# Universal Healthcare?



## manifold (Feb 20, 2008)

The debate about universal healthcare and so forth, as we all know, has been raging for several years now.  To be quite frank, I'm still undecided and conflicted about where I stand on the issue.  My question to the members of this forum is this:  Is healthcare a right?  And by "right," I don't mean the unalienable kind endowed by the creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the kind defined by the laws of man.  What do you think?


----------



## JeffWartman (Feb 20, 2008)

manifold said:


> The debate about universal healthcare and so forth, as we all know, has been raging for several years now.  To be quite frank, I'm still undecided and conflicted about where I stand on the issue.  My question to the members of this forum is this:  Is healthcare a right?  And by "right," I don't mean the unalienable kind endowed by the creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the kind defined by the laws of man.  What do you think?



To believe in universal healthcare, you have to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money that I earn.  They do not.


----------



## MasterChief (Feb 20, 2008)

Every person has a universal right to take care of their own health--brush your teeth, eat balanced meals, get plenty of exercise, take a daily shower, get eight hours of sleep each night--nobody has a universal right to have others take care of them, any more than any stranger has a universal right to take money out of your back pocket. If plumbers don't work for free, then what makes anyone believe a medical doctor should work for free.  

Now if a medical doctor, out of Christian compassion or any other type of compassion, wants to help the poor by opening a free clinic--God Bless him or her--but no government should force doctors to work for the government and then ration out health care.


----------



## Detmurds (Feb 20, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Every person has a universal right to take care of their own health--brush your teeth, eat balanced meals, get plenty of exercise, take a daily shower, get eight hours of sleep each night--nobody has a universal right to have others take care of them, any more than any stranger has a universal right to take money out of your back pocket. If plumbers don't work for free, then what makes anyone believe a medical doctor should work for free.
> 
> Now if a medical doctor, out of Christian compassion or any other type of compassion, wants to help the poor by opening a free clinic--God Bless him or her--but no government should force doctors to work for the government and then ration out health care.



Perfectly said MC (Shipmate!)!

~Detmurds


----------



## Paulie (Feb 20, 2008)

JeffWartman said:


> To believe in universal healthcare, you have to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money that I earn.  They do not.



You'd also have to believe that with the way government and the medical-industrial complex are in bed with each other, that somehow there would actually be a workable social healthcare system.

Sorry, but I can't possibly see that as being the case.


----------



## manifold (Feb 20, 2008)

JeffWartman said:


> To believe in universal healthcare, you have to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money that I earn.  They do not.



Is the money that you earn not at least partly enabled by the infrastructure and laws of civilization?  Is it not just a little bit disingenuous to view the issue through such a narrow lense, almost in a vacuum even?


----------



## manifold (Feb 20, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Every person has a universal right to take care of their own health--brush your teeth, eat balanced meals, get plenty of exercise, take a daily shower, get eight hours of sleep each night--nobody has a universal right to have others take care of them, any more than any stranger has a universal right to take money out of your back pocket. If plumbers don't work for free, then what makes anyone believe a medical doctor should work for free.
> 
> Now if a medical doctor, out of Christian compassion or any other type of compassion, wants to help the poor by opening a free clinic--God Bless him or her--but no government should force doctors to work for the government and then ration out health care.



So in other words, you would not only tolerate, but actually champion a world in which a severly wounded accident victim could be denied emergency care simply because he is poor.  According to the philosophy you've laid out, I guess you must think the poor already have it too good since this would likely never happen.  Duly noted.


----------



## manifold (Feb 20, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> You'd also have to believe that with the way government and the medical-industrial complex are in bed with each other, that somehow there would actually be a workable social healthcare system.
> 
> Sorry, but I can't possibly see that as being the case.



Not the question, but thanks for your participation.


----------



## JeffWartman (Feb 20, 2008)

manifold said:


> Is the money that you earn not at least partly enabled by the infrastructure and laws of civilization?  Is it not just a little bit disingenuous to view the issue through such a narrow lense, almost in a vacuum even?



Most of that infrastructure and "laws of civilization" are not paid for with federal income taxes to begin with, and don't need income taxes at all.  

You're either a socialist, who believe they have a moral right to the money that I earn, or you're a classical liberal, who believe that only I have a moral right to the money I earn.

