How wealth is created...

[Cy]

So, I have an idea in my head...

That idea could potentially (a) improve the quality of life for many people, (b) provide thousands of jobs for people, and (c) increase the wealth of our country.

Now, for me to give up my current, safe occupation to pursue this idea will be a risk. Risk costs. I must have some promise that the wealth generated by my idea will more than compensate for the loss of my current, safe occupation.

Profit is thus the cost of my risk.

Now, when the government imposes taxes on those profits, under the demogogic claim that I am "the rich who has not paid my fair share," all that does is tell me, "The risk is no longer worth it." I do not pursue my idea. Quality of life is not improved. Jobs are not created.

But here's the thing...

No one knows it. If an idea falls in the woods, and no one hears it, was the idea there in the first place? Who knows. It doesn't matter.

But in real terms, the real money has indeed been spread around. So the poor feel better about it, because they have indeed gotten that $3,000 check from the Feds.

They are not able to fathom that they COULD have been employed by me for ten times that much or more, because I would need someone to help put my idea into production.

Which leads to a simple conclusion: Capitalism, while far more rational, is monumentally more difficult to fathom. Socialism, while fare more irrational, works as excellent demagoguery.

History shows that capitalistic societies have increased wealth. It's not a pie at all, as if the West got rich by stealing from the East, or Africa. The pie gets bigger and bigger. Capitalism has shown to be the single system that provides opportunity for a people. Bar none. This is not even open to debate. It's so clear its like arguing that freedom of religion is better in America than in Iran.

Economics shows that capitialism is the most rational. And recent history has shown that the economy expands when taxes are lowered.

Social history shows that collectivism can only advance when some basic rights are taken away, and that extreme forms of collectivism results in stacks of bloody corpses.

It all is so obvious, rational, and clear. Why, then, are we surrounded by so many fools?

The only conclusion is that Alinsky was correct. The battle of the Left will only be won as they do their "long march through the institutions."

That having been done, we have a body politic full of ignorant citizens, who do not know history, certainly not economics, or civics.

It's quite sad.

[mraynrand]

I can't recommend the entire book, but chapter four is worth reading

http://www.integraltradition.com/catalog/images/buchanan-death.JPG

http://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/0312285485

[HarveyWallbangers]

That having been done, we have a body politic full of ignorant citizens, who do not know history, certainly not economics, or civics.

It's quite sad.

It certainly is.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This gets me to thinking about Justin Harrell's "Jesus was a liberal" avatar. Maybe he thinks the liberal redistribution of wealth is something Jesus would be for (of course, overlooking the fact that he believed life began in the womb and that homosexuality was a sin). And it sounds cool, right? No question that Jesus was for the poor. I won't claim that Jesus was a conservative. That would be doing him injustice. I'll just say that it's a stretch to think that Jesus thought big government was the best way to help the poor. Jesus said to give 10% of all your things to the poor. He didn't say give 10% to the government instead of charity, so they can blow 50% of the money you give. I can't blame some for not following Jesus on this. It's hard to do when so much of your money goes to the government already. Do what you can though. You'll get back more from giving than what you gave up.

[arcilite]

so what is your idea?

I didn't see one in that post

[HowardRoark]

so what is your idea?

I didn't see one in that post

Too many pollysllables for you? How about this.....

We need no change!

Help the poor!

Don't tread on me!

[Harlan Huckleby]

extreme forms of collectivism results in stacks of bloody corpses.

True. And extreme forms of capitalism have led to the failure of the financial markets in the U.S., and a every-man-for-himself healthcare system that leaves many people uninsurable.

I am not able to think up a good analogy for the relationship between capitalism and socialism. OK, here's one that will do: they are like gasoline and air in an internal combustion engine.

You need both elements in balance. Arguing that air is bad, it robs the engine of power is sort of true. And arguing that gasoline is bad because it floods the engine is also true enough.

(I know, socialism is the hot air.)

Your speech on the virtues of capitalism is true enough. But also simple minded and unhelpful. We need free markets plus checks on the free market. We need incentives and a safety net.

[HowardRoark]

and a every-man-for-himself healthcare system that leaves many people uninsurable.

What kind of underwriting issues do all of these people have? Sounds to me like an epidemic of sorts.

[mraynrand]

This gets me to thinking about Justin Harrell's "Jesus was a liberal" avatar. Maybe he thinks the liberal redistribution of wealth is something Jesus would be for (of course, overlooking the fact that he believed life began in the womb and that homosexuality was a sin). And it sounds cool, right? No question that Jesus was for the poor. I won't claim that Jesus was a conservative. That would be doing him injustice. I'll just say that it's a stretch to think that Jesus thought big government was the best way to help the poor. Jesus said to give 10% of all your things to the poor. He didn't say give 10% to the government instead of charity, so they can blow 50% of the money you give. I can't blame some for not following Jesus on this. It's hard to do when so much of your money goes to the government already. Do what you can though. You'll get back more from giving than what you gave up.

Harv, Jesus clearly told others to do as he did, to walk in his path. Give up your possessions and follow me, he said. My view is that what he advocated for people - to live according to his example - was in effect impossible. But he knew that. He knew we would fall short - to sin. That's WHY HE WAS HERE. We sin, but we are forgiven through his grace.

So we are called to give up our possessions and follow him
We are called to turn the other cheek when struck on the first
We are called to love our enemy
We are called to feed and clothe the poor
We are called to visit the prisoner
and all the other teachings of Christ


These are things we are called to do, but we know we will fall short. It is my belief that we cannot perfectly achieve this because we are 'fallen' beings. In a more contemporary way, we have free will, and will therefore regularly choose the wrong path (very often, in fact. Worse for some, better for others, but always we will imperfectly follow Christ).
So, as far as giving up all that we have, the inability to do so is in part due to our sinful nature - our free will.

But that is not the only reason. The second is that we live in a world that is imperfect and still must survive. Christ understood the difference between the Kingdom of God and the realm of the earth - they are separate magesteria - that is why he told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars' and unto God what is God's (Giving to Caesar is essentially obeying the law). If you read Luke 23, starting with the 39th verse, you find the Prisoner on the cross next to Jesus. The prisoner believes and Jesus tells him that 'today you will be with me in paradise.' What is remarkable - after the saving of the prisoner's soul - is that the Prisoner dies on the cross. Jesus could save his soul, but he still had to suffer his fate for his acts in this earthy realm. And so it is with everything else. With taxes and laws, etc. We must live according to earthy law, that we hopefully make closer to the teaching of Christ, but all the while knowing that the perfection of living as Christ taught is impossible in this realm.

So giving to the poor or less fortunate is a virtue, but how we give - through the filter of government programs, through charities, through donation of time and teaching, etc. is up to us here on this earth. What do we choose? How do we choose to help the poor? There is no edict from Christ to give to a government to disperse to the poor, only that we should help the poor. We should probably do so in the way that works best - the way that helps the most poor. And of course, there are vigorous disagreements as to which method will benefit the most, which I won't address in this post.

[Harlan Huckleby]

and a every-man-for-himself healthcare system that leaves many people uninsurable.

What kind of underwriting issues do all of these people have? Sounds to me like an epidemic of sorts.

I've been through the health insurance ringer. If you are over 40, have had ANY health problems, it is essentially impossible to get private health insurance.

I went without health insurance for a long time. Recently got insured through a SOCIALIST program offered by the State of Wisconsin, HIRSP. (Actually it is laughable to call it socialist, it is still absurdly expensive, but at least it is something. I am poor enough on paper to qualify, rich enough in reality to make payments.)

There are categories of people who can get health insurance without going through an employer-provided plan. If you are young and healthy. IF you are over 65 there is medicare. Disabled in certain categories. Poor with children are eligible with assistance.

Yet many people are left uninsured because of costs or pre-existing conditions. 60 million have no insurance.

[mraynrand]

True. And extreme forms of capitalism have led to the failure of the financial markets in the U.S.

Wouldn't you at least agree that an extreme form of socialism - forcing the sale of homes to people that can't pay for them (and artificially driving up demand) - also contributed to the failure of the financial markets? Or will you only look for failures of capitalism.

[Harlan Huckleby]

True. And extreme forms of capitalism have led to the failure of the financial markets in the U.S.

Wouldn't you at least agree that an extreme form of socialism - forcing the sale of homes to people that can't pay for them (and artificially driving up demand) - also contributed to the failure of the financial markets? Or will you only look for failures of capitalism.

ya, that was part of problem, I don't know what percentage of problem.

but we could lump it all under "deregulation"

[mraynrand]

and a every-man-for-himself healthcare system that leaves many people uninsurable.

What kind of underwriting issues do all of these people have? Sounds to me like an epidemic of sorts.

I've been through the health insurance ringer. If you are over 40, have had ANY health problems, it is essentially impossible to get private health insurance.

I went without health insurance for a long time. Recently got insured through a SOCIALIST program offered by the State of Wisconsin, HIRSP. (Actually it is laughable to call it socialist, it is still absurdly expensive, but at least it is something. I am poor enough on paper to qualify, rich enough in reality to make payments.)

There are categories of people who can get health insurance without going through an employer-provided plan. If you are young and healthy. IF you are over 65 there is medicare. Disabled in certain categories. Poor with children are eligible with assistance.

Yet many people are left uninsured because of costs or pre-existing conditions. 60 million have no insurance.

Sorry to hear about your troubles. Truly I am. I'm also horrified that the number of uninsured seems to have gone up 10 million since your healthcare post last week.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sorry to hear about your troubles. Truly I am. I'm also horrified that the number of uninsured seems to have gone up 10 million since your healthcare post last week.


well, we're getting close to the election.

times are rough, man.

[mraynrand]

but we could lump it all under "deregulation"

Or bad regulation. Bad regulation in forcing banks to make bad loans. Bad regulation in allowing bad securities to be mixed and sold with the good. Regulation, like democracies(republics) don't work if the people in control are morally bankrupt.

[HarveyWallbangers]

60 million have no insurance.

Is this the bogus number that is often cited? The one that includes millions that are between jobs temporarily at some point during the year and don't have coverage for a few weeks? The one that includes those that are financially able to buy health insurance, but choose not to?

[mraynrand]

Sorry to hear about your troubles. Truly I am. I'm also horrified that the number of uninsured seems to have gone up 10 million since your healthcare post last week.


well, we're getting close to the election.

times are rough, man.

That doesn't mean you should make up numbers or misrepresent the uninsured as people without access to healthcare.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ya, ok.

I was listening to George Will start to argue that the current financial crisis is due to an absence of free markets.

Unfortunately, he never got around to explaining details, I would be interested in where he could possibly coming from. Maybe he meant the same point you are making.

I am like John McCain, I don't claim to understand all that economics stuff.

[Harlan Huckleby]

60 million have no insurance.

Is this the bogus number that is often cited? The one that includes millions that are between jobs temporarily at some point during the year and don't have coverage for a few weeks? The one that includes those that are financially able to buy health insurance, but choose not to?

nobody should be without health insurance, ever, period.

we need to get there from here.

