dinner w/some people who brought up the RJC, wanted to know your thoughts.

Breathe.

You brought up a specific point about cost to you..and how the uninsured were bringing up the costs...while the fact is that it isn't just the uninsured.

The point, which you fail to grasp or..can't determine why i'm asking..isn't about solutions...because for Tex he doesn't believe there is a problem.

If the uninsured use the ER as primary care then everything is ok. But, you are wrong...the ER isn't primary care...never is. While it may satisfy the "first POC" it hardly fulfills the nature of consultation or based in the community. The people that arrive at the ER have a problem. They arent' arriviing there to get little jonny's physical so he can play soccer.

The point is was trying to bring...slowly, was your definition of primary care. Which then could lead you into a real discussion with Tex...as i want no part in your discussion.

Where should the go? That is what i asked you several times. Are you high? WHat part of "where should the uninsured go for primary care" dont' you understand. Right NOW!

Hostile: I'm not hostile. Not angry. But, it is kinda rich that you have come and either attacked me, made disparaging comments, etc. and now ask why i'm hostile. You have basically come on this board and attacked liberals/dems and called them dumb.

Einhorn: I'm still trying to reconcile how some one so smart like him can be so stupid like you and your fellow conservs paint anyone who is liberal or dem. How can it be? What is wrong with him? How can someone who is so obviously interested in making money and ferreting out ne'er do wells be a dem?

And, yes, i'm VERY familiar with him...more so his parents. And, they would be more inclined to agree with my positions than yours. That is from FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

RJC: I gave you my thoughts. If you don't like them or don't like the tone..that is your problem. What did you think my thoughts were gonna be? They are great?

C'mon...republican jews. Why don't you ask me next about jews for jesus?

What do you think about Jews for Jesus?

[HowardRoark]

Go down to the Phoenix Children's E.R. tomorrow. Bring your I-Phone, report what you see.

I am not Tex.

I think there is a problem with the system right now. But the solution, I think, is to make it more market driven. Or, I should say...market driven.

[the_idle_threat]

Did Texas do the cover for New Yorker this month?

:lol:

[the_idle_threat]

Jesse Jackson had the misfortune of being overheard saying, "See, Barack been, um, talking down to black people on this faith based ... I want cut his balls off ... Barack ... he's talking down to black people." Jackson appeared to make a stabbing or cutting motion with his hand as he made the remarks.

I was wondering how long it would take before The Left started turning on Obama just like they did Bill Cosby. Well, at least Barack can blame such hateful/hurtful thoughts and speeches on his “typical white” grandma.

Jesse went on to say, "My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.''

Collective moral responsibility? I wish he would stop pushing HIS morals on me. And anyway, what about the separation of Church and State?

At least he was honest when using the word “collective”. We better get used to that one.


Hey Howard

Welcome to the Forum !!!

Agreed. Although I'm a bit late to the party in saying so.

[Freak Out]

Hey Texas...have you ever received medical care in another country other than at a US base? Have you experienced how the system works in Canada and Germany first hand?

Just curious, what part of Tex are you suggesting needs to be examined?

Frontal lobe.

[Harlan Huckleby]

i'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hey Texas...have you ever received medical care in another country other than at a US base? Have you experienced how the system works in Canada and Germany first hand?

This somehow slipped past me yesterday. I have been amazingly healthy. The only night I ever spent in a hospital was 55 years ago--tonsilectomy, age 6. You can count on one hand the times I've been to a doctor anywhere since I got out of the army in '79. I only went while I was in to get out of duty.

I have, however, spoken first hand to dissatisfied Canadians. That plus tons of horror stories that weren't first hand tell me their system is a horror story.

Ours, on the other hand, for all the reasons I stated in the other post, is the best in the world.

There basically are only three criteria: QUALITY--ours is second to none, NOBODY GOING WITHOUT NEEDED CARE--virtually everybody gets it, and CHOICE/FREEDOM--nobody has more than we do.

I suppose it could be argued that the fourth criterion is cost. I was in an HMO through my wife/her job just over $200 a month for the whole family until the kids grew up and I had her drop family coverage. She now pays about $75 a month for herself, and I've been uninsured the last 4 or 5 years--except for the VA, which I haven't really availed myself of. And now, three of our forum conservatives want to take away MY RIGHT to choose not to be insured? I have to ask WHY?

The system ain't broke; Why in the hell even think about fixing it? This is NOT a rhetorical question. An answer consistent with conservative principles would be nice.

[HowardRoark]

Hey Texas...have you ever received medical care in another country other than at a US base? Have you experienced how the system works in Canada and Germany first hand?

This somehow slipped past me yesterday. I have been amazingly healthy. The only night I ever spent in a hospital was 55 years ago--tonsilectomy, age 6. You can count on one hand the times I've been to a doctor anywhere since I got out of the army in '79. I only went while I was in to get out of duty.

I have, however, spoken first hand to dissatisfied Canadians. That plus tons of horror stories that weren't first hand tell me their system is a horror story.

Ours, on the other hand, for all the reasons I stated in the other post, is the best in the world.

There basically are only three criteria: QUALITY--ours is second to none, NOBODY GOING WITHOUT NEEDED CARE--virtually everybody gets it, and CHOICE/FREEDOM--nobody has more than we do.

I suppose it could be argued that the fourth criterion is cost. I was in an HMO through my wife/her job just over $200 a month for the whole family until the kids grew up and I had her drop family coverage. She now pays about $75 a month for herself, and I've been uninsured the last 4 or 5 years--except for the VA, which I haven't really availed myself of. And now, three of our forum conservatives want to take away MY RIGHT to choose not to be insured? I have to ask WHY?

The system ain't broke; Why in the hell even think about fixing it? This is NOT a rhetorical question. An answer consistent with conservative principles would be nice.

It sounds as though you are insured via the VA. I'm more than OK with that.

It costs over $1000/month for my family.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Go down to the Phoenix Children's E.R. tomorrow. Bring your I-Phone, report what you see.

I am not Tex.

I think there is a problem with the system right now. But the solution, I think, is to make it more market driven. Or, I should say...market driven.

Ah, market driven..your answer for health care and education.

Please explain the nature of the free market and non intervention when it comes to conservatives.

I'm curious as to how you rationalize intervention in:

1. The treasury lending money to Morgan to buy Bear.
2. The gov't involvement in IndyMac
3. the treasury and banks trying to shed bad assets. (superfund)
4. The s&l crisis.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hey Texas...have you ever received medical care in another country other than at a US base? Have you experienced how the system works in Canada and Germany first hand?

This somehow slipped past me yesterday. I have been amazingly healthy. The only night I ever spent in a hospital was 55 years ago--tonsilectomy, age 6. You can count on one hand the times I've been to a doctor anywhere since I got out of the army in '79. I only went while I was in to get out of duty.

I have, however, spoken first hand to dissatisfied Canadians. That plus tons of horror stories that weren't first hand tell me their system is a horror story.

Ours, on the other hand, for all the reasons I stated in the other post, is the best in the world.

There basically are only three criteria: QUALITY--ours is second to none, NOBODY GOING WITHOUT NEEDED CARE--virtually everybody gets it, and CHOICE/FREEDOM--nobody has more than we do.

I suppose it could be argued that the fourth criterion is cost. I was in an HMO through my wife/her job just over $200 a month for the whole family until the kids grew up and I had her drop family coverage. She now pays about $75 a month for herself, and I've been uninsured the last 4 or 5 years--except for the VA, which I haven't really availed myself of. And now, three of our forum conservatives want to take away MY RIGHT to choose not to be insured? I have to ask WHY?

The system ain't broke; Why in the hell even think about fixing it? This is NOT a rhetorical question. An answer consistent with conservative principles would be nice.

It sounds as though you are insured via the VA. I'm more than OK with that.

It costs over $1000/month for my family.

True about the VA. Although I have never used it, I've heard horror stories about it as the closest thing we have in this country to socialized medicine--along with the military and dependent health care system.

SPECIFICALLY, what do you see as bad about the current system, and what would you like to see that would improve it? I sincerely hope the answer doesn't turn out to be grabbing people's RIGHT to choose not to be insured and throwing it in the trash.

[HowardRoark]

Go down to the Phoenix Children's E.R. tomorrow. Bring your I-Phone, report what you see.

I am not Tex.

I think there is a problem with the system right now. But the solution, I think, is to make it more market driven. Or, I should say...market driven.

Ah, market driven..your answer for health care and education.

Please explain the nature of the free market and non intervention when it comes to conservatives.

I'm curious as to how you rationalize intervention in:

1. The treasury lending money to Morgan to buy Bear.
2. The gov't involvement in IndyMac
3. the treasury and banks trying to shed bad assets. (superfund)
4. The s&l crisis.

Please refer to my thread, Moral Hazards and Happy Meals for the Circle Jerk.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=13174

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Go down to the Phoenix Children's E.R. tomorrow. Bring your I-Phone, report what you see.

I am not Tex.

I think there is a problem with the system right now. But the solution, I think, is to make it more market driven. Or, I should say...market driven.

Ah, market driven..your answer for health care and education.

Please explain the nature of the free market and non intervention when it comes to conservatives.

I'm curious as to how you rationalize intervention in:

1. The treasury lending money to Morgan to buy Bear.
2. The gov't involvement in IndyMac
3. the treasury and banks trying to shed bad assets. (superfund)
4. The s&l crisis.

Please refer to my thread, Moral Hazards and Happy Meals for the Circle Jerk.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=13174

I see nothing there that explains to me how you rationalize intervention.

[HowardRoark]

True about the VA. Although I have never used it, I've heard horror stories about it as the closest thing we have in this country to socialized medicine--along with the military and dependent health care system.