To suggest that a moral, just, fair and civilized society could not be achieved without an income tax is ignorant of both history and economics.


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 20, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Every person has a universal right to take care of their own health--brush your teeth, eat balanced meals, get plenty of exercise, take a daily shower, get eight hours of sleep each night.



What if you cant afford a toothbrush or toothpaste?  What if you cant afford food or water?  What if you are struggling with 2 jobs and dont have time to sleep 8 hours each night?

What if you are severely mentally restarted and physically handicapped and dont know what it means to take care of yourself?


----------



## JeffWartman (Feb 20, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> What if you cant afford a toothbrush or toothpaste?  What if you cant afford food or water?  What if you are struggling with 2 jobs and dont have time to sleep 8 hours each night?



If you are working two jobs and cannot afford a toothbrush or toothpaste, you've failed at life.


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 20, 2008)

The use of the word 'right' distorts the debate. The question should be asked how does a society benefit if health-care is universal. The answer is simple, it functions better and allows every individual more freedom to pursue their dream of occupation, business, schooling, or entrepreneurial work. It's one of those infrastructure things like transportation or security that help everyone live a better freer life.


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 20, 2008)

JeffWartman said:


> If you are working two jobs and cannot afford a toothbrush or toothpaste, you've failed at life.



Is it your contention that there should be no government assisted hospitals to care for the severely mentally retarded and physically handicapped  those who have no family or friends to support them and will never be self reliant or able to care for themselves?  Please simply answer the question: Yes or No?


----------



## JeffWartman (Feb 20, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Is it your contention that there should be no government assisted hospitals to care for the severely mentally retarded and physically handicapped  those who have no family or friends to support them and will never be self reliant or able to care for themselves?  Please simply answer the question: Yes or No?



Considering that implication is no where present in my statement, I'd say you're asking an irreleavnt question.

But I will answer -- if you believe that providing for these people can only be the function of government, you've got a lot to learn.


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 20, 2008)

JeffWartman said:


> Considering that implication is no where present in my statement, I'd say you're asking an irreleavnt question.
> 
> But I will answer -- if you believe that providing for these people can only be the function of government, you've got a lot to learn.



I was originally commenting to MasterChief.  If you can but in, then I can ask an irrelevant question. 

You did not answer my question.  Instead you put words in my mouth implying that I said something that I did not say.  I asked if you thought that there should be no government assisted hospitals.

My question was a close-ended question.  It required a yes or a no as an answer.  Suggesting that I have a lot to learn is not an answer to my question.


----------



## JeffWartman (Feb 20, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I was originally commenting to MasterChief.  If you can but in, then I can ask an irrelevant question.



You quoted me, then asked the question.  Are you schizophrenic or something?



> You did not answer my question.  Instead you put words in my mouth implying that I said something that I did not say.  I asked if you thought that there should be no government assisted hospitals.



Society would be much better off without government run hospitals.  Your implication is that poor people can only get help if it comes from the government.  That is a _very_ false assumption.



> My question was a close-ended question.  It required a yes or a no as an answer.  Suggesting that I have a lot to learn is not an answer to my question.



No, it's obvious because you had to ask the question.


----------



## manifold (Feb 20, 2008)

JeffWartman said:


> Most of that infrastructure and "laws of civilization" are not paid for with federal income taxes to begin with, and don't need income taxes at all.
> 
> You're either a socialist, who believe they have a moral right to the money that I earn, or you're a classical liberal, who believe that only I have a moral right to the money I earn.
> 
> To suggest that a moral, just, fair and civilized society could not be achieved without an income tax is ignorant of both history and economics.



I guess it's all paid for with pixie dust then.

The bottom line fact is that if it wasn't for civilization, laws, property rights and the enforcement of contracts, you wouldn't be earning any money.  You'd be too busy hunting and gathering food and trying to protect it from theives.  Ignorance of this simple and obvious fact is astonishingly pandemic.  To suggest that the civilization and society that affords you the opportunity to go out and make this money is owed nothing in return is mind-blowingly selfish...and decidedly ignorant.


----------



## JeffWartman (Feb 20, 2008)

manifold said:


> I guess it's all paid for with pixie dust then.