[mraynrand]

60 million have no insurance.

Is this the bogus number that is often cited? The one that includes millions that are between jobs temporarily at some point during the year and don't have coverage for a few weeks? The one that includes those that are financially able to buy health insurance, but choose not to?

nobody should be without health insurance, ever, period.

we need to get there from here.

What if we give them insurance under a federal mandate and the result is a drop in the quality of the health care itself?

[HarveyWallbangers]

nobody should be without health insurance, ever, period.

we need to get there from here.

What percentage of that 60 million could afford it? We'd have a more honest grasp of the situation if people wouldn't fudge numbers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sorry to hear about your troubles. Truly I am. I'm also horrified that the number of uninsured seems to have gone up 10 million since your healthcare post last week.


well, we're getting close to the election.

times are rough, man.

That doesn't mean you should make up numbers or misrepresent the uninsured as people without access to healthcare.

ahhh, so you're still grinding that one.

I can't address the question of people who could easily afford health insurance but go without it. I suspect it is mostly young and foolish people, and not so many.

Not having health insurance, or some government assistance, effectively bars a person from access to healthcare for all but emergency situations. It is unaffordable, it has to be an emergency before anyone will pay the price of financial ruin.

[Harlan Huckleby]

nobody should be without health insurance, ever, period.

we need to get there from here.

What percentage of that 60 million could afford it? We'd have a more honest grasp of the situation if people wouldn't fudge numbers.

It is important to look at anecdotal evidence. By talking to people who have no insurance, you learn the landscape. You're right, maybe the true numbers are more like 10 million who slip between the cracks. But even so, that doesn't fundamentally change the problem. And if the true number is 100 million, its the same thing.

[mraynrand]

Sorry to hear about your troubles. Truly I am. I'm also horrified that the number of uninsured seems to have gone up 10 million since your healthcare post last week.


well, we're getting close to the election.

times are rough, man.

That doesn't mean you should make up numbers or misrepresent the uninsured as people without access to healthcare.

ahhh, so you're still grinding that one.

I can't address the question of people who could easily afford health insurance but go without it. I suspect it is mostly young and foolish people, and not so many.

Not having health insurance, or some government assistance, effectively bars a person from access to healthcare for all but emergency situations. It is unaffordable, it has to be an emergency before anyone will pay the price of financial ruin.

First, the 60 million is a lie. It is less than 50. 12-20 are illegal immigrants. The largst class are those who can afford it. Some estimates are as low as 20%, some as high as 40%. The rest are covered by either medicare, medicaid or schip, but they don't know it/aren't enrolled until they go in. You are incredibly ignorant on this topic, as are a lot of other people yelling for universal insurance. Insurance does not guarantee quality care, speed of care, or breadth of care. You are in a bad situation, being denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. I've been down that road. Try getting any life insurance if you have a terminal disease - it's almost impossible. That's the reality and it sucks. But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to spread false numbers and remain ignorant and misrepresent the reality of the health care system in this country.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You're right, maybe the true numbers are more like 10 million who slip between the cracks. But even so, that doesn't fundamentally change the problem. And if the true number is 100 million, its the same thing.

I don't think so. I think it would fundamentally change the question we would be asking ourselves.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What if we give them insurance under a federal mandate and the result is a drop in the quality of the health care itself?

I have a friend, more like an ex-friend, who is extremely liberal. She accuses me of being a closet conservative, sorta hate me for it. The one point where she abandons her liberal stripes is with health care. She does not want the health care system to be expanded to include everybody, because she says there is not enough health care capacity to go around, she doesn't want to degrade her own access.

Hell, at least she is honest. I think her opinion is typical, she is just more honest than many. I think this is the main holdup in expanding health care to all - the ones who have don't want to share.

[Harlan Huckleby]

First, the 60 million is a lie. It is less than 50. 12-20 are illegal immigrants. The largst class are those who can afford it.

Lies! Lies! Lies!

I don't trust your numbers. And your comments about medicare show you don't know what you are talking about.

[mraynrand]

I would argue that there is plenty of health care capacity to go around. One on the main problems is that there are tons of people who use the system who have no incentive to reduce their use of it - the cost to use the system is very low for very many. It creates a situation of artificially high demand, driving up prices. And that influences the pharmaceutical companies and the devices industries as well. If they know that there will be no check (that is normal cost considerations from consumers) on their products, they can push expensive new superfluous stuff with no consequence - which drives up prices and health care costs even more - making it more expensive for those without insurance, to purchase it. It would help to have some more free market principles in the health care industry.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You're right, maybe the true numbers are more like 10 million who slip between the cracks. But even so, that doesn't fundamentally change the problem. And if the true number is 100 million, its the same thing.

I don't think so. I think it would fundamentally change the question we would be asking ourselves.


well, if there are just a relatively small people without health insurance, should be so difficult to expand medicare to cover them.

:lol:


you conservatives want to have it every which way.

IT is hard to know about the numbers. Again, it best to look around you, notice all the small businesses that provide no health benefits, talk to people between 40-65 who seek insurance.

And then make a simple moral judgement: Is it ethical to have a system that denies sick people insurance?

[Harlan Huckleby]

It would help to have some more free market principles in the health care industry.

Applying free market principles to health care is morally wrong.

[mraynrand]

You're right, maybe the true numbers are more like 10 million who slip between the cracks. But even so, that doesn't fundamentally change the problem. And if the true number is 100 million, its the same thing.

I don't think so. I think it would fundamentally change the question we would be asking ourselves.


well, if there are just a relatively small people without health insurance, should be so difficult to expand medicare to cover them.

Medicare is expanding at around 7.5% per year - almost twice inflation and GDP growth. Even at that rate of expansion, it won't cover the increasing population demand. Much of that is of course is demographics - having a big aging population bubble.

[mraynrand]

First, the 60 million is a lie. It is less than 50. 12-20 are illegal immigrants. The largst class are those who can afford it.

Lies! Lies! Lies!

I don't trust your numbers. And your comments about medicare show you don't know what you are talking about.

Last week you said 50 million. This week you say 60 million. Source?

[HowardRoark]

It would help to have some more free market principles in the health care industry.

Applying free market principles to health care is morally wrong.

What in the world do you mean be this? What about food then? Or heat? I think it is morally wrong to NOT have free-markets deliver healthcare and education.

[Harlan Huckleby]

First, the 60 million is a lie. It is less than 50. 12-20 are illegal immigrants. The largst class are those who can afford it.

Lies! Lies! Lies!

I don't trust your numbers. And your comments about medicare show you don't know what you are talking about.

Last week you said 50 million. This week you say 60 million. Source?

my anus

[mraynrand]

It would help to have some more free market principles in the health care industry.

Applying free market principles to health care is morally wrong.

Even if it works to provide better care and more care to more people?

[Harlan Huckleby]

It would help to have some more free market principles in the health care industry.

Applying free market principles to health care is morally wrong.

What in the world do you mean be this? What about food then? Or heat? I think it is morally wrong to NOT have free-markets deliver healthcare and education.

That's an interesting comparison. We don't allow people to starve, and we should allow people access to decent health care.

The cost of keeping a person fed is low and relatively constant from person to person.
Health care costs vary wildly from person to person. A free market makes it impossible for some individuals to obtain health care, whereas a free market can provide food for everyone (with just a very modest safety net.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

It would help to have some more free market principles in the health care industry.

Applying free market principles to health care is morally wrong.

Even if it works to provide better care and more care to more people?

no, of course not.

you have to deal with reality, not just theory.

We have a relatively free market now, its not working.

[HowardRoark]

It would help to have some more free market principles in the health care industry.

Applying free market principles to health care is morally wrong.

What in the world do you mean be this? What about food then? Or heat? I think it is morally wrong to NOT have free-markets deliver healthcare and education.

That's an interesting comparison. We don't allow people to starve, and we should allow people access to decent health care.

The cost of keeping a person fed is low and relatively constant from person to person.
Health care costs vary wildly from person to person. A free market makes it impossible for some individuals to obtain health care, whereas a free market can provide food for everyone (with just a very modest safety net.)

Do you think we have a free-market in health care presently?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Do you think we have a free-market in health care presently?

relatively speaking, ya.

It is not government interference that allows insurance companies to deny coverage to people based on their risk level.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx


Each of these people and media outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be 40 to 50 million Americans. The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren’t American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven’t signed up.

Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.

Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million – a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.


The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.

[mraynrand]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx


Each of these people and media outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be 40 to 50 million Americans. The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren’t American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven’t signed up.

Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.

Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million – a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.


The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.

You just demonstrated that the information is not that hard to find. Most people are willfully ignorant on this subject, and/or like Harlan, relying on anecdotes about cracks and fissures in the system to influence them that we need a fundamental change towards universal systems that have been shown to reduce overall quality of care and access to care in almost every place they've been tried.

[Harlan Huckleby]

a fundamental change towards universal systems that have been shown to reduce overall quality of care and access to care in almost every place they've been tried.

speaking of willful ignorance, did you watch any of this documentary when it was on the telly:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

The rumor that the choice is between a free market and horrible government run hospitals is propoganda.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am dissappointed that conservatives think that there is an acceptable number of uninsured people.

And the "things aren't so bad" attitude shocks me. The ineptness and inefficiency of the current system is pretty clear to me, as are the people who are left out, and the small businesses that are being strangled.

[HowardRoark]

I am dissappointed that conservatives think that there is an acceptable number of uninsured people.

And the "things aren't so bad" attitude shocks me. The ineptness and inefficiency of the current system is pretty clear to me, as are the people who are left out, and the small businesses that are being strangled.

I agree with everything you say. And I think that there should not be uninsured people. The uninsured are the ones that we have been wai.......oh, wait a minute; I mean the uninsured are the ones that make the system inefficient.

[mraynrand]

a fundamental change towards universal systems that have been shown to reduce overall quality of care and access to care in almost every place they've been tried.

speaking of willful ignorance, did you watch any of this documentary when it was on the telly:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

The rumor that the choice is between a free market and horrible government run hospitals is propoganda.

The inability to understand the meaning of 'towards' is pathetic

[mraynrand]

I am dissappointed that conservatives think that there is an acceptable number of uninsured people.

Your intellectual dishonesty has been noted.

[Cy]

So giving to the poor or less fortunate is a virtue, but how we give - through the filter of government programs, through charities, through donation of time and teaching, etc. is up to us here on this earth. What do we choose? How do we choose to help the poor? There is no edict from Christ to give to a government to disperse to the poor, only that we should help the poor. We should probably do so in the way that works best - the way that helps the most poor. And of course, there are vigorous disagreements as to which method will benefit the most, which I won't address in this post.

Cy: No. "How we give" is absolutely critical. First off, to say, "I will give to the poor by voting democratic" is wrong on so many fronts. (a) Liberalism hasn't done anything for the poor but entrenched their stay in that class. (b) it's a cheap way out of our ethical obligations to love one another (c) it runs counter to the separation of church and state!