SPECIFICALLY, what do you see as bad about the current system, and what would you like to see that would improve it? I sincerely hope the answer doesn't turn out to be grabbing people's RIGHT to choose not to be insured and throwing it in the trash.

But, you are insured. Your insurance is funded by the taxpayer.

Specifically, the costs are going up at 2-3 times inflation in this country.

The key is to have the consumer make a consumer decision in healthcare. This is best accomplished via HSAs and high deductible policies.

Also, costs go higher because I have to absorb the costs of the people who choose, as you call it, to not be responsible. Someone has to pay for these people. It sounds as though you might be insulated from this issue because of your circumstance.

Lastly, we also have worldwide Socialism in medicine. Medical devices and medicines are priced cheaper by the companies in other countries because they know that the middle-upper class citizens of the U.S. will bear the costs. This has to change too.

Specifically, I would ask you, what should we do with the people in this country who need medical attention who either choose to be uninsured, or are simply not insured?

[HowardRoark]

Go down to the Phoenix Children's E.R. tomorrow. Bring your I-Phone, report what you see.

I am not Tex.

I think there is a problem with the system right now. But the solution, I think, is to make it more market driven. Or, I should say...market driven.

Ah, market driven..your answer for health care and education.

Please explain the nature of the free market and non intervention when it comes to conservatives.

I'm curious as to how you rationalize intervention in:

1. The treasury lending money to Morgan to buy Bear.
2. The gov't involvement in IndyMac
3. the treasury and banks trying to shed bad assets. (superfund)
4. The s&l crisis.

Please refer to my thread, Moral Hazards and Happy Meals for the Circle Jerk.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=13174

I see nothing there that explains to me how you rationalize intervention.

When did I rationalize said intervention?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

His answer is nothing...because they can receive care today, with the best system in the world, the lowest prices, etc.

who can't receive care in this country?

[HowardRoark]

His answer is nothing...because they can receive care today, with the best system in the world, the lowest prices, etc.

who can't receive care in this country?

Tex, Ty is answering for you. Do you feel dirty?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Go down to the Phoenix Children's E.R. tomorrow. Bring your I-Phone, report what you see.

I am not Tex.

I think there is a problem with the system right now. But the solution, I think, is to make it more market driven. Or, I should say...market driven.

Ah, market driven..your answer for health care and education.

Please explain the nature of the free market and non intervention when it comes to conservatives.

I'm curious as to how you rationalize intervention in:

1. The treasury lending money to Morgan to buy Bear.
2. The gov't involvement in IndyMac
3. the treasury and banks trying to shed bad assets. (superfund)
4. The s&l crisis.

Please refer to my thread, Moral Hazards and Happy Meals for the Circle Jerk.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=13174

I see nothing there that explains to me how you rationalize intervention.

When did I rationalize said intervention?

I asked the question. YOu said look at the thread..therefore it is in answer to my rationalization question.

NOw, you come back with "when did i..." Strange.

Please explain how gov't intervention is ok in these instances...certainly it isnt' the free market.

And, after that, i'd like you to explain what will happen in a similar instance in the education market.

[HowardRoark]

Go down to the Phoenix Children's E.R. tomorrow. Bring your I-Phone, report what you see.

I am not Tex.

I think there is a problem with the system right now. But the solution, I think, is to make it more market driven. Or, I should say...market driven.

Ah, market driven..your answer for health care and education.

Please explain the nature of the free market and non intervention when it comes to conservatives.

I'm curious as to how you rationalize intervention in:

1. The treasury lending money to Morgan to buy Bear.
2. The gov't involvement in IndyMac
3. the treasury and banks trying to shed bad assets. (superfund)
4. The s&l crisis.

Please refer to my thread, Moral Hazards and Happy Meals for the Circle Jerk.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=13174

I see nothing there that explains to me how you rationalize intervention.

When did I rationalize said intervention?

I asked the question. YOu said look at the thread..therefore it is in answer to my rationalization question.

NOw, you come back with "when did i..." Strange.

Please explain how gov't intervention is ok in these instances...certainly it isnt' the free market.

And, after that, i'd like you to explain what will happen in a similar instance in the education market.

I posed a question to the Circle Jerk, aka Conservative members of this forum, to get feedback on what their opinions were.

Sane people understand.

Please refer to my post on page 5, Problem Solving Techniques.

Please give me an analogous situation vis-a-vis Education and Level III debt.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Go down to the Phoenix Children's E.R. tomorrow. Bring your I-Phone, report what you see.

I am not Tex.

I think there is a problem with the system right now. But the solution, I think, is to make it more market driven. Or, I should say...market driven.

Ah, market driven..your answer for health care and education.

Please explain the nature of the free market and non intervention when it comes to conservatives.

I'm curious as to how you rationalize intervention in:

1. The treasury lending money to Morgan to buy Bear.
2. The gov't involvement in IndyMac
3. the treasury and banks trying to shed bad assets. (superfund)
4. The s&l crisis.

Please refer to my thread, Moral Hazards and Happy Meals for the Circle Jerk.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=13174

I see nothing there that explains to me how you rationalize intervention.



When did I rationalize said intervention?

I asked the question. YOu said look at the thread..therefore it is in answer to my rationalization question.

NOw, you come back with "when did i..." Strange.

Please explain how gov't intervention is ok in these instances...certainly it isnt' the free market.

And, after that, i'd like you to explain what will happen in a similar instance in the education market.

I posed a question to the Circle Jerk, aka Conservative members of this forum, to get feedback on what their opinions were.

Sane people understand.

Please refer to my post on page 5, Problem Solving Techniques.

Please give me an analogous situation vis-a-vis Education and Level III debt.

Posing a question, and very general at that..isn't the same as answering. You didn't answer yourself.

So, i guess the answer is...whenever conservs feel it is necessary, then it is OK?

Education: If a corp takes over education (or rather, let's say one of the ones that is already trying to be successful....yeah, not really successful, but let's just leave that part out) and then FAILS...and can't meet their duty...either to the payroll, etc...what are you and the rest of the conservs going to do? How are we going to solve that problem...and, most importantly, how will affect the education of the kids.

And, should we get involved? isn't that the free market?

[HowardRoark]

Education: If a corp takes over education (or rather, let's say one of the ones that is already trying to be successful....yeah, not really successful, but let's just leave that part out) and then FAILS...and can't meet their duty...either to the payroll, etc...what are you and the rest of the conservs going to do? How are we going to solve that problem...and, most importantly, how will affect the education of the kids.

And, should we get involved? isn't that the free market?

Bravo, otown. You actually put together a well thought out question without an ad hominem attack.

[texaspackerbacker]

Howard, are you saying Tyrone=OTown?

That would explain a few things ........ I always knew the bastard wasn't really black.

It's a little bit surprising, though. The old OTown occasionally posted something of substance, even though virtually always wrongheaded. The Tyrone persona doesn't even display that much substance and intellect.

[MJZiggy]

A couple years back, on a site that no longer exists, there was a thread that I've just been reminded of. In just one of these flame wars, my hero bananaman made a post that said something to the effect of "we need a change in topic. New topic, ass hair!" (my apologies to the banana if this is a little off--I'm doing a years old post from memory.

Anyway, what ensued was the funniest damn thread I've ever read in my life.

For some reason, this thread reminded me of that. Just thought I'd share. Carry on.

[Freak Out]

A couple years back, on a site that no longer exists, there was a thread that I've just been reminded of. In just one of these flame wars, my hero bananaman made a post that said something to the effect of "we need a change in topic. New topic, ass hair!" (my apologies to the banana if this is a little off--I'm doing a years old post from memory.

Anyway, what ensued was the funniest damn thread I've ever read in my life.

For some reason, this thread reminded me of that. Just thought I'd share. Carry on.

Ass hair? Not something most people talk about but I can see where it could lead to some interesting discussion.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Education: If a corp takes over education (or rather, let's say one of the ones that is already trying to be successful....yeah, not really successful, but let's just leave that part out) and then FAILS...and can't meet their duty...either to the payroll, etc...what are you and the rest of the conservs going to do? How are we going to solve that problem...and, most importantly, how will affect the education of the kids.

And, should we get involved? isn't that the free market?

Bravo, otown. You actually put together a well thought out question without an ad hominem attack.

You like me, you really like me. :roll:

I have put out many well thought out questions...like the one you refuse to answer.

I await that answer as well as this one.

[HowardRoark]

Howard, are you saying Tyrone=OTown?

That would explain a few things ........ I always knew the bastard wasn't really black.

Connect the dots...........

black; when did he ever sya he was black? Typical of you conservatives

bastard; rich

explain; let me explain a few things about my knowledge of the word explain

Howard; I ate pizza for lunch....now I need to cut the lawn.

Sound familiar?

[HowardRoark]

Education: If a corp takes over education (or rather, let's say one of the ones that is already trying to be successful....yeah, not really successful, but let's just leave that part out) and then FAILS...and can't meet their duty...either to the payroll, etc...what are you and the rest of the conservs going to do? How are we going to solve that problem...and, most importantly, how will affect the education of the kids.

And, should we get involved? isn't that the free market?

Bravo, otown. You actually put together a well thought out question without an ad hominem attack.

You like me, you really like me. :roll:

I have put out many well thought out questions...like the one you refuse to answer.

I await that answer as well as this one.

I'm in a temparary lull, I'm bored out of my skull. I'm dressing sharp but feeling dull.

I will get back to you.

But first, what would you do about the bad shape of education in the country?

[texaspackerbacker]

As with the health care issue, WHY the automatic assumption that there is something so wrong with education in America?