LOL.  This isn't hard -- it's all readily available information.  Roads are paid for with gasoline taxes and other user fees.  Not federal income tax.  Schools are paid for using local property taxes, not the federal income tax.  



> The bottom line fact is that if it wasn't for civilization, laws, property rights and the enforcement of contracts, you wouldn't be earning any money.



Yes, but to say that without a federal income tax, we wouldn't have a civilization or property rights is painfully ignorant of history -- we didn't have an income tax until 1913.  We did, however, always have property rights, protection and laws.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 20, 2008)

manifold said:


> The debate about universal healthcare and so forth, as we all know, has been raging for several years now.  To be quite frank, I'm still undecided and conflicted about where I stand on the issue.  My question to the members of this forum is this:  Is healthcare a right?  And by "right," I don't mean the unalienable kind endowed by the creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the kind defined by the laws of man.  What do you think?



I think if we are to debate rights, we have to view this throughly. Ok, for one everyone has rights, under the preumbras of the Constitution. In other words, everyone has the right of speech, everyone has the right to bear arms, right to assemble in public places. Ok, yes no one should suffer without medical care so, I do believe in a theoretical sense you should have the right to healthcare. I mean it's a basic neccessity, healthcare. But as with other rights, they are your rights until they violate society's rights. For example you have the right of speech, but if you use that speech to encite violence then that is no longer a right of yours. Because you violated someone else's rights. Well the same could be said of universal healthcare, you have the right to healthcare, but when you violate the right's of another then that right is no longer yours. You would be taking another person's money, which is in and of itself stealing...... Governmental money is taxpayer money


----------



## jreeves (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> I guess it's all paid for with pixie dust then.
> 
> The bottom line fact is that if it wasn't for civilization, laws, property rights and the enforcement of contracts, you wouldn't be earning any money.  You'd be too busy hunting and gathering food and trying to protect it from theives.  Ignorance of this simple and obvious fact is astonishingly pandemic.  To suggest that the civilization and society that affords you the opportunity to go out and make this money is owed nothing in return is mind-blowingly selfish...and decidedly ignorant.



There are tons of not for profit organizations that help the needy. I believe they could do things alot more efficiently than a government that has a 9.3 dollar defecit. This would allow the needy to recieve the help they need and still maintain the rights of the taxpayer.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 21, 2008)

jreeves said:


> There are tons of not for profit organizations that help the needy. I believe they could do things alot more efficiently than a government that has a 9.3 dollar defecit. This would allow the needy to recieve the help they need and still maintain the rights of the taxpayer.



9.3 trillion dollar defecit...


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 21, 2008)

JeffWartman said:


> Society would be much better off without government run hospitals.  Your implication is that poor people can only get help if it comes from the government.  That is a _very_ false assumption.



I did not imply anything.  You inferred something.  I asked you a very east to understand yes-no question and you have yet to give a straight answer.


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

JeffWartman said:


> LOL.  This isn't hard -- it's all readily available information.  Roads are paid for with gasoline taxes and other user fees.  Not federal income tax.  Schools are paid for using local property taxes, not the federal income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but to say that without a federal income tax, we wouldn't have a civilization or property rights is painfully ignorant of history -- we didn't have an income tax until 1913.  We did, however, always have property rights, protection and laws.




When did I ever bring up income taxes specifically?  Oh yeah, I didn't.  I'm not sure why you would try to twist the discussion to be one about the merits of various forms of taxes.  The bottom line, as you apparently acknowledge in a round about way, is that some form of funding is necessary.  What form that funding should take is an entirely different debate.


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I think if we are to debate rights, we have to view this throughly. Ok, for one everyone has rights, under the preumbras of the Constitution. In other words, everyone has the right of speech, everyone has the right to bear arms, right to assemble in public places. Ok, yes no one should suffer without medical care so, I do believe in a theoretical sense you should have the right to healthcare. I mean it's a basic neccessity, healthcare. But as with other rights, they are your rights until they violate society's rights. For example you have the right of speech, but if you use that speech to encite violence then that is no longer a right of yours. Because you violated someone else's rights. Well the same could be said of universal healthcare, you have the right to healthcare, but when you violate the right's of another then that right is no longer yours. You would be taking another person's money, which is in and of itself stealing...... Governmental money is taxpayer money



I'm not sure I follow your logic.  According to my interpretation of your statement, then a foot soldier in the Iraqi desert has violated my rights by taking my money.  Afterall, governmental money is taxpayer money.  I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so insane as to really believe that, so please explain?