I really cannot believe this. I've been hearing for 30 years how the separation of church and state means that us Christians should just keep out of politics. And now, starting with Obama on down, we're hearing that "being your brohter's keeper" and taking care of the poor, as Jesus supposedly wants (based on scant textual evidence), means that we should become a socialist state.

Unreal...

[HowardRoark]

I really cannot believe this. I've been hearing for 30 years how the separation of church and state means that us Christians should just keep out of politics. And now, starting with Obama on down, we're hearing that "being your brohter's keeper" and taking care of the poor, as Jesus supposedly wants (based on scant textual evidence), means that we should become a socialist state.

Unreal...

Excellent point Cy. Why is it that we have to suddenly listen to, and act upon, the morality of some "sky god" that Obama might believe in? Why exactly is he pushing his morality on the country to "take care of our brethren?" Ty told me last night that these are "private" matters and that polite people do not bring them into public discussions.

Barack Obama; please leave your moralizing out of the national debate!!!! Don't you know that we have a Seperation of Church and State?

[HowardRoark]

I really cannot believe this. I've been hearing for 30 years how the separation of church and state means that us Christians should just keep out of politics. And now, starting with Obama on down, we're hearing that "being your brohter's keeper" and taking care of the poor, as Jesus supposedly wants (based on scant textual evidence), means that we should become a socialist state.

Unreal...

Excellent point Cy. Why is it that we have to suddenly listen to, and act upon, the morality of some "sky god" that Obama might believe in? Why exactly is he pushing his morality on the country to "take care of our brethren?" Ty told me last night that these are "private" matters and that polite people do not bring them into public discussions.

Barack Obama; please leave your moralizing out of the national debate!!!! Don't you know that we have a Seperation of Church and State?

Well Howard, don’t you know that it is ultimately to your benefit to take care of these so called “least of these my brethren?” We need to keep them in the bare necessities in order to keep order in society. In the long run it is to your and your children’s advantage to throw these people a few crumbs. In fact, it might be worthwhile to actually build them homes (albeit bad ones) that we can house them in. It will also make it easier to “organize” them when we need them.

So, Howard (you selfish jerk), it is not out of morality or altruism that we “redistribute”, it is to keep society ordered. It is, in fact, a selfish act.

[HowardRoark]

I really cannot believe this. I've been hearing for 30 years how the separation of church and state means that us Christians should just keep out of politics. And now, starting with Obama on down, we're hearing that "being your brohter's keeper" and taking care of the poor, as Jesus supposedly wants (based on scant textual evidence), means that we should become a socialist state.

Unreal...

Excellent point Cy. Why is it that we have to suddenly listen to, and act upon, the morality of some "sky god" that Obama might believe in? Why exactly is he pushing his morality on the country to "take care of our brethren?" Ty told me last night that these are "private" matters and that polite people do not bring them into public discussions.

Barack Obama; please leave your moralizing out of the national debate!!!! Don't you know that we have a Seperation of Church and State?

Well Howard, don’t you know that it is ultimately to your benefit to take care of these so called “least of these my brethren?” We need to keep them in the bare necessities in order to keep order in society. In the long run it is to your and your children’s advantage to throw these people a few crumbs. In fact, it might be worthwhile to actually build them homes (albeit bad ones) that we can house them in. It will also make it easier to “organize” them when we need them.

So, Howard (you selfish jerk), it is not out of morality or altruism that we “redistribute”, it is to keep society ordered. It is, in fact, a selfish act.

But I thought that selfishness was bad (there we go, moralizing again), wasn’t it? At least that’s what the One said the other day in a speech. We are not supposed to be selfish for some reason. The reason escapes me now. I think it is based on some religion or something.

At any rate, I am confused. Sometimes morals are OK, but sometimes they are “laughable.” How do we know which morals are OK? And furthermore, when do we know that it is alright to moralize?

And keep your Ayn Rand covers and Adam Smith quotes out of here…….

[mraynrand]

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/images/capitalismtheunknownideal.jpg

[HowardRoark]

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/images/capitalismtheunknownideal.jpg

1 day!! :D

[Harlan Huckleby]

Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.

This is a silly argument, one that Ayn has been using: "Don't worry so much about the uninsurred, they are just between jobs."

I don't believe for a second that the economy is churning people in and out of jobs at such a high rate. But for the sake of discussion lets say 10M people are being dumped into the uninsured rolls every 4 months, and an equal number are finding new jobs with benefits. How is this comforting? It doesn't matter if people are uninsured for 1 month or 20 years, they are equally vulnerable. A high churn rate causes the same total hardship as long umemployment periods.

IF you are going to look at this as a question of statitics, all that matters is the total number of uninusred. But I don't even give a damn about the numbers, except as a rough indicator of the scale of the problem. It has to be dealt with at any rate.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So giving to the poor or less fortunate is a virtue, but how we give - through the filter of government programs, through charities, through donation of time and teaching, etc. is up to us here on this earth.

You make a valid point, certainly in theory.

The trouble is that human nature overall is not so generous. We can go back a couple hundred years to when government did much less, and there was massive poverty.

Or you can look at philanthropy rates among the wealthy today. They are very low, the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts are the exception.

Private charity and volunteerism just doesn't cut it. That's the problem.

[mraynrand]

This is a silly argument, one that Ayn has been using: "Don't worry so much about the uninsurred, they are just between jobs."

.

I have never made this argument. Mostly I am simply trying to counteract your disinformation about the number of uninsured and confusing lack of insurance with lack of access. I don't deny that the health care system has all sorts of problems, what I don't agree with are your ideas (at least most of them) for fixing it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This is a silly argument, one that Ayn has been using: "Don't worry so much about the uninsurred, they are just between jobs."

.

I have never made this argument. Mostly I am simply trying to counteract your disinformation about the number of uninsured and confusing lack of insurance with lack of access. I don't deny that the health care system has all sorts of problems, what I don't agree with are your ideas (at least most of them) for fixing it.


What ideas do you have to insure every American?

What is your plan for dealing with people with pre-existing conditions?

[GK]

This is a silly argument, one that Ayn has been using: "Don't worry so much about the uninsurred, they are just between jobs."

.

I have never made this argument. Mostly I am simply trying to counteract your disinformation about the number of uninsured and confusing lack of insurance with lack of access. I don't deny that the health care system has all sorts of problems, what I don't agree with are your ideas (at least most of them) for fixing it.


What ideas do you have to insure every American?

What is your plan for dealing with people with pre-existing conditions?

There is one problem, and one problem only, with health care today—it is that the government is knee deep in it already. You know this, don’t you? The healthcare system is one of the two most screwed up industries in America today (the other being education). In both of these industries, you get terrible service for a very high price ($35,000 a year tuition in college, and graduates still don’t know why we have an Electoral College). And, coincidently, these are two of the most strongly government-run industries in the country.

Do you think it is immoral that some people don’t have health care? Then you need to personally work as hard as you can to argue for the introduction of market forces into healthcare as soon as possible. There are currently no market forces in healthcare. None. That is why a CT scan can cost up to $3000, depending on where it is done. What should a CT scan cost? Who knows? If market forces had been in place for the last three decades, a CT scan would probably cost around $25. But healthcare prices have not been set by the market. How are they set? Big government and big companies sit down and negotiate big contracts between each other, so big important people can be happy with those prices. You, my friend, and all the other little people who have a hard time getting insurance, have no say in the matter. No say whatsoever.

But, you do have a say in how much a DVD player costs. And how much a gallon of milk costs. And how much a flash drive costs. And they’re all pretty cheap. Amazing how that works. You, the consumer, set the price, and it tends to be low. That’s pretty neat! Let the consumer have a choice, and cost goes down, and quality goes up. What is the freest market in America? I don’t know, maybe high tech. The high tech industry has experienced cutthroat competition for two decades, and now we have extraordinary computers for a few hundred dollars, all of the amazing features of the internet, and on and on.

Healthcare is not a right. It is a good and a service. That is a fact. A right is something you would have anywhere, even on a deserted island, like freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. You don’t have the right to bypass surgery on a deserted island, because there is no cardiothoracic surgeon there. Healthcare is a good and a service. So the question is, what is the most effective and most efficient way to get these goods and services to the most people for the lowest price? The answer to that question is not debatable—it is the free market.

[HowardRoark]

Healthcare is not a right. It is a good and a service. That is a fact. A right is something you would have anywhere, even on a deserted island, like freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. You don’t have the right to bypass surgery on a deserted island, because there is no cardiothoracic surgeon there. Healthcare is a good and a service. So the question is, what is the most effective and most efficient way to get these goods and services to the most people for the lowest price? The answer to that question is not debatable—it is the free market.

But don't you see? This is the outdated "negative" right. The Enlightened have now fixed all this with "positive" rights. Under this scenerio, the surgeon would (somehow) be forced to get to the island and take care of you.

[digitaldean]

extreme forms of collectivism results in stacks of bloody corpses.

True. And extreme forms of capitalism have led to the failure of the financial markets in the U.S., and a every-man-for-himself healthcare system that leaves many people uninsurable.

I am not able to think up a good analogy for the relationship between capitalism and socialism. OK, here's one that will do: they are like gasoline and air in an internal combustion engine.

You need both elements in balance. Arguing that air is bad, it robs the engine of power is sort of true. And arguing that gasoline is bad because it floods the engine is also true enough.

(I know, socialism is the hot air.)

Your speech on the virtues of capitalism is true enough. But also simple minded and unhelpful. We need free markets plus checks on the free market. We need incentives and a safety net.

The best one to hit on your recipe, HH was Teddy Roosevelt. Unfortunately, not too many of that caliber in DC lately.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There are currently no market forces in healthcare. None. That is why a CT scan can cost up to $3000, depending on where it is done. What should a CT scan cost? Who knows? If market forces had been in place for the last three decades, a CT scan would probably cost around $25.

You are badly misinformed. There is no conspiracy anyhere that is keeping the cost of healthcare high. And the collusion you speak of is the only thing holding costs down.


But healthcare prices have not been set by the market. How are they set? Big government and big companies sit down and negotiate big contracts between each other, so big important people can be happy with those prices.

Insurance companies bargain with providers, and this simply serves to contain costs. With medicare, the government sets the price it will pay for each service, and public hospitals or medicare-authorized private hospitals must offer the services for those prices. These prices are a fraction of the free market prices.

I have a friend who has paid medical bills in three different ways: out of pocket, with private insurance, and now with medicare. Bills for the same services were FAR higher when he paid them out of pocket as compared to what his private insurer negotiated. And under medicare, the government pays about 50% of what the private insurer payed.

Your perceptions of how things work are completely wrong.



Healthcare is not a right. It is a good and a service. That is a fact.

Not a fact, a statement of your values. You believe that health care should be treated like any other commodity. I disagree. Most people around the world see this issue very differently. I view health care like education, it is wise for the public good to make it available for all.


what is the most effective and most efficient way to get these goods and services to the most people for the lowest price? The answer to that question is not debatable—it is the free market.