Oh yeah, there's always new liberal wrinkles creeping in that make things worse. Most of these get exposed and discarded after a while (outcome based education, etc.). Some do not--things like mainstreaming special ed, dumbing down in general, and teaching from rotten liberal revisionist textbooks. And of course, you have teachers unions, plus the fact that in most parts of the country, those getting into education professions tend to be more liberal than many other areas. And then you have the fact that there just seem to be a larger percentage of rotten apple students in the barrels these days, and liberal policies make it harder to get rid of them for the sake of the ones who do want to learn.

Despite these problems, however, I would say that education in America is plodding along with a fair degree of normalcy--and normalcy is a good thing if you're talking about America.

So Howard--along with Tyrone and any of the rest of the libs, what do you see as so bad about it? Come to think about it, maybe the libs like it the way it is--with so much of their crap policies influencing things.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Education: If a corp takes over education (or rather, let's say one of the ones that is already trying to be successful....yeah, not really successful, but let's just leave that part out) and then FAILS...and can't meet their duty...either to the payroll, etc...what are you and the rest of the conservs going to do? How are we going to solve that problem...and, most importantly, how will affect the education of the kids.

And, should we get involved? isn't that the free market?

Bravo, otown. You actually put together a well thought out question without an ad hominem attack.

You like me, you really like me. :roll:

I have put out many well thought out questions...like the one you refuse to answer.

I await that answer as well as this one.

I'm in a temparary lull, I'm bored out of my skull. I'm dressing sharp but feeling dull.

I will get back to you.

But first, what would you do about the bad shape of education in the country?

First, if we are going to debate an issue..and since you seem hung up on formal "logic"...hence your ad hominem statement...which, btw, doesn't preclude or invalidate theory of evidence...i can't and certainly won't allow you to frame the argument by declaring "bad shape" of education.

[bobblehead]

True about the VA. Although I have never used it, I've heard horror stories about it as the closest thing we have in this country to socialized medicine--along with the military and dependent health care system.

SPECIFICALLY, what do you see as bad about the current system, and what would you like to see that would improve it? I sincerely hope the answer doesn't turn out to be grabbing people's RIGHT to choose not to be insured and throwing it in the trash.

But, you are insured. Your insurance is funded by the taxpayer.

Specifically, the costs are going up at 2-3 times inflation in this country.

The key is to have the consumer make a consumer decision in healthcare. This is best accomplished via HSAs and high deductible policies.

Also, costs go higher because I have to absorb the costs of the people who choose, as you call it, to not be responsible. Someone has to pay for these people. It sounds as though you might be insulated from this issue because of your circumstance.

Lastly, we also have worldwide Socialism in medicine. Medical devices and medicines are priced cheaper by the companies in other countries because they know that the middle-upper class citizens of the U.S. will bear the costs. This has to change too.

Specifically, I would ask you, what should we do with the people in this country who need medical attention who either choose to be uninsured, or are simply not insured?

Save your fingers howie, Scroll back about 6 weeks before you got the the forum and read my healthcare thread. I spent countless posts and paragraphs DETAILING what you just said in this post and some people still don't get it. I got into detail about how medicare in 1967 and HMO bills in the 70's took competition and choice out of the market and we have been getting worse every since. Some people aren't capable of getting it, some choose not to because baiting is more fun. In any event people like us are a dying breed.

[MJZiggy]

A couple years back, on a site that no longer exists, there was a thread that I've just been reminded of. In just one of these flame wars, my hero bananaman made a post that said something to the effect of "we need a change in topic. New topic, ass hair!" (my apologies to the banana if this is a little off--I'm doing a years old post from memory.

Anyway, what ensued was the funniest damn thread I've ever read in my life.

For some reason, this thread reminded me of that. Just thought I'd share. Carry on.

Ass hair? Not something most people talk about but I can see where it could lead to some interesting discussion.

It was the only time I have ever called my ex into the room and told him he had to read a thread. He couldn't breathe. Nanaman, I salute you! Salud!

[Joemailman]

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/35274458.html

[SkinBasket]

http://www.crimson-penguin.com/forum/mk3-000.gif
Balls!

[Freak Out]

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/35274458.html

Say it ain't so Joe. Ugh....

[HowardRoark]

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/35274458.html

"Occassionally, I would have to clean the razor of accumulated hair and miscellaneous slime......."

What the hell is miscellaneous slime? He should have tried a little Penicillin first.

[bobblehead]

A couple years back, on a site that no longer exists, there was a thread that I've just been reminded of. In just one of these flame wars, my hero bananaman made a post that said something to the effect of "we need a change in topic. New topic, ass hair!" (my apologies to the banana if this is a little off--I'm doing a years old post from memory.

Anyway, what ensued was the funniest damn thread I've ever read in my life.

For some reason, this thread reminded me of that. Just thought I'd share. Carry on.

Ass hair? Not something most people talk about but I can see where it could lead to some interesting discussion.

It was the only time I have ever called my ex into the room and told him he had to read a thread. He couldn't breathe. Nanaman, I salute you! Salud!

I don't think don hutson reads the RR, but if he does I would like him to start up the "last known whereabouts of bearsfan4ever" thread again. In all my years reading blogs, that was by far the funniest shit I ever read and it went on for about 15 pages (Old JS site). He started it shortly after we punked the bears on new years eve to round out our 8-8 season....bears fans who had been talking all kinda smack were nowhere to be seen.

[the_idle_threat]

A couple years back, on a site that no longer exists, there was a thread that I've just been reminded of. In just one of these flame wars, my hero bananaman made a post that said something to the effect of "we need a change in topic. New topic, ass hair!" (my apologies to the banana if this is a little off--I'm doing a years old post from memory.

Anyway, what ensued was the funniest damn thread I've ever read in my life.

For some reason, this thread reminded me of that. Just thought I'd share. Carry on.

Ass hair? Not something most people talk about but I can see where it could lead to some interesting discussion.

It was the only time I have ever called my ex into the room and told him he had to read a thread. He couldn't breathe. Nanaman, I salute you! Salud!

I don't think don hutson reads the RR, but if he does I would like him to start up the "last known whereabouts of bearsfan4ever" thread again. In all my years reading blogs, that was by far the funniest shit I ever read and it went on for about 15 pages (Old JS site). He started it shortly after we punked the bears on new years eve to round out our 8-8 season....bears fans who had been talking all kinda smack were nowhere to be seen.

Indeed that one was a classic.

[HowardRoark]

True about the VA. Although I have never used it, I've heard horror stories about it as the closest thing we have in this country to socialized medicine--along with the military and dependent health care system.

SPECIFICALLY, what do you see as bad about the current system, and what would you like to see that would improve it? I sincerely hope the answer doesn't turn out to be grabbing people's RIGHT to choose not to be insured and throwing it in the trash.

But, you are insured. Your insurance is funded by the taxpayer.

Specifically, the costs are going up at 2-3 times inflation in this country.

The key is to have the consumer make a consumer decision in healthcare. This is best accomplished via HSAs and high deductible policies.

Also, costs go higher because I have to absorb the costs of the people who choose, as you call it, to not be responsible. Someone has to pay for these people. It sounds as though you might be insulated from this issue because of your circumstance.

Lastly, we also have worldwide Socialism in medicine. Medical devices and medicines are priced cheaper by the companies in other countries because they know that the middle-upper class citizens of the U.S. will bear the costs. This has to change too.

Specifically, I would ask you, what should we do with the people in this country who need medical attention who either choose to be uninsured, or are simply not insured?

Save your fingers howie, Scroll back about 6 weeks before you got the the forum and read my healthcare thread. I spent countless posts and paragraphs DETAILING what you just said in this post and some people still don't get it. I got into detail about how medicare in 1967 and HMO bills in the 70's took competition and choice out of the market and we have been getting worse every since. Some people aren't capable of getting it, some choose not to because baiting is more fun. In any event people like us are a dying breed.

Thanks bobblehead. I was unaware that this subject has already been beaten to death. The way Ty was responding, I would have thought it was brand new territory.

As I am new here, I don’t know the history of the characters and threads that well. It would be interesting to hear how you guys would describe each other; somewhat of a Playbill for the characters in this little PackerRats drama.

I am familiar with a few people here from my days on the Marquette threads over at JSOnline…..Otown/Ty, Ayn, Tex. I wonder if Sidney Lanier is here. That guy was Left of Karl Marx, but a pleasure to debate.

I will respond to both Tex and Ty, as they both are asking the same thing…….what is the ANSWER to why I think Education and Healthcare should be improved, and to what degree the Gov’t should be involved.

I always start with the premise that the more competition, the better the product. All you have to do is look at the Petri Dish of Germany after World War II. Cousins, fathers, sons, etc on different sides of the border; look what they came up with as far as automobiles:

http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/100-greatest/03-large/110-trabant.jpg

http://www.bmw48.com/bmw/auto.jpg

And this is just one of many examples. Competition/Capitalism works. So, for Tex, I firmly believe that the cost of both Healthcare and Education can come down, while the quality of the product can go up. As far as education, you claim it works great. What about the “least of these” in our society? I would argue that those in the lowest Socio-Economic groups in our country are not raving about public/government education. I think we can do better, and breaking up the monopolies will expedite this process.

As for Otown, when should the Gov’t step in?…….that is a good question. In fact, Harlan brought up a good point the other day when he mentioned that maybe there would be NO schools in bad neighborhoods, what then? I guess I think that in certain sectors of humankind, we need some kind of oversight. In my other thread, I was asking a legitimate question about the banking industry, and to what degree it is for the “greater good” to not let it fail.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The way ty was responding...lol. I asked one simple question.

And, i have repeatedly said go back and look.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, it looks like Bobblehead and to a lesser extent, Howard, are trying to paint us as allies in the health care and education realm. Is that as disgusting a thought to you as it is to me?

You may very well be a socialist at heart. At very least, I assume you subscribe to the concept that government is a solver of problems instead of an obstructor of solutions.