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

jreeves said:


> There are tons of not for profit organizations that help the needy. I believe they could do things alot more efficiently than a government that has a 9.3 dollar defecit. This would allow the needy to recieve the help they need and still maintain the rights of the taxpayer.



Can you explain what you mean by the phrase "the rights of the taxpayer?"

Are you suggesting that there is a relationship between the amount one pays in taxes and the level of rights they are entitled to receive?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> The use of the word 'right' distorts the debate. The question should be asked how does a society benefit if health-care is universal. The answer is simple, it functions better and allows every individual more freedom to pursue their dream of occupation, business, schooling, or entrepreneurial work. It's one of those infrastructure things like transportation or security that help everyone live a better freer life.



That's quite the contradiction you have there.  More government control makes us freer? Oookkaay.  Why am I responsible for your health, more so than you are?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> I guess it's all paid for with pixie dust then.
> 
> The bottom line fact is that if it wasn't for civilization, laws, property rights and the enforcement of contracts, you wouldn't be earning any money.  You'd be too busy hunting and gathering food and trying to protect it from theives.  Ignorance of this simple and obvious fact is astonishingly pandemic.  To suggest that the civilization and society that affords you the opportunity to go out and make this money is owed nothing in return is mind-blowingly selfish...and decidedly ignorant.



Could you please count the unfounded assumptions in this post first?  You seem to be substituting the word 'society' with 'government'.  UHC would have to be run by government.  Which they can only run by taxing us.  So again why is taking care of your health my responsibility or obligation?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Ok Bern lemme toss this at ya and see if it sticks...


A significant portion of America would like UHC and another significant portion doesn't want to pay for it.  Melle see if I can figure out an acceptable alternative.



UHC - When we think UHC it's not really defined enough to convey the entire range of potential service and, thus, doesn't help us really understand the large quantities of money it would take.  so, instead of using a blanket term that suggests who qualifies let's use a term that expresses the range of specific coverage - Like Basic Health Care.  While the goal is still universal application, this gives up clear definition regarding what is being paid for.  Also, we can then move to adding services available as they can be paid for.  I'd suggest starting with basic screening and adding from there.


Funding - I understand the resentment involved in having your money taken to pay for something that isn't your personal fault to begin with.  Ok.  How about this: BHC can be funded by tax exempt donations, charitable contributions and pledge drives.  Hillary can become the new Jerry and PBS can beg for money for something other than their yearly budget.  This gives Americans who benefit and who believe in BHC the ability to invest in their cause and takes the boulder off of your shoulder.  Voluntary taxes can be taken out of payroll wages and those who give money are those who are put at the top of the list when specific service is required.



how does that taste so far?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> UHC - When we think UHC it's not really defined enough to convey the entire range of potential service and, thus, doesn't help us really understand the large quantities of money it would take.  so, instead of using a blanket term that suggests who qualifies let's use a term that expresses the range of specific coverage - Like Basic Health Care.  While the goal is still universal application, this gives up clear definition regarding what is being paid for.  Also, we can then move to adding services available as they can be paid for.  I'd suggest starting with basic screening and adding from there.
> 
> Funding - I understand the resentment involved in having your money taken to pay for something that isn't your personal fault to begin with.  Ok.  How about this: BHC can be funded by tax exempt donations, charitable contributions and pledge drives.  Hillary can become the new Jerry and PBS can beg for money for something other than their yearly budget.  This gives Americans who benefit and who believe in BHC the ability to invest in their cause and takes the boulder off of your shoulder.  Voluntary taxes can be taken out of payroll wages and those who give money are those who are put at the top of the list when specific service is required.
> 
> how does that taste so far?



What I don't want is government running our healthcare.  It would be an absolute mess for all kinds of reasons.  I oppose for two very basic reasons, one I have stated is that paying for your health is not the responsibility or obligation of anyone else.  It goes back to my argument in other threads that others should not be responsible for providing people what they have the ability to provide for themselves.  Two is that there is nothing government does efficiently and I would think healthcare would be something we would want to have run efficiently.