Our health care system has more free market characteristics than in any other developed country. We have excellent medical care for those who have good insurance, but overall our system is terrible, in my opinion. we allow insurance companies to cherry pick customers, and the market chaos produces inefficiencies in billing. Give me a single payer system, your free market is a disaster.

[GK]

There are currently no market forces in healthcare. None. That is why a CT scan can cost up to $3000, depending on where it is done. What should a CT scan cost? Who knows? If market forces had been in place for the last three decades, a CT scan would probably cost around $25.

You are badly misinformed. There is no conspiracy anyhere that is keeping the cost of healthcare high. And the collusion you speak of is the only thing holding costs down.


But healthcare prices have not been set by the market. How are they set? Big government and big companies sit down and negotiate big contracts between each other, so big important people can be happy with those prices.

Insurance companies bargain with providers, and this simply serves to contain costs. With medicare, the government sets the price it will pay for each service, and public hospitals or medicare-authorized private hospitals must offer the services for those prices. These prices are a fraction of the free market prices.

I have a friend who has paid medical bills in three different ways: out of pocket, with private insurance, and now with medicare. Bills for the same services were FAR higher when he paid them out of pocket as compared to what his private insurer negotiated. And under medicare, the government pays about 50% of what the private insurer payed.

Your perceptions of how things work are completely wrong.



Healthcare is not a right. It is a good and a service. That is a fact.

Not a fact, a statement of your values. You believe that health care should be treated like any other commodity. I disagree. Most people around the world see this issue very differently. I view health care like education, it is wise for the public good to make it available for all.


what is the most effective and most efficient way to get these goods and services to the most people for the lowest price? The answer to that question is not debatable—it is the free market.

Our health care system has more free market characteristics than in any other developed country. We have excellent medical care for those who have good insurance, but overall our system is terrible, in my opinion. we allow insurance companies to cherry pick customers, and the market chaos produces inefficiencies in billing. Give me a single payer system, your free market is a disaster.

I am sorry Harlan, but you are so badly misinformed that I am not sure where to start. Let's start with your statement about healthcare as a right. You say that it is a reflection of my "values" that it is not a right. You think that it is a right. I need to know, how can something be a right that depends on the effort and work of another person? How can that be? If I were a health care provider, then Mr. Jones in Tennessee has a right to something that requires me to get up at 5:00 AM and put in a 12 hour day so that he can have his right? Please explain that to me. What if I decide to quit my job, move to Montana, and become an artist? What happens to Mr. Jones' right then? Is that neat new "civilian security force" going to make sure that those who provide healthcare do not decide to become artists ever? Simple question: How can something that depends on the sweat and work of another person be called a right?

Second, you say that in your example, paying out of pocket is the most expensive scenario. I'll say it again - that is because we do not have market forces. Some parts of the industry ask for private pay, but it is patently obvious that if 80% of the industry is regulated by big business and government, if a small group of people off in the corner tries to make a little "free market," they are going to be constrained by the prices set by the big companies and government. The whole thing needs to be free.

You are enamored with other countries. I would ask you - is there a right to gamma knife surgery in Norway? What, they don't have it? How can that be? We have it in America! So there is not a right to gamma knife surgery in Norway. Hmmmm, now what? I guess I'll have to wait for you to explain that one to me. If there is a right to healthcare in these other countries, how can there not be a right to gamma knife surgery?

[SkinBasket]

BTW, welcome to the stew GK. It's smelly, doesn't taste good, and the main ingredients are a delicate blend of self importance, ignorance, and essence of Harlan, but we always welcome more flavor.

There, now tarlam can get off my balls.

[GK]

BTW, welcome to the stew GK. It's smelly, doesn't taste good, and the main ingredients are a delicate blend of self importance, ignorance, and essence of Harlan, but we always welcome more flavor.

There, now tarlam can get off my balls.

Thanks for the welcome. I promise to go heavy on the self-importance and light on the ignorance. But I suspect Harlan would disagree.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am sorry Harlan, but you are so badly misinformed that I am not sure where to start?

We are both so convinced of the other person's absolute ignorance, that one of us must be really, really dopey. Problem is, we don't know which one. I'll try and check myself from time to time in case it is me.


Let's start with your statement about healthcare as a right. You say that it is a reflection of my "values" that it is not a right. You think that it is a right. I need to know, how can something be a right that depends on the effort and work of another person? How can that be?

The word "right" is inflamatory, it raises the bar, and it carries a sense of entitlement that gets people's backs up.

Do you believe there is a right for every citizen to recieve a highschool education? That is a VERY expensive service given away to people, children from poor families sometimes are being subsidized by richer families.

Are you against public education? It violates your principle.

Public education is a "right" in the sense that we as a people have chosen to treat it that way. My view is that a basic level of health care should be treated as a "right" in the same sense as education. It should be provided to all citizens for the public interest, and as a basic decency.


How can something that depends on the sweat and work of another person be called a right?

Every nickle that the government collects in taxes depends on the sweat of somebody, and it gets redistributed. You don't get to keep all of your money, we don't live in a pure free market society, we have a government that spends some of our money for the collective good. Ted Kaczynski's spot out in Montana is available if you don't want to play along, but you'll have to build a new cabin.


Second, you say that in your example, paying out of pocket is the most expensive scenario. I'll say it again - that is because we do not have market forces.?

Except there ARE market forces. Insurance companies and HMO's have leverage in negotiating with providers. THEY HAVE MORE MARKET POWER THAN INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS COULD EVER HOPE TO HAVE.

I understand what you are saying. Just let everybody shop, individual self-interest is the strongest incentive. I seriously doubt this could work, people are not doctors who can weigh the value of different medical services - have you ever tried to decipher a medical bill? And there are many considerations beyond price. Your open market would be a disaster, certainly less effective in controling costs than the existing market.

And how would your open market deal with the problem of individuals with pre-existing conditions? (Stupid question, I suppose, you obviously don't care about these people.)

Sorry, but you have a fuzzy understanding of the current system, it is not a conspiracy of insurance companies, the government, and big providers. Those parties are at odds, the insurance companies and government are fighting hard to contain costs.


You are enamored with other countries. I would ask you - is there a right to gamma knife surgery in Norway? What, they don't have it? How can that be? We have it in America!

I am not enamored of other countries, just aware of them. Conservatives promulgate the ignorant perception that health care is a choice between a free market and socialized medicine. The reality is quite different! Every country has fashioned their own blend, and they are constantly tweaking their systems. No system works smoothly.

You mentioned gamma knife surgery: there is no reason why we can't have a free market for premium services on top of any government program.

[falco]

wealth is created by pimping your bitches

[HowardRoark]

The word "right" is inflamatory, it raises the bar, and it carries a sense of entitlement that gets people's backs up.

Do you believe there is a right for every citizen to recieve a highschool education? That is a VERY expensive service given away to people, children from poor families sometimes are being subsidized by richer families.

Are you against public education? It violates your principle.

Public education is a "right" in the sense that we as a people have chosen to treat it that way. My view is that a basic level of health care should be treated as a "right" in the same sense as education. It should be provided to all citizens for the public interest, and as a basic decency.

I personally don’t think the word “right” is, or should be, inflammatory. Nor do I think that education is a “right.” It is something that we as a society have deemed important enough for the overall greater good. It is something that we have decided will make our overall society work better. It does not go to our better angels; rather, to our selfish angels.

Do we have a right to roads?

[mraynrand]

Do we have a right to roads?

Did we have a right to Rhodes?

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/nfl/2001/0112/photo/s_rhodes_i.jpg

[Cy]

GK wrote:
Healthcare is not a right. It is a good and a service. That is a fact.


Harlan then wrote:
Not a fact, a statement of your values. You believe that health care should be treated like any other commodity. I disagree. Most people around the world see this issue very differently. I view health care like education, it is wise for the public good to make it available for all.

No. It is a fact. If I have a right to health care, why does my lower back still hurt?

You would respond, "As long as the care is availabe, you ought to have access to it."

But there is precisely the difference between a right and a good or service. There is a limited supply of goods and services. There is not a limited supply of rights.

The law of scarcity does not work when speaking of rights.

And so, just because care is available for my lower back does not mean that I will necessarily have access to it. If there are limited supplies of doctors and limited supplies of time and resources to heal my back, then that would be a problem for my back, would it not? The law of scarcity kicks in. And if the law of scarcity limits my right, can it really be called a right?

But the law of scarcity does not limit rights, as traditionally understood. Rather, tyranny limits rights as traditionally understood. That is, the whole world could enjoy the full fruition of their natural rights, if merely the governemnts of the world got out of their way and codified them in their law.

And not a single resource would be expended.

Not so with health care. The only way to make every lower back pain dissappear would be to make, aye, force, a bundle of people to study and become back doctors, and to decree that a bundle of whatever other resources are needed (hospitals, ORs, beds, etc. etc.).

But of course, then that would take away resources from other things that you deem as a right, such as education (which I have a right to get my PhD.) and my developing knee popping.

Which brings up other issues. How much education do I have a right to? What exact pains do I have a right to be cared for? And who will make this decision?

You would say, "The experts." And that leads directly into fascism, socialism, progressivism, or whatever you want to call your perverted understanding of collective rights.

You are right, however, about one thing. Your's is simply an opinion.

[Cy]

The word "right" is inflamatory, it raises the bar, and it carries a sense of entitlement that gets people's backs up.

Do you believe there is a right for every citizen to recieve a highschool education? That is a VERY expensive service given away to people, children from poor families sometimes are being subsidized by richer families.

Are you against public education? It violates your principle.

Public education is a "right" in the sense that we as a people have chosen to treat it that way. My view is that a basic level of health care should be treated as a "right" in the same sense as education. It should be provided to all citizens for the public interest, and as a basic decency.

How could education possibly be a right?

We don't make determinations about what rights are based on warm fuzzies that they give us in our hearts. We base them on pretty heady philosophizing, and quite frankly, your arguments do not attain the level of rationalization that has hence far contributed to the discussion of what rights are.

"Education gives me warm fuzzy, therefore must be right." Doesn't work that way. Sorry.

"Are you against public education?" Sure, why not? I think it sucks. I think it sucks that I have to (a) pay a property tax to support a crappy urban public school that I would NEVER send my own child to, and therefore (b) I have to hunt around for a parochial school that hasn't given in to the social justice propaganda (leaving out catholic education), and therfore (c) have to trek 30 miles a day on today's gas prices to find a suitable school. The costs (in taxes, tuition, and gas) add up to about $600/month, that I am ill equipt to afford.

Public school is a crime, and its foremost victims, are blacks. After them, anyone else who is trying to give their children a decent education.

You really brought up public education? As a right?

[falco]

come on guys these posts are getting too long, tone it down a little

[Harlan Huckleby]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

[wist43]

extreme forms of collectivism results in stacks of bloody corpses.

True. And extreme forms of capitalism have led to the failure of the financial markets in the U.S., and a every-man-for-himself healthcare system that leaves many people uninsurable.

I am not able to think up a good analogy for the relationship between capitalism and socialism. OK, here's one that will do: they are like gasoline and air in an internal combustion engine.