I am a true believer in the wonders of the free enterprise capitalist system. In its purest form, however, the form Bobblehead and Howard so fervently support, there are always going to be a portion of the population that fail in the system--maybe because of luck, maybe because of lack of competence, maybe because of laziness or otherwise bad attitude. In the purest form of the system, the only solution to the inevitable suffering of these failures is charity--feel free to correct me on that point if I have overlooked something, B & H. Some would say that suffering is generally deserved, and should be left to social Darwinism if charity falls short of solving it. If that is NOT your position, B & H, please say so, as it is what I get from reading your posts.

I simply believe it is wrong for even the failures in the system who may deserve to suffer to be social Darwinistically ignored. There is a huge chasm of difference between nanny-state cradle to grave social programs which the liberals dream of, and a very limited degree of government--referred to by Ronald Reagan as a safety net.

I further believe that the current situation in both health care and education is at very least, adequate. In fact, virtually no one is left behind in the health care realm, and that goal is being achieved with an absolute minimum of loss of freedom/choice.

There are two kinds of government intervention: spending--which, yes, does bring with it some degree of government influence, and regulation--which is a direct exertion of government influence, resulting in clear loss of freedom/choice. To me, it's obvious which of these is the more deleterious and the more contrary to conservative, and indeed, American principles.

Yet you guys advocate blatantly having the government stick its nose in our business, grabbing our freedom to choose not to pay for health insurance, and toss it in the trash. THAT is government regulation! How can you possibly condone it?

What I advocate--and basically what we see in place today--is not even direct government spending. It is a miniscule step beyond mere charity. It is merely allowing prices to rise a small and manageable amount WITHIN the free enterprise system to accomodate a bit of compassion for the undeserving poor. How do you perceive that as wrong? I'd really like to know. The expense can be looked at as a cost of preserving freedom and normalcy--similar to writing off bad debts or shoplifting expense. If that expense ever rises to a level that is not manageable and tolerable, then and only then will some kind of tough choice need to be made within the free enterprise system--that's a fancy way of saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I guess I didn't even address education. IMO, the same "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" idea applies there too. Also, I see that as a lot less important than health care.

[bobblehead]

We are just killing time talking about SOLUTIONS. What the fuck is your solution. I spelled mine out, much to the chagrin of Tex.



Nope, howard is not in agreement with you. Tex, we agree on certain things and we disagree on certain things, but I think we both agree that gov't is incredibly inefficient if they are left in charge of it all.

[HowardRoark]

The way ty was responding...lol. I asked one simple question.

And, i have repeatedly said go back and look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2ZixoCCWI

[bobblehead]

This was the first post on my healthcare thread and just like I said, it says it all.

This author says it better than I can: (though long)
============================================

Blame Congress for HMOs
by Twila Brase
Published in Ideas on Liberty
by the Foundation for Economic Education
February 2001





Only 27 years ago, congressional Republicans and Democrats agreed that American patients should gently but firmly be forced into managed care. That patients do not know this fact is evidenced by public outrage directed at health maintenance organizations (HMOs) instead of Congress.

Although members of Congress have managed to keep the public in the dark by joining in the clamor against HMOs, legislative history puts the responsibility and blame squarely in their collective lap.

The proliferation of managed-care organizations (MCOs) in general, and HMOs in particular, resulted from the 1965 enactment of Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. Literally overnight, on July 1, 1966, millions of Americans lost all financial responsibility for their health-care decisions.

Offering "free care" led to predictable results. Because Congress placed no restrictions on benefits and removed all sense of cost-consciousness, health-care use and medical costs skyrocketed. Congressional testimony reveals that between 1965 and 1971, physician fees increased 7 percent and hospital charges jumped 13 percent, while the Consumer Price Index rose only 5.3 percent. The nation's health-care bill, which was only $39 billion in 1965, increased to $75 billion in 1971.1 Patients had found the fount of unlimited care, and doctors and hospitals had discovered a pot of gold.

This stampede to the doctor's office, through the U.S. Treasury, sent Congress into a panic. It had unlocked the health-care appetite of millions, and the results were disastrous. While fiscal prudence demanded a hasty retreat, Congress opted instead for deception.

Limited by a noninterference promise attached to Medicare law--enacted in response to concerns that government health care would permit rationing--Congress and federal officials had to be creative. Although Medicare officials could not deny services outright, they could shift financial risk to doctors and hospitals, thereby influencing decision-making at the bedside.

Beginning in 1971, Congress began to restrict reimbursements. They authorized the economic stabilization program to limit price increases; the Relative Value Resource Based System (RVRBS) to cut physician payments; Diagnostic-Related Groups (DRGs) to limit hospitals payments; and most recently, the Prospective Payment System (PPS) to offer fixed prepayments to hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies for anticipated services regardless of costs incurred. In effect, Congress initiated managed care.

National Health-Care Agenda Advances
Advocates of universal coverage saw this financial crisis as an opportunity to advance national health care through the fledgling HMO. Legislation encouraging members of the public to enter HMOs, where individual control over health-care decisions was weakened, would likely make the transition to a national health-care system, where control is centralized at the federal level, less noticeable and less traumatic. By 1971, the administration had authorized $8.4 million for policy studies to examine alternative health insurance plans for designing a "national health insurance plan."2

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of national health care, proceeded to hold three months of extensive hearings in 1971 on what was termed the "Health Care Crisis in America." Following those hearings, he held a series of hearings "on the whole question of HMO's."

Introducing the HMO hearings, Kennedy said,"We need legislation which reorganizes the system to guarantee a sufficient volume of high quality medical care, distributed equitably across the country and available at reasonable cost to every American. It is going to take a drastic overhaul of our entire way of doing business in the health-care field in order to solve the financing and organizational aspects of our health crisis. One aspect of that solution is the creation of comprehensive systems of health-care delivery."3

In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon heralded his desire for the HMO in a speech to Congress: "the Health Maintenance Organization concept is such a central feature of my National Health Strategy."4 The administration had already authorized,without specific legislative authority, $26 million for 110 HMO projects.5 That same year, the U.S. Senate passed a $5.2 billion bill permitting the establishment of HMOs "to improve the nation's health-care delivery system by encouraging prepaid comprehensive health-care programs."6

But when the House of Representatives refused to concur, it was left to the 93rd Congress to pass the HMO Act in 1973. Just before a voice vote passed the bill in the House, U.S. Representative Harley O. Staggers, Sr., of West Virginia said,"I rise in support of the conference report which will stimulate development of health maintenance organizations. . . . I think that this new system will be successful and give us exciting and constructive alternatives to our existing programs of delivering better health services to Americans."7

In the Senate, Kennedy, author of the HMO Act, also encouraged its passage: "I have strongly advocated passage of legislation to assist the development of health maintenance organizations as a viable and competitive alternative to fee-for-service practice. . . . This bill represents the first initiative by the Federal Government which attempts to come to grips directly with the problems of fragmentation and disorganization in the health care industry. . . . I believe that the HMO is the best idea put forth so far for containing costs and improving the organization and the delivery of health-care services."8 In a roll call vote, only Senator Herman Talmadge voted against the bill.

On December 29, 1973, President Nixon signed the HMO Act of 1973 into law.

As patients have since discovered,the HMO--staffed by physicians employed by and beholden to corporations--was not much of a Christmas present or an insurance product. It promises coverage but often denies access. The HMO, like other prepaid MCOs, requires enrollees to pay in advance for a long list of routine and major medical benefits, whether the health-care services are needed, wanted, or ever used. The HMOs are then allowed to manage care--withhold access to dollars and service--through definitions of medical necessity, restrictive drug formularies, and HMO-approved clinical guidelines. As a result, HMOs can keep millions of dollars from premium-paying patients.

HMO Barriers Eliminated
Congress's plan to save its members' political skins and national agendas relied on employer-sponsored coverage and taxpayer subsidies to HMOs. The planners' long-range goal was to place Medicare and Medicaid recipients into managed care where HMO managers, instead of Congress, could ration care and the government's financial liability could be limited through capitation (a fixed payment per enrollee per month regardless of the expense incurred by the HMO).

To accomplish this goal, public officials had to ensure that HMOs developed the size and stability necessary to take on the financial risks of capitated government health-care programs. This required that HMOs capture a significant portion of the private insurance market. Once Medicare and Medicaid recipients began to enroll in HMOs, the organizations would have the flexibility to pool their resources, redistribute private premium dollars, and ration care across their patient populations.

Using the HMO Act of 1973, Congress eliminated three major barriers to HMO growth, as clarified by U.S. Representative Claude Pepper of Florida: "First, HMO's are expensive to start; second, restrictive State laws often make the operation of HMO's illegal; and, third, HMO's cannot compete effectively in employer health benefit plans with existing private insurance programs. The third factor occurs because HMO premiums are often greater than those for an insurance plan." 9

To bring the privately insured into HMOs, Congress forced employers with 25 or more employees to offer HMOs as an option--a law that remained in effect until 1995. Congress then provided a total of $375 million in federal subsidies to fund planning and start-up expenses, and to lower the cost of HMO premiums. This allowed HMOs to undercut the premium prices of their insurance competitors and gain significant market share.

In addition, the federal law pre-empted state laws, that prohibited physicians from receiving payments for not providing care. In other words, payments to physicians by HMOs for certain behavior (fewer admissions to hospitals, rationing care, prescribing cheaper medicines) were now legal.

The combined strategy of subsidies, federal power, and new legal requirements worked like a charm. Employees searching for the lowest priced comprehensive insurance policy flowed into HMOs, bringing their dollars with them. According to the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA), the percentage of working Americans with private insurance enrolled in managed care rose from 29 percent in 1988 to over 50 percent in 1997. In 1999, 181.4 million people were enrolled in managed-care plans.