You need both elements in balance. Arguing that air is bad, it robs the engine of power is sort of true. And arguing that gasoline is bad because it floods the engine is also true enough.

(I know, socialism is the hot air.)

Your speech on the virtues of capitalism is true enough. But also simple minded and unhelpful. We need free markets plus checks on the free market. We need incentives and a safety net.

Bullshit.

It was government meddling that led to the current housing/auto/credit market melt down. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with all other manner of government prodding, i.e. financial institutions being pressured into making loans to borrowers who simply could not get loans in a competitive capitalist market.

As for your health care comment. Bullshit.

America has the finest health care system in the world, bar none. And what shortcomings do exist, exist b/c of government mandates and interference. Are you aware, that if you are a doctor, and seek to provide services for cash, that the feds will lock you out of the medicare/medicaid system??? It's about power and control. That's what government does, that's what government is about.

And as for your "uninsurable" comment... so what if someone is "uninsurable". What does that mean??? Are they covered??? Of course they are, anyone, ANYONE, can go into a hospital and be treated. Can they get limosine liberal care??? No, but they can get basic care, and better in most cases... more than can be said of any other country in the world. There's a reason everyone comes to the U.S. for medical care. There's a reason everyone comes to this country for all manner of things.

The reason is excellence and achievement born out of freedom and born out of the free market.

That said, I do believe there is a role for government to curb immoral behavior on the part of robber barons, be they present day or latter day, i.e. the antitrust legislation from the Teddy Roosevelts era. J.P. Morgan, J.D. Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, Jacob Schiff, et al, were they not harnessed, they would have continued to abuse American labor, and continued to monopolize industry to the point of creating their own form of tyranny.

Which of course, they effectively accomplished with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act... which of course was authored by German banker, and Rothschild/Morgan apparatchik Paul Warburg. In case you haven't noticed it is the blue blood, moneyed class going back decades that has always championed every socialist advance in this country.

HH, I like you, but get your shit straight b/4 you start calling something you know nothing about "simple minded".

[wist43]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

HH,

My apologies for being curt with you, but I've really had it with ignorance... just had it.

The understanding amongst my fellow citizens of even the most basic principles of freedom is microscopic.

The election of Obama is proof of that fact... and, if you've read any of my posts, you'd know that I'd throw most Republicans under that same bus.

Still, my venting stands... I do feel a bit better to have blasted a couple of "bullshits" out there :D

Take care,

[Harlan Huckleby]

It was government meddling that led to the current housing/auto/credit market melt down. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with all other manner of government prodding, i.e. financial institutions being pressured into making loans to borrowers who simply could not get loans in a competitive capitalist market

what you describe is about 25% of what happened.



And as for your "uninsurable" comment... so what if someone is "uninsurable". What does that mean??? Are they covered??? Of course they are, anyone, ANYONE, can go into a hospital and be treated.

Its too long of a discussion to get back into. But not having insurance can quickly ruin a person financially. And humans need care beyond emergency response. A lot of services are witheld from people with no ability to pay, I've seen it.

[wist43]

It was government meddling that led to the current housing/auto/credit market melt down. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with all other manner of government prodding, i.e. financial institutions being pressured into making loans to borrowers who simply could not get loans in a competitive capitalist market

what you describe is about 25% of what happened.



And as for your "uninsurable" comment... so what if someone is "uninsurable". What does that mean??? Are they covered??? Of course they are, anyone, ANYONE, can go into a hospital and be treated.

Its too long of a discussion to get back into. But not having insurance can quickly ruin a person financially. And humans need care beyond emergency response. A lot of services are witheld from people with no ability to pay, I've seen it.

I haven't read Buchanans book, but HH, it is obvious that you have no idea how nations, do in fact, die.

Well intentioned, good hearted people... and, that would seem to be you... go back and read some history my friend. I gave up trying to educate people a long time ago; tonight, and the last couple of weeks here in the romper room, I've just been doing some venting.

Start with the Federalist Papers... couldn't have said it better myself. Besides, those guys were much better educated, and much more intelligent than I am. Can't read those w/o coming away a believer in republicanism, freedom, capitalism... and the sheer folly of democracy and socialism.

[bobblehead]

True. And extreme forms of capitalism have led to the failure of the financial markets in the U.S.

Wouldn't you at least agree that an extreme form of socialism - forcing the sale of homes to people that can't pay for them (and artificially driving up demand) - also contributed to the failure of the financial markets? Or will you only look for failures of capitalism.

ya, that was part of problem, I don't know what percentage of problem.

but we could lump it all under "deregulation"

Ok, I'm going to expain it again. First we forced the loans to unqualified people. Then the lenders squaked that it was suicide, we need to be able to move them. Then, with congress' blessing, wall street devised ways to dump that bad paper into mass bunches of investment vehicles...hey, cool, we can make bad paper, get the origination fees and pass it to joe schmoe...and the politicians love us for it. Who would expect them to stop at minority housing. A lot of brokers started writing bad paper all over the place, housing, secondary housing, automotive, hedgefund loans ect...then passed it along with congress blessing. Bammo....credit crunch when joe investor figured out what they were buying. Credit crunch = recession.

show me where exactly deregulation caused this?

All that being said, REASONABLE regulation is a good thing. It allows consumers to feel confident that they are getting what they bargain for, it stops unscrupulous folks from putting poison in the ground water. It can stop child labor. You get the idea. But when someone decides that infrastructure investment can't be written off of taxes unless it is amortized over 7 years it gets burdensome and harmful.

[bobblehead]

What if we give them insurance under a federal mandate and the result is a drop in the quality of the health care itself?

I have a friend, more like an ex-friend, who is extremely liberal. She accuses me of being a closet conservative, sorta hate me for it. The one point where she abandons her liberal stripes is with health care. She does not want the health care system to be expanded to include everybody, because she says there is not enough health care capacity to go around, she doesn't want to degrade her own access.

Hell, at least she is honest. I think her opinion is typical, she is just more honest than many. I think this is the main holdup in expanding health care to all - the ones who have don't want to share.

How about someone as whacky as me. I think aging is a disease that we will beat in 30 years or less. I also think if we adopt a national health care system techno advances will nearly halt. Cancer cures will never be found. See cy's original post and apply it to healthcare. We could have had NHC back in 1968 when ted kennedy started us down that road....of course breast cancer would still kill most who got it and there would be no bioengineering based chemotherapy. Sure, the shortsighted and not so intelligent would be none the wiser, but fuck I would.

[bobblehead]

Do you think we have a free-market in health care presently?

relatively speaking, ya.

It is not government interference that allows insurance companies to deny coverage to people based on their risk level.

I think you are wrong. I THINK that back in the day when they were trying to get the HMO's going they allowed other companies to dump the sick and deny them coverage so the HMO's would be more appealing. IF I'm wrong correct me, but I'm pretty sure that is what happened.

[bobblehead]

a fundamental change towards universal systems that have been shown to reduce overall quality of care and access to care in almost every place they've been tried.

speaking of willful ignorance, did you watch any of this documentary when it was on the telly:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

The rumor that the choice is between a free market and horrible government run hospitals is propoganda.

Is that the same one you made me watch before where the fat doctor got a bonus for keeping his patients fit, then complained cuz he had a heart attack in Las Vegas and it cost him 60k cuz the UK didn't cover him in america?

[bobblehead]

thread..getting....convoluted.

GK, you're wasting your breath...I have made all these arguements to HH before and he refuses to get it.

Let me ask a question.

In Thailand healthcare for the masses is piss poor. I MEAN PISS POOR. If it is a right why doesn't america provide health care for all those very poor deprived people. Is it only a "right" if you are born on american soil (like running for president...yea I opened that can).

If it is such a right that people in america who have every chance to succeed deserve it at the expense of my pocket, than why stop there. Shouldn't we have an agenda to insure everyone in the world?? shouldn't we be fully funding AIDs medication in Africa? I mean those people had far less of a chance in life than pretty much 99.9% of our population, it is our MORAL IMPERATIVE to insure them.

[MJZiggy]

What if we give them insurance under a federal mandate and the result is a drop in the quality of the health care itself?

I have a friend, more like an ex-friend, who is extremely liberal. She accuses me of being a closet conservative, sorta hate me for it. The one point where she abandons her liberal stripes is with health care. She does not want the health care system to be expanded to include everybody, because she says there is not enough health care capacity to go around, she doesn't want to degrade her own access.

Hell, at least she is honest. I think her opinion is typical, she is just more honest than many. I think this is the main holdup in expanding health care to all - the ones who have don't want to share.

How about someone as whacky as me. I think aging is a disease that we will beat in 30 years or less. I also think if we adopt a national health care system techno advances will nearly halt. Cancer cures will never be found. See cy's original post and apply it to healthcare. We could have had NHC back in 1968 when ted kennedy started us down that road....of course breast cancer would still kill most who got it and there would be no bioengineering based chemotherapy. Sure, the shortsighted and not so intelligent would be none the wiser, but fuck I would.

National healthcare insurance does not affect either NIH or CDC where most of the medical research is conducted. Labs still will want to make money no matter who is paying for health coverage and prestigious hospitals will still want to take the money they won't be forced to spend on indigent care and putting it into research. I just don't get the doomsday attitude. Every Nobel prize for research does not come out of the US you know. Teaching hospitals will still teach and lo and behold, the world will not implode if the Federal Government forms an insurance network and covers the 8 million people you say is too insignificant a number to worry about.

[mraynrand]

In Thailand healthcare for the masses is piss poor. I MEAN PISS POOR. If it is a right why doesn't america provide health care for all those very poor deprived people. Is it only a "right" if you are born on american soil (like running for president...yea I opened that can)..

You are wrong. I took a flight to Thailand to get my species change operation. Very good health care. It was free, since it was a right.

[HowardRoark]

In Thailand healthcare for the masses is piss poor. I MEAN PISS POOR. If it is a right why doesn't america provide health care for all those very poor deprived people. Is it only a "right" if you are born on american soil (like running for president...yea I opened that can)..

You are wrong. I took a flight to Thailand to get my species change operation. Very good health care. It was free, since it was a right.

Did you get the first class ticket too? I heard that is a right. Well, I suppose only on the way there. On the way back I suppose you were down below with the cargo. We need to work on that too.

[mraynrand]

National healthcare insurance does not affect either NIH or CDC where most of the medical research is conducted.....

Surprisingly, the NIH budget comes from the same source as any Federal health program - the Federal Budget. You add billions to the budget and sooner or later - even with increased taxes on business the rich (those making 250, 200, 140, 120, 70, 50, or 40 K - whatever it is this week) and all of the sudden, with decreasing revenues, you have a huge budget deficit, to the tune of 500billion to 1 trillion/year. Now, we can just keep borrowing and keep funding NIH research, but I'm guessing with huge mandates for free stuff, the NIH budget will get pinched. Also, you should know that the Dept. of defense also funds tons of research. Frank wants to reduce the military budget by 25%. Research will be one of the first things to go.

[mraynrand]

In Thailand healthcare for the masses is piss poor. I MEAN PISS POOR. If it is a right why doesn't america provide health care for all those very poor deprived people. Is it only a "right" if you are born on american soil (like running for president...yea I opened that can)..

You are wrong. I took a flight to Thailand to get my species change operation. Very good health care. It was free, since it was a right.

Did you get the first class ticket too? I heard that is a right. Well, I suppose only on the way there. On the way back I suppose you were down below with the cargo. We need to work on that too.

Well that was because I'm now a Golden Retriever and Thailand hasn't passed prop 10 like Ohio. But I'm optimistic - Obama is going to change the world.

[Cy]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

Cy: I am not for an "every man for himself" society. Our constitution is. That is the contract that I was born into, that defines my relationship with you. That is, I am not bound by what you think is wise.

Let me tell you some things that I think are wise for you:

I think you should be baptized.

I think you should not have pre-marital sex.

I think you should only be married to one wife.

I think you should drink only one glass of alcohol a day.

I think you should limit your TV watching to less than a half hour a day.

Now, statistics show that those who live by the above lifestyle will have a general level of happiness and wealth above others. Also, the general costs to our nation in terms of health care, prison, moral costs, etc. etc. would be lowered, if everyone just did what I believed was wise.

But then, we wouldn't really be in America anymore, would we. We'd be in a society of philosopher kings, where the "experts" engineer society based on scientifically proven facts.

And there's another name for that sort of system: fascism.

So yes, I most certainly believe in an "every man for himself" society, because the alternative must necessarily always come down to some level of tyranny.

Further, we never discount nature. Nature does not allow us to be "every man for himself," but nature places in each of us a desire to care for our fellow man, beginning with our families and panning out.

But decisions of that nature must be free, in a free society.

[Cy]

What if we give them insurance under a federal mandate and the result is a drop in the quality of the health care itself?

I have a friend, more like an ex-friend, who is extremely liberal. She accuses me of being a closet conservative, sorta hate me for it. The one point where she abandons her liberal stripes is with health care. She does not want the health care system to be expanded to include everybody, because she says there is not enough health care capacity to go around, she doesn't want to degrade her own access.

Hell, at least she is honest. I think her opinion is typical, she is just more honest than many. I think this is the main holdup in expanding health care to all - the ones who have don't want to share.

How about someone as whacky as me. I think aging is a disease that we will beat in 30 years or less. I also think if we adopt a national health care system techno advances will nearly halt. Cancer cures will never be found. See cy's original post and apply it to healthcare. We could have had NHC back in 1968 when ted kennedy started us down that road....of course breast cancer would still kill most who got it and there would be no bioengineering based chemotherapy. Sure, the shortsighted and not so intelligent would be none the wiser, but fuck I would.

National healthcare insurance does not affect either NIH or CDC where most of the medical research is conducted. Labs still will want to make money no matter who is paying for health coverage and prestigious hospitals will still want to take the money they won't be forced to spend on indigent care and putting it into research. I just don't get the doomsday attitude. Every Nobel prize for research does not come out of the US you know. Teaching hospitals will still teach and lo and behold, the world will not implode if the Federal Government forms an insurance network and covers the 8 million people you say is too insignificant a number to worry about.

Cy: Ohhhh, so the whole "big pharmaceutical" thing was just a bugbear? Just a rhetorical device of the Dems to get the "little guy" worked up?

No, obviously big pharmaceutical is big, and that is because lots of money is going on with big pharmaceutical. Isn't that what is inherently wrong with that industry, according to the Libs?

Why is there lots of money in big pharma?

Because the investment in terms of research and time is extraordinary. Think about it. The net actual amount of physical resources put into a new drug could probably fit into your house, a chemical here and a chemical there put together.

But putting the right quantities of those chemicals together takes a brain far bigger than mine, and many others.

And attracting that brain to work for you rather than for Microsoft requires money, an investment in human intellectual capital.

And then spending the average of 15 years to discover, develop, and get FDA approval for, and then get your intellectual property protected from Canadian generic drugs, paying for lobbiests, etc, requires that -- in order for you to go into the project of finding a cure to cancer -- you have some assurance that your risk will be rewarded.

The government cannot compete on that level, and at near the efficiency. They simply cannot.

They cannot attract the brains with the same amount of competetive wages. Something would have to give somewhere -- either higher costs for the drugs they produce or higher taxes to fund whatever program is doing the research.

The only way they could attract those sort of brains is through forcing intelligent people with aptitude in sciences to work on the cure, as opposed to working for Microsoft.

But then, that would (a) take resources away from Microsoft that could potentially deliver something really cool, perhaps even as cool as the cure to cancer, or (b) lead to a product produced through coersion, which would necessarily -- if we have any appreciation for human nature -- be inefficiently produced, and thus, wastefully produced.

[MJZiggy]

National healthcare insurance does not affect either NIH or CDC where most of the medical research is conducted.....

Surprisingly, the NIH budget comes from the same source as any Federal health program - the Federal Budget. You add billions to the budget and sooner or later - even with increased taxes on business the rich (those making 250, 200, 140, 120, 70, 50, or 40 K - whatever it is this week) and all of the sudden, with decreasing revenues, you have a huge budget deficit, to the tune of 500billion to 1 trillion/year. Now, we can just keep borrowing and keep funding NIH research, but I'm guessing with huge mandates for free stuff, the NIH budget will get pinched. Also, you should know that the Dept. of defense also funds tons of research. Frank wants to reduce the military budget by 25%. Research will be one of the first things to go.

Could you please explain to me how ditching indigent care that the govt. has to cover so as not to bankrupt every hospital in the county in favor of an insurance network is going to bankrupt the country? Last I looked, the insurance companies were MAKING money doing this--and if you think the government runs every one of its programs without ever contracting anything out, I suggest you take a much longer look at USACE, DOT and USAID. Get over the doomsday. The country could actually profit from this and looking at the results of the last election, it seems to be policy that the people have spoken about--loudly.

[wist43]

Too bad none of it is Constitutional, i.e. none of it is even legal...

Ah, but that's right... who cares about the Constitution??? it only protects us FROM government.

Unbelievable. Really... I can't believe how ignorant you people are about how our Amercian system of government is supposed to work.

Katie bar the door... everybody's rights are up for grabs, everybody's money is up for grabs, everybody's property is up for grabs.

Wow :shock:

[MJZiggy]

How is subcontracting government services unconstitutional? It keeps a WHOLE lot of people employed. Now the DOT is unconstitutional?

[mraynrand]

Could you please explain to me how ditching indigent care that the govt. has to cover so as not to bankrupt every hospital in the county in favor of an insurance network is going to bankrupt the country?

Woof! rrrruff! woof! (Translation: I don't understand you, human. please make sense to my doggie ears)

[wist43]

How is subcontracting government services unconstitutional? It keeps a WHOLE lot of people employed. Now the DOT is unconstitutional?

No, the DOT isn't unConstitutional...

"To establish post offices, and post roads"

The word "roads" actually appears in the Constitution. The Federal government has very few powers. The socialists have gotten around this by falsely interpreting the Constitution in the courts, and by pounding home "the living document" nonsense in the schools.

In effect, the way the Constitutution is interpreted today, the Federal Governement essentially has no restrictions upon it. "To promote the General Welfare"... which isn't a grant of power, and the "necessary and proper" clause, which also isn't a grant of power, have been used to loose the power of government upon the people.

Our founders warned us, and gave many examples of nations that went the way of democracy/socialism/anarachy/tyranny - Greece, Rome, Lycia, et al. We're following the same formula of self destruction, but the average citizen is too misinformed and ignorant to understand. And yes MJ, I'm sorry to say you fall into that catagory. Anyone who voted for Obama falls into that catagory.

Don't feel alone though, most Republicans are almost as ignorant, as they champion all manner of unConstitutionality as well. Although the leadership of the Republican Party has a more difficult task than does the leadership of the Democrat Party simply b/c the average Republican voter does tend to care more about freedom and is more likely to have an affinity for the principles of freedom contained within the Constitution, even if they don't understand how it is that the leadership of their party is betraying them.

Ignorance is bliss. Too late for me, I made the mistake of actually taking the time to read and learn about these things. Really, I wish I hadn't, b/c I know our country is dying and it can't be stopped... and, I'm truly sad about that. You want to talk about being a minority!!!!

It may take a few more years, a few more decades... but, our system of checks and balances, our capitalist system which is the engine that has driven the greatest economy the world has ever known, our Constitutional system - is being systematically and stealthily destroyed thru democracy; and, if you had ever read the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution you would see very quickly how much disdain our founders had for democracy. In fact, it was Karl Marx who called for Democracy as an effective avenue of imposing tyrrany upon the masses.

Sadly, none of this stuff is taught in the schools anymore, and the population is incredibly ignorant.

To answer your question, no the DOT is not unConstitutional, the FedGov meddling in just about any other business, is. Don't take my word for it, read it... or better yet, for your own peace of mind, don't. Ignorance IS bliss... and I'm not just saying that. Knowing the truth can be a burden, that is why I don't talk about these things much... Obama's populist nonsense brought me out of the woodwork though; and, as it happens, I've needed the distraction :)

[mraynrand]

Too bad none of it is Constitutional, i.e. none of it is even legal...

Ah, but that's right... who cares about the Constitution??? it only protects us FROM government.

Unbelievable. Really... I can't believe how ignorant you people are about how our Amercian system of government is supposed to work.

Katie bar the door... everybody's rights are up for grabs, everybody's money is up for grabs, everybody's property is up for grabs.

Wow :shock:

I am eager for the appointment of Cass Sunstein as Supreme Court Justice. There are all sorts of things that will be made available to us under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Finally, we will have Justices who have empathy for what it's like to be poor, and for what it's like to be a single mom. Isn't that what Supreme Court justices are all about? A new age is dawning and I am wagging my tail with excitement!!!

[falco]

i stopped reading this thread 3 pages ago

[MJZiggy]

How is subcontracting government services unconstitutional? It keeps a WHOLE lot of people employed. Now the DOT is unconstitutional?

No, the DOT isn't unConstitutional...

"To establish post offices, and post roads"

The word "roads" actually appears in the Constitution. The Federal government has very few powers. The socialists have gotten around this by falsely interpreting the Constitution in the courts, and by pounding home "the living document" nonsense in the schools.

In effect, the way the Constitutution is interpreted today, the Federal Governement essentially has no restrictions upon it. "To promote the General Welfare"... which isn't a grant of power, and the "necessary and proper" clause, which also isn't a grant of power, have been used to loose the power of government upon the people.

Our founders warned us, and gave many examples of nations that went the way of democracy/socialism/anarachy/tyranny - Greece, Rome, Lycia, et al. We're following the same formula of self destruction, but the average citizen is too misinformed and ignorant to understand. And yes MJ, I'm sorry to say you fall into that catagory. Anyone who voted for Obama falls into that catagory.

Don't feel alone though, most Republicans are almost as ignorant, as they champion all manner of unConstitutionality as well. Although the leadership of the Republican Party has a more difficult task than does the leadership of the Democrat Party simply b/c the average Republican voter does tend to care more about freedom and is more likely to have an affinity for the principles of freedom contained within the Constitution, even if they don't understand how it is that the leadership of their party is betraying them.