Once HMOs were filled with the privately insured, Congress moved to add the publicly subsidized. Medicaid Section 1115 waivers allowed states to herd Medicaid recipients into HMOs, and Medicare+Choice was offered to the elderly. By June 1998, over 53 percent of Medicaid recipients were enrolled in managed-care plans, according to HRSA. In addition, about 15 percent of the 39 million Medicare recipients were in HMOs in 2000.10

HMOs Serve Public-Health Agenda
Despite the public outcry against HMOs, federal support for managed care has not waned. In August 1998, HRSA announced the creation of a Center for Managed Care to provide "leadership, coordination, and advancement of managed care systems . . . [and to] develop working relationships with the private managed care industry to assure mutual areas of cooperation."11

The move to managed care has been strongly supported by public-health officials who anticipate that public-private partnerships will provide funding for public-health infrastructure and initiatives, along with access to the medical records of private patients.12 The fact that health care is now organized in large groups by companies that hold millions of patient records and control literally hundreds of millions of health-care dollars has allowed unprecedented relationships to form between governments and health plans.

For example, Minnesota's HMOs, MCOs, and nonprofit insurers are required by law to fund public-health initiatives approved by the Minnesota Department of Health, the state regulator for managed care plans. The Blue Cross-Blue Shield tobacco lawsuit, which brought billions of dollars into state and health-plan coffers, is just one example of the you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours initiatives. Yet this hidden tax, which further limits funds available for medical care, remains virtually unknown to enrollees.

Federal officials, eager to keep HMOs in business, have even been willing to violate federal law. In August 1998, a federal court chided the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for renewing HMO contracts that violate their own Medicare regulations.13

The Ruse of Patient Protection
Truth be told, HMOs allowed politicians to promise access to comprehensive health-care services without actually delivering them. Because treatment decisions could not be linked directly to Congress, HMOs provided the perfect cover for its plans to contain costs nationwide through health-care rationing. Now that citizens are angry with managed (rationed) care, the responsible parties in Congress, Senator Kennedy in particular, return with legislation ostensibly to protect patients from the HMOs they instituted.

At worst, such offers are an obfuscation designed to entrench federal control over health care through the HMOs. At best, they are deceptive placation. Congress has no desire to eliminate managed care, and federal regulation of HMOs and other managed-care corporations will not protect patients from rationing. Even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in its June 12, 2000, Pegram v. Herdrich decision that to survive financially as Congress intended, HMOs must give physicians incentives to ration treatment.

Real patient protection flows from patient control. Only when patients hold health-care dollars in their own hands will they experience the protection and power inherent in purchasing their own insurance policies, making cost-conscious health-care decisions, and inciting cost-reducing competition for their cash.
What could be so bad about that? A lot, it seems. Public officials worry privately that patients with power may not choose managed-care plans, eventually destabilizing the HMOs Congress is so dependent on for cost containment and national health-care initiatives. Witness congressional constraints on individually owned, tax-free medical savings accounts and the reluctance to break up employer-sponsored coverage by providing federal tax breaks to individuals. Unless citizens wise up to Congress's unabashed but unadvertised support for managed care, it appears unlikely that real patient power will rise readily to the top of its agenda.


1. John D. Twiname, Administrator, Office of Health, Cost of Living Council, testimony before the House Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment, Hospital Cost Controls, December 19, 1973, p. 3.

2. "OEO Transfer for Policy Research," a document included in the U.S. House of Representatives hearing on Oversight of HEW Health Programs, Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, March 1, 1973, p. 20.

3. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), "Physicians Training Facilities and Health Maintenance Organizations," hearing, U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. p. 2.

4. President Richard M. Nixon, "Health Care: Requests for Action on Three Programs," March 2, 1972, message to Congress on health care, Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1972 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Books, 1972), p. 43A.

5. U.S. Representative Harley O. Staggers, Sr. (W.Va.), speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressional Record, September 12, 1973, p. 29354.

6. "Senate Passes Health Maintenance Organization Bill," Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1972, p. 769.

7. Representative Harley O. Staggers, Sr., speech on floor of the U.S. House of Representatives Congressional Record, December 18, 1973, p. 42229.

8. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record, December 19, 1973, p. 42505.

9. Representative Claude Pepper (Fla.), speech on floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressional Record, September 12, 1973, p. 29353.

10. Laure McGinley and Ron Winslow, "Major HMOs to Quit Medicare Markets," Wall Street Journal, June 30, 2000.

11. The Federal Register, August 26, 1998.

12. "Public Health and Managed Care: Data Sharing for Common Goals," National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Chronic Disease Notes & Reports, Spring/Summer 1997.

13. "Medicare patients have right to appeal HMO refusals, court says," New York Times, August 14, 1998.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Twila Brase, R.N., a public health nurse, is president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care in St. Paul, Minnesota.

© Foundation for Economic Education

[texaspackerbacker]

I wouldn't "blame" anybody for HMOs. They are a viable and much cheaper alternative to other forms of health insurance.

For nearly 20 years now, my wife has been in an HMO--and she is a borderline hypochondriac--making generous use of the services. For most of those years, she had family coverage--all the kids and me being covered, although I practically never made use of it. As I have said, the past couple of years when the kids grew up, she got off the family plan.

Anyway, the current rate for coverage is $36 every two weeks for her as an individual. Family coverage would be $97 every two weeks. Yes, this is through her employer, but even the non-affiliated rate through this HMO is only right around twice those rates. So I can tell you first hand, no alternative to the high cost of health coverage is a myth.

What was the supposed negative side of HMOs? I don't recall.

Oh yeah, a word about prescription coverage. I take two blood pressure medications--maybe my only concession to old age. I pay exactly $5 a month for each to HEB, our local grocery chain, through its pharmacy plan. I could go across the street and pay only $4 each at WalMart, but their pharmacy is a little bit busier. That is not copay. That is the cost without insurance. Also, they have no annual fee.

I repeat, the system ain't broke; Don't fix it with any of the idiocy that is being suggested from either side.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead, I was a little bit disappointed with the brevity of your response to my long post above about how to deal with the concept of failures in the free enterprise system--health care and just in general.

The key question is, do you show compassion or just let 'em suffer? The secondary question is if there is government activity at all, which do you hate the worst, regulation or spending? My obvious answer is regulation. I absolutely despise authority of any kind, especially government, telling what I can and can't do. Spending without tax increases at worst only brings inflation, and only that if you don't believe in Keynesian Economics. Yet you guys seem so open to REGULATION forcing good normal Americans to pay for health insurance.

[mraynrand]

Bobble,

I've read that post on the HMOs before ad it illustrates the way government involvement typically is a disaster. It's insidious because people clamor for government involvement even when it is demonstrably against their best interests. Unfortunately, most people base their decisions on false information and propaganda. Like the current health care debate. Most people who are in favor of governmental interference in health care are people who are paying extremely high premiums for health care relative to their salary or wage income, or people without care who think that they can't get care without government take over. The truth is that care is available right now to everyone who wants it. For example, ALL CHILDREN are covered already. If you show up, uninsured, with a child who needs treatment, they will be enrolled. Most adults who show up for treatment also are eligible for some type of plan. Most hospitals (county hospitals who receive most of the uninsured) have an economic 'triage' system. So if you show up uninsured, they will get information from you regarding your status - are you employed, what do you earn, etc. It's extremely rare to find someone who doesn't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid but then doesn't make enough money to pay simple out of pocket expenses for most treatments. as far as the ER goes, many hospitals have triage nurses/administrators that are now checking incoming patients for true emergencies versus typical office visit stuff and rescheduling them to come back later.

So the irony is that of the 45 million uninsured, almost all U.S. citizens either can afford insurance, qualify for some existing program, or can afford to pay out of pocket. The largest (by far) uninsured group in the U.S. happens to be illegal aliens - those that can't pay are not eligible for existing programs. So when Barry talks about expanding government assistance to the uninsured, he's basically talking about coverage for illegals - no questions asked.

It's clear that government interference is a disaster - When you subsidize something, the costs always go up, and the quality always drops. I'm all for the safety net for those who truly cannot pay (even illegals who come in sick or injured), but the system cannot continue to tolerate an approach that promotes the idea that health care should be 'free' for all. I don't know the the exact pathway for a long term solution, but I do know that allowing the government more and more control - through increased regulation and through being a third party payer for more and more people, will only lead to a worsening of the system. The system as it is sucks mostly because of government. What Barry is promoting will lead to health care rationing and it will lead to the government deciding who gets care and who doesn't. If that's what you want, vote for Barry.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The way ty was responding...lol. I asked one simple question.

And, i have repeatedly said go back and look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2ZixoCCWI

Still waiting for your answer regarding eduction.

Are you going to be in favor of bailing out education companies if they fail?

And, are there any huge/critical companies/banks/etc...that repubs won't bail out..and therefore influence the free market?

[bobblehead]

I wouldn't "blame" anybody for HMOs. They are a viable and much cheaper alternative to other forms of health insurance.

For nearly 20 years now, my wife has been in an HMO--and she is a borderline hypochondriac--making generous use of the services. For most of those years, she had family coverage--all the kids and me being covered, although I practically never made use of it. As I have said, the past couple of years when the kids grew up, she got off the family plan.

Anyway, the current rate for coverage is $36 every two weeks for her as an individual. Family coverage would be $97 every two weeks. Yes, this is through her employer, but even the non-affiliated rate through this HMO is only right around twice those rates. So I can tell you first hand, no alternative to the high cost of health coverage is a myth.

What was the supposed negative side of HMOs? I don't recall.

Oh yeah, a word about prescription coverage. I take two blood pressure medications--maybe my only concession to old age. I pay exactly $5 a month for each to HEB, our local grocery chain, through its pharmacy plan. I could go across the street and pay only $4 each at WalMart, but their pharmacy is a little bit busier. That is not copay. That is the cost without insurance. Also, they have no annual fee.