Ignorance is bliss. Too late for me, I made the mistake of actually taking the time to read and learn about these things. Really, I wish I hadn't, b/c I know our country is dying and it can't be stopped... and, I'm truly sad about that. You want to talk about being a minority!!!!

It may take a few more years, a few more decades... but, our system of checks and balances, our capitalist system which is the engine that has driven the greatest economy the world has ever known, our Constitutional system - is being systematically and stealthily destroyed thru democracy; and, if you had ever read the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution you would see very quickly how much disdain our founders had for democracy. In fact, it was Karl Marx who called for Democracy as an effective avenue of imposing tyrrany upon the masses.

Sadly, none of this stuff is taught in the schools anymore, and the population is incredibly ignorant.

To answer your question, no the DOT is not unConstitutional, the FedGov meddling in just about any other business, is. Don't take my word for it, read it... or better yet, for your own peace of mind, don't. Ignorance IS bliss... and I'm not just saying that. Knowing the truth can be a burden, that is why I don't talk about these things much... Obama's populist nonsense brought me out of the woodwork though; and, as it happens, I've needed the distraction :)

Yes, Mr. Rehnquist...

[wist43]

How is subcontracting government services unconstitutional? It keeps a WHOLE lot of people employed. Now the DOT is unconstitutional?

No, the DOT isn't unConstitutional...

"To establish post offices, and post roads"

The word "roads" actually appears in the Constitution. The Federal government has very few powers. The socialists have gotten around this by falsely interpreting the Constitution in the courts, and by pounding home "the living document" nonsense in the schools.

In effect, the way the Constitutution is interpreted today, the Federal Governement essentially has no restrictions upon it. "To promote the General Welfare"... which isn't a grant of power, and the "necessary and proper" clause, which also isn't a grant of power, have been used to loose the power of government upon the people.

Our founders warned us, and gave many examples of nations that went the way of democracy/socialism/anarachy/tyranny - Greece, Rome, Lycia, et al. We're following the same formula of self destruction, but the average citizen is too misinformed and ignorant to understand. And yes MJ, I'm sorry to say you fall into that catagory. Anyone who voted for Obama falls into that catagory.

Don't feel alone though, most Republicans are almost as ignorant, as they champion all manner of unConstitutionality as well. Although the leadership of the Republican Party has a more difficult task than does the leadership of the Democrat Party simply b/c the average Republican voter does tend to care more about freedom and is more likely to have an affinity for the principles of freedom contained within the Constitution, even if they don't understand how it is that the leadership of their party is betraying them.

Ignorance is bliss. Too late for me, I made the mistake of actually taking the time to read and learn about these things. Really, I wish I hadn't, b/c I know our country is dying and it can't be stopped... and, I'm truly sad about that. You want to talk about being a minority!!!!

It may take a few more years, a few more decades... but, our system of checks and balances, our capitalist system which is the engine that has driven the greatest economy the world has ever known, our Constitutional system - is being systematically and stealthily destroyed thru democracy; and, if you had ever read the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution you would see very quickly how much disdain our founders had for democracy. In fact, it was Karl Marx who called for Democracy as an effective avenue of imposing tyrrany upon the masses.

Sadly, none of this stuff is taught in the schools anymore, and the population is incredibly ignorant.

To answer your question, no the DOT is not unConstitutional, the FedGov meddling in just about any other business, is. Don't take my word for it, read it... or better yet, for your own peace of mind, don't. Ignorance IS bliss... and I'm not just saying that. Knowing the truth can be a burden, that is why I don't talk about these things much... Obama's populist nonsense brought me out of the woodwork though; and, as it happens, I've needed the distraction :)

Yes, Mr. Rehnquist...

No need to take it personal MJ... you're the one who has no clue what the Constitution says, and then the hutspah to challenge me on it??? I gave you an intelligent answer to your ignorant question. Not my fault you've never read the Constitution or its supporting documentation.

Take solace though, you can spit on me thru the fence of the gulag before they send me off to the incinerator.

[MJZiggy]

If that's what you want, well ok, but I was gonna be nice and offer you one last life saver on your way.

[GK]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

Cy: I am not for an "every man for himself" society. Our constitution is. That is the contract that I was born into, that defines my relationship with you. That is, I am not bound by what you think is wise.

Cy, I think you meant to say, "That is the contract into which I was born." Never end a sentence with a preposition.

Otherwise, nice work.

[GK]

[quote=Harlan Huckleby][quote=mraynrand] What if we give them insurance under a federal mandate and the result is a drop in the quality of the health care itself?

I have a friend, more like an ex-friend, who is extremely liberal. She accuses me of being a closet conservative, sorta hate me for it. The one point where she abandons her liberal stripes is with health care. She does not want the health care system to be expanded to include everybody, because she says there is not enough health care capacity to go around, she doesn't want to degrade her own access.

Hell, at least she is honest. I think her opinion is typical, she is just more honest than many. I think this is the main holdup in expanding health care to all - the ones who have don't want to share.

Your liberal friend appears to be consistent with her liberal misunderstanding of economics.

So she thinks there is a finite "pie" of healthcare, and if we allow more people to "get a piece of the pie," then she will get less? Is this how all people on the left think? Really? Does she think the earth is flat too? Does she believe in gravity? What other fundamental facts about life on earth do liberals completely not understand?

I am astonished that someone could believe that. She really believes that?

Let's start from the beginning. In a free society with the economic and financial infrastructure that America traditionally has had, there is not a limit to the amount of "stuff" that people can have. People can have, in theory, and infinite amount of food, clothing, televisions, gardening tools, model airplanes, camcorders, books by Noam Chomsky, healthcare, and yes, wealth. Yes, its true. Isn't that cool?

"How?" you may ask.

Wealth in America is just a reflection of what people want. Wealth is created out of thin air. Like magic. Here's an example. About a hundred years ago two bike makers form Ohio played around with an "aeroplane" prototype that they had. Wilbur and Orville Wright, through nothing but their creative minds and hard work, and literally a few dollars worth of raw materials, created a functional airplane. Now, a hundred years later, trillions of dollars of wealth have been created, thousands of people have become millionaires, millions of people have jobs, because of the airline industry. This astronomical amount of wealth was created out of nothing because those two people had creativity and worked hard. They created, out of thin air, trillions of dollars of wealth.

That is how our system works. Wealth and "plenty" are created out of thin air. Every minute of every day in America, millions of people are using their creativity to fill a need, in hopes that they can turn a profit doing it. Is your friend worried about buying an iMac, because if she does, then someone else will not be able to buy an iMac? Is she afraid to buy the latest Pixar DVD, because then it will not be available for someone else to buy? Does she think it is bad to hire a web designer, because then there will be fewer web designers available for the rest of society?

That's the thing. If something is good (a good doctor giving good care, a website that helps people handle simple medical conditions at home, a new type of medical imaging), and its creator is allowed to pursue a profit, then there will always be enough of it.

But, what about running out of raw materials? That does not apply to healthcare in 99% of cases. Healthcare requires a minimum of raw materials. Rather, healthcare primarily requires human intelligence and creativity.

The only way that there could be a finite amount of healthcare is if government were to artificially limit the pursuit of profit by people who are in a position to provide healthcare for us.

So if your friend wants to expand healthcare for more people, and wants to have type of services in healthcare that we cannot even imagine right now, she should support a system introduces market forces into healthcare.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

Cy: I am not for an "every man for himself" society. Our constitution is. That is the contract that I was born into, that defines my relationship with you. That is, I am not bound by what you think is wise.

You are not bound to what I think, and you know I never suggested such a thing. But we do have a society and a government which responds to the public will. The government spends some of your money helping people.

Your notion that the constitution has created a society of totally independent operators is an extreme view. I'm not saying it is irrational, I'm sure you can (with a little help from Wist) document your interpretation by quoting the founding fathers. But the country is very far removed from your thinking.

[bobblehead]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

Cy: I am not for an "every man for himself" society. Our constitution is. That is the contract that I was born into, that defines my relationship with you. That is, I am not bound by what you think is wise.

You are not bound to what I think, and you know I never suggested such a thing. But we do have a society and a government which responds to the public will. The government spends some of your money helping people.

Your notion that the constitution has created a society of totally independent operators is an extreme view. I'm not saying it is irrational, I'm sure you can (with a little help from Wist) document your interpretation by quoting the founding fathers. But the country is very far removed from your thinking.

No taxation without representation...it is simply wrong to run a deficit and pass it on to those who are not able to vote yet. And I don't care what the public will is...once upon a time the public will allowed for burning witches, slavery, and all sorts of shit that was fundamentally wrong....big gov't that isn't paid for by the people using it is fundamentally wrong. Anything other than a flat tax and a balanced budget can never be correct in my personal opinion.

[HowardRoark]

But we do have a society and a government which responds to the public will. The government spends some of your money helping people.

Your notion that the constitution has created a society of totally independent operators is an extreme view. I'm not saying it is irrational, I'm sure you can (with a little help from Wist) document your interpretation by quoting the founding fathers. But the country is very far removed from your thinking.

QF......something, or something.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So if your friend wants to expand healthcare for more people, and wants to have type of services in healthcare that we cannot even imagine right now, she should support a system introduces market forces into healthcare.

In theory this may be true. But there are practical realities that the market can't address.

A market breaks down in serving high-risk people. IT is not humane to deny sick people health insurance, but that's exactly what market pressures lead to.

[mraynrand]

It is not humane to deny sick people health insurance

Then you should purchase it for them. If you have any possessions remaining, sell it all combine it with your cash and buy insurance for the sick. It is the humane thing to do.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It is not humane to deny sick people health insurance

Then you should purchase it for them. If you have any possessions remaining, sell it all combine it with your cash and buy insurance for the sick. It is the humane thing to do.

I'm sure a lot of republicans share your attitude. How's the Grand Old Party doing these days?

[mraynrand]

It is not humane to deny sick people health insurance

Then you should purchase it for them. If you have any possessions remaining, sell it all combine it with your cash and buy insurance for the sick. It is the humane thing to do.

I'm sure a lot of republicans share your attitude. How's the Grand Old Party doing these days?

Have you sold all you possessions yet? Willing to put your money (if you have any) where your mouth is? Or are you only willing to fund health insurance with someone else's money?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Have you sold all you possessions yet? Willing to put your money (if you have any) where your mouth is? Or are you only willing to fund health insurance with someone else's money?

I don't recall a hat being passed around to fund the Iraq War.

I feel dirty for having responded.

[mraynrand]

Have you sold all you possessions yet? Willing to put your money (if you have any) where your mouth is? Or are you only willing to fund health insurance with someone else's money?

I don't recall a hat being passed around to fund the Iraq War.

I feel dirty for having responded.

So what? You were talking about being humane. If you were humane, you would give away you possessions to pay for health care. You should also become a health care worker and provide care for free. It is the humane thing to do.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Can't we send you to the Humane Society?