I repeat, the system ain't broke; Don't fix it with any of the idiocy that is being suggested from either side.

I'll try to splain it best I can. I have always said that gov't has a role in regulation, infrastructure and picking up where capitalism has no incentive to create (more or less my stance).

My main gripes are that once gov't gets involved they tend to screw up worse than what they are trying to fix and I outlined that by pointing out that their "cures" for the healthcare system general.

you ask if I have compassion....yes, that is why I want to help make the system better, cheaper and even more accessible. As it stands doctors work for HMO's and that isn't healthy. People should be making the calls and paying out of HSA's. There is the little problem of pre-existing conditions as well. Some people are tied to their jobs because they can't get insurance elsewhere. Insurance companies can also drop you when it looks like you are going to cost them too much. These are all problems, but they are problems the market can solve long term.

What I would like to see is health insurance companies that are co-ops much like a credit union. I would like a system that actually punishes someone who could have an HSA and a disastor policy but chooses not to, then runs up huge bills passed on to the public.

Compassion to me has nothing to do with handing out benefits with no accountability on the backs of the working public. You either can require people to get a plan if its available with real consequences or you get no right to complain about people who suffer due to not having coverage.

Do I think you are right...no, but I do think you are consistent in your views and at least back them up.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead, my point is: compassion enters into it when the system breaks down and you only have bad choices. And to me, at least, letting Americans do without when we can easily afford otherwise is unacceptable--even if the poor are shitheads who deserve to suffer--as many are.

As for HMOs, do you somehow see them as NOT examples of free enterprise/capitalism? They are profit-making organizations, delivering a service at a more competitive price. What could be more capitalist than that?

And you don't think doctors "should" work for them? Using the word "should" implies some regulation or force should prevent it. You don't like the ideas of the doctors having a CHOICE? Nothing is forcing those who work for HMOs to do so except maybe market forces. There certainly are many who choose not to.

You talk about lower cost and more accessibility, well, that's what HMOs are all about--much lower cost and at least as much accessibility. And the two HMOs I am familiar with at least, are big enough that there is very large degree of choice of doctor, etc. Likewise, there is at least no more of a problem over pre-existing conditions with HMOs than with traditional companies.

Your idea of health insurnance co-ops actually sounds very much like HMOs--loosely affiliated groups getting together to get better rates.

As for punishing those of us who choose not to pay for insurance and then have a catastrophic condition, what would you suggest, the death penalty, maybe--no treatment? Maybe putting an involuntary lien against their property? That might work, although I, personally, would be against it, as I have this nasty little empathy for those who beat the system--I'm so ashamed about that .....

[bobblehead]

Bobblehead, my point is: compassion enters into it when the system breaks down and you only have bad choices. And to me, at least, letting Americans do without when we can easily afford otherwise is unacceptable--even if the poor are shitheads who deserve to suffer--as many are.

As for HMOs, do you somehow see them as NOT examples of free enterprise/capitalism? They are profit-making organizations, delivering a service at a more competitive price. What could be more capitalist than that?

And you don't think doctors "should" work for them? Using the word "should" implies some regulation or force should prevent it. You don't like the ideas of the doctors having a CHOICE? Nothing is forcing those who work for HMOs to do so except maybe market forces. There certainly are many who choose not to.

You talk about lower cost and more accessibility, well, that's what HMOs are all about--much lower cost and at least as much accessibility. And the two HMOs I am familiar with at least, are big enough that there is very large degree of choice of doctor, etc. Likewise, there is at least no more of a problem over pre-existing conditions with HMOs than with traditional companies.

Your idea of health insurnance co-ops actually sounds very much like HMOs--loosely affiliated groups getting together to get better rates.

As for punishing those of us who choose not to pay for insurance and then have a catastrophic condition, what would you suggest, the death penalty, maybe--no treatment? Maybe putting an involuntary lien against their property? That might work, although I, personally, would be against it, as I have this nasty little empathy for those who beat the system--I'm so ashamed about that .....
First off I reject that we can afford otherwise. We have a standing shortfall of 50+ TRILLION dollars on the gov't books if they did accounting like you and I do. So can we afford it...NO.

HMO's certainly are NOT a case of free market. Read the nice long post above that I copied. HMO's are a gov't creation subsidized heavily to get a foothold and basically dominate healthcare resources in a way that is not free market at all. I only wish I could have the money my employer pays to my PPO to fund a HSA and buy a disastor policy that was legally restricted from dropping me when I actually cost them money.

I think those that game the system by not buying into a plan they can afford and then getting a big illness should be forced to surrender their assets. In other words PAY YOUR FUCKING BILLS. You gambled, you lost, tough break.

I think doctors should work for a hospital, or for themselves. Working for the company that decides what to pay is a conflict of interest. You go in with a torn ligament, the first thing you generally get from an HMO doctor is Motrin. Followed by "rest and ice" and sometime down the road if you are still insured and still complaining you might get an MRI. But they will stall you first hoping you go away. With an HSA you could shop around for a competitive price to get an MRI right away...no referal needed. Also said radiaologist would be free to compete openly and not be slaves of the HMO as well. If you want to open your own radiology center as it stands right now you better be in with the HMO's first because you have no chance of getting business without them...again, they control the resources atm, not you and not I. I want all kinds of competition driving down costs, improving service ect, ect.

This is NOT free market at work...it is gov't engineered socialist medical system dominated by a few HMO's that gov't put in place by giving them a competitive edge to gain market share. Now that they have said edge, the laws are set up to keep them there and squash competition.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead, my point is: compassion enters into it when the system breaks down and you only have bad choices. And to me, at least, letting Americans do without when we can easily afford otherwise is unacceptable--even if the poor are shitheads who deserve to suffer--as many are.

As for HMOs, do you somehow see them as NOT examples of free enterprise/capitalism? They are profit-making organizations, delivering a service at a more competitive price. What could be more capitalist than that?

And you don't think doctors "should" work for them? Using the word "should" implies some regulation or force should prevent it. You don't like the ideas of the doctors having a CHOICE? Nothing is forcing those who work for HMOs to do so except maybe market forces. There certainly are many who choose not to.

You talk about lower cost and more accessibility, well, that's what HMOs are all about--much lower cost and at least as much accessibility. And the two HMOs I am familiar with at least, are big enough that there is very large degree of choice of doctor, etc. Likewise, there is at least no more of a problem over pre-existing conditions with HMOs than with traditional companies.

Your idea of health insurnance co-ops actually sounds very much like HMOs--loosely affiliated groups getting together to get better rates.

As for punishing those of us who choose not to pay for insurance and then have a catastrophic condition, what would you suggest, the death penalty, maybe--no treatment? Maybe putting an involuntary lien against their property? That might work, although I, personally, would be against it, as I have this nasty little empathy for those who beat the system--I'm so ashamed about that .....
First off I reject that we can afford otherwise. We have a standing shortfall of 50+ TRILLION dollars on the gov't books if they did accounting like you and I do. So can we afford it...NO.

HMO's certainly are NOT a case of free market. Read the nice long post above that I copied. HMO's are a gov't creation subsidized heavily to get a foothold and basically dominate healthcare resources in a way that is not free market at all. I only wish I could have the money my employer pays to my PPO to fund a HSA and buy a disastor policy that was legally restricted from dropping me when I actually cost them money.

I think those that game the system by not buying into a plan they can afford and then getting a big illness should be forced to surrender their assets. In other words PAY YOUR FUCKING BILLS. You gambled, you lost, tough break.

I think doctors should work for a hospital, or for themselves. Working for the company that decides what to pay is a conflict of interest. You go in with a torn ligament, the first thing you generally get from an HMO doctor is Motrin. Followed by "rest and ice" and sometime down the road if you are still insured and still complaining you might get an MRI. But they will stall you first hoping you go away. With an HSA you could shop around for a competitive price to get an MRI right away...no referal needed. Also said radiaologist would be free to compete openly and not be slaves of the HMO as well. If you want to open your own radiology center as it stands right now you better be in with the HMO's first because you have no chance of getting business without them...again, they control the resources atm, not you and not I. I want all kinds of competition driving down costs, improving service ect, ect.

This is NOT free market at work...it is gov't engineered socialist medical system dominated by a few HMO's that gov't put in place by giving them a competitive edge to gain market share. Now that they have said edge, the laws are set up to keep them there and squash competition.

From your own words--"if they did accounting like you and I do ...". The government does NOT do accounting like you and I do (I may not even do accounting like you do). The government does accounting like we would if we had the ability to print our own money--basically in as big a quantity as we want. The $9 trillion or whatever national debt and this fantasy of a $50 trillion unfunded liability or whatever you want to call it, both of those figures are totally irrelevant. All the government has to do is keep the float going i.e. print more money, and everything is fine as long as growth outstrips growth of debt. There has been no significant inflation, and there will be no significant inflation. The doom and gloomers can worry themselves into early graves all they want, but the bad things they/you foresee just haven't happened and won't happen.

I say again, a profit making business that carves its niche by offering an adequate product or service at a substantially lower price is exactly what free enterprise capitalism is all about. If part of that profit-making capability involves receiving subsidies from the government, then fine, so be it. Next thing you're gonna be saying farmers, truckers, airlines, and a whole host of other American institutions are examples of socialism too, because they survive and thrive exactly the same way.

The bottom line is that the system is infinitely better for good normal Americans i.e. good normal health care consumers now than before there were HMOs and costs were so much higher.

As for your torn ligament example, no, that is not accurate at all. While I have been extremely healthy, my wife hasn't been quite so lucky. I'm not quite sure where the line is between her real and imagined maladies, but there has NEVER been any problem with her getting the tests and treatment needed through the HMO--actually more than I would have considered necessary.