[wist43]

If that's what you want, well ok, but I was gonna be nice and offer you one last life saver on your way.

Thanks, appreciate the sentiment, but truth be told... once totalitarianism has set in, there's no saving the vilified class... you'd just be identified as a sympathizer and be thrown right in there with me.

[wist43]

It is not humane to deny sick people health insurance

Then you should purchase it for them. If you have any possessions remaining, sell it all combine it with your cash and buy insurance for the sick. It is the humane thing to do.

I'm sure a lot of republicans share your attitude. How's the Grand Old Party doing these days?

GOP died decades ago...

The right wing of the Socialist Party just got booted though. True to historical form, he who promises the most from the public treasury, usually wins. You can never "out-left" the left.

[MJZiggy]

If that's what you want, well ok, but I was gonna be nice and offer you one last life saver on your way.

Thanks, appreciate the sentiment, but truth be told... once totalitarianism has set in, there's no saving the vilified class... you'd just be identified as a sympathizer and be thrown right in there with me.

Nah, they like me. They'd spare me as long as I told 'em where Partial was hiding, explaining to everyone in his cave that they could make 6 figures if they'd just work hard.

[GK]

So if your friend wants to expand healthcare for more people, and wants to have type of services in healthcare that we cannot even imagine right now, she should support a system introduces market forces into healthcare.

In theory this may be true. But there are practical realities that the market can't address.

A market breaks down in serving high-risk people. IT is not humane to deny sick people health insurance, but that's exactly what market pressures lead to.

But you are assuming that a CT scan should cost $2000 (like it does today) and a typical surgery should cost $10,000 (like it does today). Those prices are artificially set. In a free system those prices would be a fraction of what they are today.

[GK]

So if your friend wants to expand healthcare for more people, and wants to have type of services in healthcare that we cannot even imagine right now, she should support a system introduces market forces into healthcare.

In theory this may be true. But there are practical realities that the market can't address.

A market breaks down in serving high-risk people. IT is not humane to deny sick people health insurance, but that's exactly what market pressures lead to.

But you are assuming that a CT scan should cost $2000 (like it does today) and a typical surgery should cost $10,000 (like it does today). Those prices are artificially set. In a free system those prices would be a fraction of what they are today.

And from a provider standpoint, no one has ever denied anyone healthcare.

Today, the only time people don't get the care they need is when Medicare denies it, which it is doing more and more. That is the irony of your argument. When private people are left to care for patients, they care for them, one way or another. The government, however, frequently denies people care.

[mraynrand]

So if your friend wants to expand healthcare for more people, and wants to have type of services in healthcare that we cannot even imagine right now, she should support a system introduces market forces into healthcare.

In theory this may be true. But there are practical realities that the market can't address.

A market breaks down in serving high-risk people. IT is not humane to deny sick people health insurance, but that's exactly what market pressures lead to.

But you are assuming that a CT scan should cost $2000 (like it does today) and a typical surgery should cost $10,000 (like it does today). Those prices are artificially set. In a free system those prices would be a fraction of what they are today.

And from a provider standpoint, no one has ever denied anyone healthcare.

Today, the only time people don't get the care they need is when Medicare denies it, which it is doing more and more. That is the irony of your argument. When private people are left to care for patients, they care for them, one way or another. The government, however, frequently denies people care.

I think the government needs to 'invest' more in healthcare, then, of course, such denials would never happen. ALL care would be approved, to ALL people. That's what a humane government does.

[mraynrand]

Can't we send you to the Humane Society?

I am going to pee on your leg.

[wist43]

If that's what you want, well ok, but I was gonna be nice and offer you one last life saver on your way.

Thanks, appreciate the sentiment, but truth be told... once totalitarianism has set in, there's no saving the vilified class... you'd just be identified as a sympathizer and be thrown right in there with me.

Nah, they like me. They'd spare me as long as I told 'em where Partial was hiding, explaining to everyone in his cave that they could make 6 figures if they'd just work hard.

Ah, an informant... think I'll read 1984 again, ramp up my level of paranoia as a reminder that the walls have ears, and the street corners have eyes. :)

[MJZiggy]

:lol:

[falco]

And from a provider standpoint, no one has ever denied anyone healthcare.

Today, the only time people don't get the care they need is when Medicare denies it, which it is doing more and more. That is the irony of your argument. When private people are left to care for patients, they care for them, one way or another. The government, however, frequently denies people care.

that's not true...if you don't have insurance you most likely won't be seen unless you are talking about emergency room care or delivering a baby.

and then, once you can't pay, welcome to hell when it comes time for collections.

[mraynrand]

.if you don't have insurance you most likely won't be seen unless you are talking about emergency room care or delivering a baby.

untrue.

http://www.metrohealth.org/body.cfm?id=1177

"We respect the dignity of those in our care, serving them with compassion and high quality, regardless of their ability to pay "

[Cy]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

Cy: I am not for an "every man for himself" society. Our constitution is. That is the contract that I was born into, that defines my relationship with you. That is, I am not bound by what you think is wise.

You are not bound to what I think, and you know I never suggested such a thing. But we do have a society and a government which responds to the public will. The government spends some of your money helping people.

Your notion that the constitution has created a society of totally independent operators is an extreme view. I'm not saying it is irrational, I'm sure you can (with a little help from Wist) document your interpretation by quoting the founding fathers. But the country is very far removed from your thinking.

No taxation without representation...it is simply wrong to run a deficit and pass it on to those who are not able to vote yet. And I don't care what the public will is...once upon a time the public will allowed for burning witches, slavery, and all sorts of shit that was fundamentally wrong....big gov't that isn't paid for by the people using it is fundamentally wrong. Anything other than a flat tax and a balanced budget can never be correct in my personal opinion.

Cy: But here's the thing. We are not a democracy that responds to the people's will. We are a Republic that goes about its business according to certain set rules.

Imagine playing Monopoly, and half way through the game, you're winning, and the other three players say, "OK, who wants to vote that Cy has to give up his green properties to us, and share his money?" The three players vote "yes."

That is not only unfair, but it is at root immoral. The three players, along with you, can say, "Yeah, but the will of the people playing this game has changed."

And I'd say, "Tough. Those aren't the rules I subscribed to when someone said, 'Let's play Monopoly' and I agreed."

Well, my friend, by virtue of my being born in this Republic, which is under a constitution, someone said, "Hey, let's play freedom," and I happen to really like that game, and I really like it when it's played by the rules.

Democracy leads to anarchy, and anarchy leads to tyrrany.

Don't you think that the notion that a majority of people can vote to take your money from you is a wee bit disconcerting? What else can the majority of people do to you? Take away your freedom? Enslave you?

Hey, only the constitution says slavery is bad, but as you say, the will of the people dictates where we go, not our constitution.

Be careful how you argue. We don't make decisions based on feelings.

[HowardRoark]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

Cy: I am not for an "every man for himself" society. Our constitution is. That is the contract that I was born into, that defines my relationship with you. That is, I am not bound by what you think is wise.

You are not bound to what I think, and you know I never suggested such a thing. But we do have a society and a government which responds to the public will. The government spends some of your money helping people.

Your notion that the constitution has created a society of totally independent operators is an extreme view. I'm not saying it is irrational, I'm sure you can (with a little help from Wist) document your interpretation by quoting the founding fathers. But the country is very far removed from your thinking.

No taxation without representation...it is simply wrong to run a deficit and pass it on to those who are not able to vote yet. And I don't care what the public will is...once upon a time the public will allowed for burning witches, slavery, and all sorts of shit that was fundamentally wrong....big gov't that isn't paid for by the people using it is fundamentally wrong. Anything other than a flat tax and a balanced budget can never be correct in my personal opinion.

Cy: But here's the thing. We are not a democracy that responds to the people's will. We are a Republic that goes about its business according to certain set rules.

Imagine playing Monopoly, and half way through the game, you're winning, and the other three players say, "OK, who wants to vote that Cy has to give up his green properties to us, and share his money?" The three players vote "yes."

That is not only unfair, but it is at root immoral. The three players, along with you, can say, "Yeah, but the will of the people playing this game has changed."

And I'd say, "Tough. Those aren't the rules I subscribed to when someone said, 'Let's play Monopoly' and I agreed."

Well, my friend, by virtue of my being born in this Republic, which is under a constitution, someone said, "Hey, let's play freedom," and I happen to really like that game, and I really like it when it's played by the rules.

Democracy leads to anarchy, and anarchy leads to tyrrany.

Don't you think that the notion that a majority of people can vote to take your money from you is a wee bit disconcerting? What else can the majority of people do to you? Take away your freedom? Enslave you?

Hey, only the constitution says slavery is bad, but as you say, the will of the people dictates where we go, not our constitution.

Be careful how you argue. We don't make decisions based on feelings.

I think Bobble agrees with you....were you talking to Harlan?

[Cy]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

Cy: I am not for an "every man for himself" society. Our constitution is. That is the contract that I was born into, that defines my relationship with you. That is, I am not bound by what you think is wise.

You are not bound to what I think, and you know I never suggested such a thing. But we do have a society and a government which responds to the public will. The government spends some of your money helping people.

Your notion that the constitution has created a society of totally independent operators is an extreme view. I'm not saying it is irrational, I'm sure you can (with a little help from Wist) document your interpretation by quoting the founding fathers. But the country is very far removed from your thinking.

No taxation without representation...it is simply wrong to run a deficit and pass it on to those who are not able to vote yet. And I don't care what the public will is...once upon a time the public will allowed for burning witches, slavery, and all sorts of shit that was fundamentally wrong....big gov't that isn't paid for by the people using it is fundamentally wrong. Anything other than a flat tax and a balanced budget can never be correct in my personal opinion.

Cy: But here's the thing. We are not a democracy that responds to the people's will. We are a Republic that goes about its business according to certain set rules.

Imagine playing Monopoly, and half way through the game, you're winning, and the other three players say, "OK, who wants to vote that Cy has to give up his green properties to us, and share his money?" The three players vote "yes."

That is not only unfair, but it is at root immoral. The three players, along with you, can say, "Yeah, but the will of the people playing this game has changed."

And I'd say, "Tough. Those aren't the rules I subscribed to when someone said, 'Let's play Monopoly' and I agreed."

Well, my friend, by virtue of my being born in this Republic, which is under a constitution, someone said, "Hey, let's play freedom," and I happen to really like that game, and I really like it when it's played by the rules.

Democracy leads to anarchy, and anarchy leads to tyrrany.

Don't you think that the notion that a majority of people can vote to take your money from you is a wee bit disconcerting? What else can the majority of people do to you? Take away your freedom? Enslave you?

Hey, only the constitution says slavery is bad, but as you say, the will of the people dictates where we go, not our constitution.

Be careful how you argue. We don't make decisions based on feelings.

I think Bobble agrees with you....were you talking to Harlan?

Cy: Yes, I get lost in this house of mirrors. It's like some sort of surrealistic film from Weimar.

[bobblehead]

xx

edit...didn't read next posts before I responded.