BTW, how do you define "a few" HMOs? It seems like quite a few to me. Arguably, the larger they are, the more choice an individual has, given the fact that there is so much freedom and ability to pick and choose doctors--with the HMO--and get second opinions, etc.

[bobblehead]

tex, if you print money, you devalue the dollar....that is an indirect tax on savings. That is a fact, even you can't dispute it.

As for transfer of wealth...they don't pay for themselves, only infrastructure does. If we start every disagreement from the standpoint that gov't can print or borrow as much as it desires to spend with no consequences you are in the wrong party. You are a hawk democrat, vote for lieberman.

[texaspackerbacker]

tex, if you print money, you devalue the dollar....that is an indirect tax on savings. That is a fact, even you can't dispute it.

As for transfer of wealth...they don't pay for themselves, only infrastructure does. If we start every disagreement from the standpoint that gov't can print or borrow as much as it desires to spend with no consequences you are in the wrong party. You are a hawk democrat, vote for lieberman.

Then WHY has inflation NOT occurred to any significant degree with all the deficits, national debt, unfunded liability, etc. that concerns you so much?

The extreme fiscal conservatives are NOT the mainstream of either the Republican Party or the conservative movement, The arch-type conservative Republican himself, Ronald Reagan, was not an absolutist in that area. He cared far more for tax cuts and spending what needed to be spent--which aomunts to supply side economics--which amounts to Keynesian Economics.

You can go on and on about all the bad things that are supposed to happen due to deficits/debt, but the fact is, those things just haven't happened--not in the Reagan years and not in the George W. Bush years.

I can go on and on about Keynesian Economics, the multiplier, and the magnificence of tax cutting, and history DOES back up what I'm talking about. It has literally worked every time.

You can theorize doom and gloom all you want, but history says it hasn't happened, and history indicates it won't happen.

[bobblehead]

tex, if you print money, you devalue the dollar....that is an indirect tax on savings. That is a fact, even you can't dispute it.

As for transfer of wealth...they don't pay for themselves, only infrastructure does. If we start every disagreement from the standpoint that gov't can print or borrow as much as it desires to spend with no consequences you are in the wrong party. You are a hawk democrat, vote for lieberman.

Then WHY has inflation NOT occurred to any significant degree with all the deficits, national debt, unfunded liability, etc. that concerns you so much?

The extreme fiscal conservatives are NOT the mainstream of either the Republican Party or the conservative movement, The arch-type conservative Republican himself, Ronald Reagan, was not an absolutist in that area. He cared far more for tax cuts and spending what needed to be spent--which aomunts to supply side economics--which amounts to Keynesian Economics.

You can go on and on about all the bad things that are supposed to happen due to deficits/debt, but the fact is, those things just haven't happened--not in the Reagan years and not in the George W. Bush years.

I can go on and on about Keynesian Economics, the multiplier, and the magnificence of tax cutting, and history DOES back up what I'm talking about. It has literally worked every time.

You can theorize doom and gloom all you want, but history says it hasn't happened, and history indicates it won't happen.

where is the inflation?? Have you bought bananas lately...eggs...OIL...A HOUSE? Unemployment just hit 5.5%. In many states it is over 6%. Gold is over 1000/oz, that is a surefire sign of inflation and a deflated dollar. Housing has completely crashed and the lending markets are in complete turmoil. We haven't hit the worst yet.

Quite the contrary, history is on my side. Many indicators are similar to what they were shortly before the great depression. I'm not saying it is that bad, but it ain't good. IndyMac just collapsed, fannie and freddie are near collapse. Projects across america are stalling out because people can't get financed, and private investors are starting to hold onto GOLD, and invest in sturdy cash rich corporations...why do you think I recommended IBM on the financial thread.

Try being 30 years old, having saved for a house and all of a sudden prices are way up, but you can't get financed....nice. Certain tangible goods are WAY up in price, directly due to the devalued dollar. Wages however are somewhat stagnant and unemployment is up.

I hate to admit this, cuz the libs are too thick to have ever brought it up, but under clinton/GINGRICH we had 4% growth for something like 5 1/2 years, I don't think we have hit 4% ONCE under bush. How is that possible with all the money he printed/borrowed to inject into the economy which should have a multiplier effect? It is because BORROWING by the gov't takes money out of producers hands...unless they print more for the producers which devalues the dollar.

History has NOT backed you up on the multiplier, but as far as tax cuts increasing revenues to the treasury, yes, we agree. I also think bush is far from a horrible president, just not the best.

The reason that the "gloom and doom" hasn't happened yet is because it is still a little ways off. The 50+ trillion unfunded liabilities won't hit fully for about 20 years. Private sector innovation will cure some of the ills, gov't cutting what it promised will help too. (help the taxpayer, not those who were counting on those promises being kept). I'm not doom and gloom, I'm trying to raise awareness and educate people so we might actually start doing the right thing. So "conservatives" might start voting for fiscal conservatives.

Were you aware the NYSE is in very real danger of losing its title as financial capital of the world? London will probably overtake us as the hub of transaction within 5 years...not the prediction of "doom and gloomers" but the prediction of most of the financial experts in the world. Imagine a world where we have to go to london to raise capital for projects in the US....and the rest of the world that comes here atm, will have to go there. Imagine the lost jobs and tax revenues. Anyway I've already ranted longer than most peoples attention span so I'll cut it off here.

One thing I can pretty much assure you is that the extreme conservatives are the CORE of the republican party....you'll find that out quick when mccain gets a good ole fashioned texas whooping in November.

[texaspackerbacker]

Where to begin--there is a lot to respond to--misunderstandings in basic economics and misinterpretations of current events:

Some items going up does not constitute inflation. The inflation for the year ending April was 2.6%. For the past 3 months it has been an annual rate of 2.5%. That is NOT significant inflation.

5.5% unemployment is lower than at any time during the Clinton Administration.

Housing has absolutely NOT "completely crashed"--for somebody who seems to think of himself as a conservative, you sure do quote a lot of the alarmist bullshit put out by the libs. There is a mild crisis in California, Florida, and a few big cities--basically the places where the boom was the most extreme. Most of America has only been marginally affected if at all.

30 year olds having a hard time buying homes? Have you had your head in the sand the last few decades? People don't "save up to buy a house" anymore. They buy with little or no money down, and let the value appreciate, then sell for a nice profit. My daughter and son-in-law--both age 25--bought a house in Oklahoma City a little over a year ago--a nice brand new home--no money down and $217,000 price. They recently had to sell and move to Tampa because of a promotion for the husband. In the midst of this "crisis"--which has hardly hit Oklahoma City, they sold the house for $233,000--a small but decent from after commission and costs, even after such a short period of ownership. They now have bought an even nicer home in the suburbs of Tampa for a great bargain price--5% down this time, because of that horrible lending crisis you mentioned. Hopefully, in a few years when they sell, the market will have rebounded, and they will really clean up.

You, Bobblehead, of all people, with your social Darwinistic outlook on not bailing out the undeserving poor, should recognize that whenever you have a "crisis"--where some are losers, you also have an opportunity where others are winners.

The dollar is indeed down right now--not automatically an indicator of inflation, as long as growth outstrips the dollar decrease. Why is the dollar down? Primarily because the Bush Administration has allowed it to drop in order to deal with China's policy of artificially devaluing the Yuan in order to have a competitive trade advantage. Here too, there is opportunity. I'm in the process of taking out a mortgage on my little mango plantation in the Philippines while the dollar is low--then pay it back over the years in more valuable dollars. Nice how things work sometimes.

As for your growth comparison of the Clinton/Gingrich years compared to the Bush Administration, a minor little thing called 9/11 occurred--a body blow to the economy that under Gore or whoever, we simply would NOT have recovered from--the left would have RAISED taxes to pay for it. We have achieved the recovery and the decent, even if slightly less growth than the 90s BECAUSE of the tax cuts--and the Multiplier Effect. There also was a little thing called the War on Terror--including, but not limited to Iraq, some of which probably was injected into the economy and subject to the Multiplier, some not.

London surpassing NYC as the financial hub, if indeed it happens, is irrelevant--symbolic at worst. We are in a global economy, and have been for sometime. When we raise money, we go to wherever the investors are--Japan a decade or two ago, Arab oil profits, nowadays, maybe Europe or China. Yes, we just "print more money", but that money is backed by government debt instruments--some of which, at least, are sold overseas.

No problem, just business as usual.

And your much ballyhooed $50 trillion unfunded liability? It will just be extended and extended again--ad infinitum--more money printed, etc.

The only real dangers are tax increases which harm economic growth or significant terrorist disasters which Obama-esque Dem/libs well might allow--harming the economy even more than our magnificent system can recover from--not to mention killing huge numbers of Americans. Amazingly, the leftist media has lulled people into ignoring this horrendous threat and the credit that should be given to the administration that has thus far prevented it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think what we are seeing between bobble and Tex is the reason Obama will win the election. :lol:

[bobblehead]

Not everything you say is wrong, much is right, but what you see as no problem is indeed a problem. I agree, not everything has gone up in price, just some of the most important things like oil, food, and housing. Now housing is crashing, and I agree mostly lenders are hurt, but so has been everyone who has had to put life on hold for the last 3 years waiting for a correction. Also when the lenders are hurt, the economy and growth gets hurt.

You also make the mistake of thinking I'm blaming bush for all the problems, I'm actually just blaming him for not fixing any problems. The only big screw ups he has made are medicare part D and botching much of a simple war effort. (cutting federal programs just a tad might have been nice too) Oh yea, a fiscal policy that has devalued the dollar too.

I highly doubt I am misunderstanding basic economics, but I agree, one of us is. A big part of the reason oil is thru the roof is our devalued dollar. And again, you might not view that as a problem, but I don't like my savings being devalued against the world in this global economy. Higher oil and stagnant housing are also very damaging to the middle class.

My view of housing crashing is largely local, but so is yours. I live in one of the most affected areas, you live in one of the least. Beleive me its ugly when people want to sell and can't get an offer because the banks are taking a bath on a house just like yours....nice if your buying, not so much if you want to move. Banking stocks are crashing and banks are failing...no big deal. This was an unnecessary problem that I was screaming about when brokers were writing 80/20 zero down 3 year ARM loans, but if we had been talking then you probably would have said it was nothing to worry about and I'm being doom and gloom.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave
2008 4.28% 4.03% 3.98% 3.94% 4.18% 5.02% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2007 2.08% 2.42% 2.78% 2.57% 2.69% 2.69% 2.36% 1.97% 2.76% 3.54% 4.31% 4.08% 2.85%

These are inflation numbers...notice june '08 is over 5%?? Yea, I guess when I was warning you 2 months ago it was alarmist. this is called a trend. How about if I tell you they will hit 6% by the end of the year? My imagination...we shall see.

Finally, I'm not a socialist darwin, I believe it is more productive for society and the needy to create a job for them than it is to hand them money, deserving has nothing to do with my outlook and if you have read my posts for the past several months you would know that. I agree that their are opportunities for winners....I just reject that it was or is ever necessary to have losers if you follow good economic and fiscal policy. You almost sound like hoosier there....some people got richer while others got poorer. It never had to be that way, it could have been win/win.

As for the 50 trillion gettting extended again and again...true, except it is growing faster than the economy is. And when it comes time to pay up we can't extend it as unfunded...it has to be funded, that is why a LOT of companies went bankrupt in the past, unfunded pensions and healthplans. Yes, we can print/borrow our way out of it, but it creates another problem.

I truly hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear as though I am. things are heading in the wrong direction right now. In the past the feds forced mini recessions to keep the economy smooth. We need one right now, but because of many factors we can't afford to have the fed do it because a mini could turn big if it isn't handled just right.

[HowardRoark]

The way ty was responding...lol. I asked one simple question.

And, i have repeatedly said go back and look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2ZixoCCWI

Still waiting for your answer regarding eduction.

Are you going to be in favor of bailing out education companies if they fail?

And, are there any huge/critical companies/banks/etc...that repubs won't bail out..and therefore influence the free market?

One last time, I will answer both of your questions. I will type real slow this time, so that you can comprehend.

1. I, unlike you, am NOT omniscient. Therefore, I sometimes have to ask questions to search out answers.

2. I firmly believe that competition will ALWAYS improve a product, lower costs and give MORE choices to a consumer. Currently, there is not competition in both education and healthcare.

Here is where both you and Tex think there is no problem. The system works great. For Tex, it is because he is unaware of what is going on out there. He is insulated because he already is taken care of by the Federal Government. You think there is no problem because, well, I haven’t a clue; because you are an agitator.

Tex, there is a guy, “The Pack” who is a true Libertarian, who thinks that even group health policies are a crock of shit. He thinks that you should be able to buy into your own health risk tranche. Why should I have to pay a certain premium at work when I have good health? He argues that those with either pre-existing conditions or bad health should have to pay higher premiums. Why should I have to pay higher premiums in my employer sponsored healthcare in order to carry the people with poor health?

I disagree. It is a business model; a way to spread out risk. I am willing to get into a risk pool and pay a little more in order to hedge my health bet. I had a stroke/heart surgery at age 39. Out of the blue. Ran marathons, good shape, etc. So I understand risk.

But, it's a business model.

Sure we can limp along where we are in both education and healthcare, but I believe we can do a whole lot better.

Ty, as to your question as to who will backstop the system if it does not take care of the “least of these”, I guess I would defer to historical precedent. In fact it is more of the genesis of both healthcare AND education for the underprivileged. So, I would ask you…….who were the people who took care of and educated the poor kids prior to the Government getting their tentacles into these areas?

I know you can come up with the answer….I have confidence in you.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The way ty was responding...lol. I asked one simple question.

And, i have repeatedly said go back and look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2ZixoCCWI

Still waiting for your answer regarding eduction.

Are you going to be in favor of bailing out education companies if they fail?

And, are there any huge/critical companies/banks/etc...that repubs won't bail out..and therefore influence the free market?

One last time, I will answer both of your questions. I will type real slow this time, so that you can comprehend.

1. I, unlike you, am NOT omniscient. Therefore, I sometimes have to ask questions to search out answers.

2. I firmly believe that competition will ALWAYS improve a product, lower costs and give MORE choices to a consumer. Currently, there is not competition in both education and healthcare.

Here is where both you and Tex think there is no problem. The system works great. For Tex, it is because he is unaware of what is going on out there. He is insulated because he already is taken care of by the Federal Government. You think there is no problem because, well, I haven’t a clue; because you are an agitator.

Tex, there is a guy, “The Pack” who is a true Libertarian, who thinks that even group health policies are a crock of shit. He thinks that you should be able to buy into your own health risk tranche. Why should I have to pay a certain premium at work when I have good health? He argues that those with either pre-existing conditions or bad health should have to pay higher premiums. Why should I have to pay higher premiums in my employer sponsored healthcare in order to carry the people with poor health?

I disagree. It is a business model; a way to spread out risk. I am willing to get into a risk pool and pay a little more in order to hedge my health bet. I had a stroke/heart surgery at age 39. Out of the blue. Ran marathons, good shape, etc. So I understand risk.

But, it's a business model.

Sure we can limp along where we are in both education and healthcare, but I believe we can do a whole lot better.

Ty, as to your question as to who will backstop the system if it does not take care of the “least of these”, I guess I would defer to historical precedent. In fact it is more of the genesis of both healthcare AND education for the underprivileged. So, I would ask you…….who were the people who took care of and educated the poor kids prior to the Government getting their tentacles into these areas?

I know you can come up with the answer….I have confidence in you.

I have not addressed healthcare..as i already discussed this before. And, while i certainly think you are a bright guy, i highly doubt you listened to 18 years of healthcare discussion at the dinner table by 2 parents. I've been listening, arguing, examining this issue before you even were aware of it. And, i discuss it weekly with my brother. I could be wrong, but i doubt it.

1. NO competition? How so? Last i saw, there are tons of private schools, parochial schools, etc.

But, could you please tell me which countries educate their kids the best and detail the competition they have there?

I don't disagree about competition..to a degree, but i think many problems in education have little to do with that...non-heterogenous culture, poverty, culture, etc.

2. Tex and I? I never said there wasn't a problem. I just won't allow you to frame your debate that way...starting from that position. Please don't ever lump me in with Tex.

There are always problems...in EVERYTHING. Competition or not. There are tons of car manufacturers, yet there are still problems with cars...and specific manufacturers.

3. Risk...i agree. Unfortunately, there will never be a true healthcare system...because people arent' willing to "pay for service."

However, if you think our system got to be this way by accident you are living in a fool's paradise.

Let's review. By around 1915 or so there was a HUGE movement for National Health Care. What stopped it?

1. WW1...anti german sentiment...u.s. gov't denounced german social infrastructure. You know, this goes with the whole anti union, anti worker, pro biz attitude. Right or wrong...this is a fact.

2. Opponents (read those who make money off healthcare) claimed it was an anti american.

3. AMA. Threat to private practice

4. Stigmatized as gov't interferece or socialized med.

Back in the early to mid 1900s the gov't was faced with a choice...help people or help biz. They, thru the influence of biz (docs, hospitals, etc) (what a surprise) chose to fund/tax break/etc. business rather than individuals. this isn't speculation, this is fact.

Where is the competion to the AMA? When the AMA began consolidating its power...it frowned on employment by hospitals and insurance companies. So, doctoring went from a trade and one that wasn't a big money profession into one that encouraged private entrepreneurship and independence from corp control.

I dont' see that as being good for healthcare.

As for hospitals..again, it is far from the free market. Hospital plans and Blue cross were started because of economic instability due to the great depression.

Around 1930 or so..the first insurance plan was started and become the model for Blue Cross. And, the AHA LOVED IT. Supported group hospital plans and coordinated them into a national network.

So, if you are truly for the free market..then should hospitals compete? Should we let them fail? And, how do feel knowing that hospitals and the AHA were expressly in favor of group coverage?

As for insurance...again, this is something, like pensions, that the right likes to forget how they started. Private insurance (employer) was started as a way to help EMPLOYERS because they didnt' want to give RAISES. Ooops. :oops:

Congress made this bennie non taxable..so, it was a win..equivalent of more salary without being taxed.

Now, we do have the best system when it comes to cutting edge services and drugs, etc. But, we are far from a great system when it comes to basic services, etc.

4. The past. Healthcare.Well, you always had some relief orgs...but, many slipped thru the cracks.

but, you can't look at medicine without noting the change. Preindustrial it was more a trade and less science. My god, until around 1880, docs were a 2 year degree and apprenticeship with another doc.

It wasn't prestigious, didn't require rigorous study, clinical practice, boards, res, etc. ANYONE UNTRAINED OR TRAINED COULD PRACTICE.

the clergy often combined med and religious services and many docs had a second job.

There were few hospitals..they were only in cities.

So, who really took care of the poor. Um, there were ALMSHOUSES (poor house)...and WAIT FOR It....WAIT FOR IT...who paid for them....GOVERNMENT. Ooops. :oops:

As for education...some guy named jefferson wanted public education. But, till around 1840..education was for the weatlhy..so, the poor didnt' get educated...they WORKED.

Why education for all? Common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. By around 1920 or so, all states had adopted pub education for elementary school. Except the caths opposed it..so, they created their own schools.