The extent of government's involvement in healthcare should be essentially supplying care to those that need it who have no other payment options.  I know firsthand that medical services cost far more than most anyone could afford w/o insureance providers and on top of that insureance providers are signifcantly reducing what they will cover.  these are things that need to be worked on, but the solution is not a government takeover of the industry.


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Could you please count the unfounded assumptions in this post first?  You seem to be substituting the word 'society' with 'government'.  UHC would have to be run by government.  Which they can only run by taxing us.  So again why is taking care of your health my responsibility or obligation?




It isn't, unless and until we decide collectively that it is.  Just like we've already decided that it is when it comes to matters of national security, law enforcement, roads, bridges, education, etc.  You're welcome to argue as passionately as you like that we shouldn't make such a decision, but just don't try to paint it as something for which there is not ample precedent.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> What I don't want is government running our healthcare.  It would be an absolute mess for all kinds of reasons.  I oppose for two very basic reasons, one I have stated is that paying for your health is not the responsibility or obligation of anyone else.  It goes back to my argument in other threads that others should not be responsible for providing people what they have the ability to provide for themselves.  Two is that there is nothing government does efficiently and I would think healthcare would be something we would want to have run efficiently.
> 
> The extent of government's involvement in healthcare should be essentially supplying care to those that need it who have no other payment options.  I know firsthand that medical services cost far more than most anyone could afford w/o insureance providers and on top of that insureance providers are signifcantly reducing what they will cover.  these are things that need to be worked on, but the solution is not a government takeover of the industry.




NO one would force you to participate or contribute with the above so it would not be YOUR health care if you choose not to participate.  If you can afford better health care then kudos to you.  Those who cannot afford even the most basic of service can have an option for the most basic services.  It's a win, win, win.

I;ve addressed your concern regarding taxes being used to fund it.  Thus, your concern about whose role it iis to pay for someone else's health care is moot.  If you think you can pay for better service then you are free to do so, thus your concern about efficiency and govt responsibility is moot as well.  If you are given an option not to participate then what is your main objection?


Indeed, it's easy to SAY that the issue needs to be worked on and SAY that the gov is not the solution but that doesn't really meet me in the middle anywhere, does it?  It sure doesn't offer any alternative, does it?  I respect your OPINION and thus I offer a compromise but we all have opinions and i'll remind you that the majority has more say in this nation than does the claim of a free market economic standard.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> It isn't, unless and until we decide collectively that it is.  Just like we've already decided that it is when it comes to matters of national security, law enforcement, roads, bridges, education, etc.  You're welcome to argue as passionately as you like that we shouldn't make such a decision, but just don't try to paint it as something for which there is not ample precedent.



There isn't really.  All of those things you listed are things that we can't reasonably expect someone to provide for themselves.  It is reasonable however for me to expect you to take care of your healthcare needs as oppossed to me being expected to pay for it.


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> There isn't really.  All of those things you listed are things that we can't reasonably expect someone to provide for themselves.  It is reasonable however for me to expect you to take care of your healthcare needs as oppossed to me being expected to pay for it.



At one time all those things were considered reasonable for one to provide for themselves.  Why do you think that has changed?  The advancement of civilization perhaps?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> There isn't really.  *All of those things you listed are things that we can't reasonably expect someone to provide for themselves.*  It is *reasonable however for me to expect you to take care of your healthcare* needs as oppossed to me being expected to pay for it.



How do you reconcile the above bolded with the bolded below?


*I know firsthand that medical services cost far more than most anyone could afford w/o insureance providers* and on top of that *insureance providers are signifcantly reducing what they will cover.*


which is it?  is it reasonable to expect people to pay for services that cost more than anyone could afford or should we all redefine our common understanding of "law enforcemnt" to reflect a personal effort that nixes the need for publicly funded cops?


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

The idea that it is so offensive to have one's taxdollars used to provide basic healthcare for someone else seems a bit silly to me, at best.  It's not as if we currently enjoy an individual line item veto with respect to how our tax money gets used.  I'm sure there are a lot of people that aren't terribley ecstatic over aid sent to Israel for example.  Or what about the bucketfuls of money being spent occupying a foreign land for which the benefits to us are dubious at best?  The list goes on and on.  The only logical arguments against UHC are the one's centered around feasibility, efficiency and the _magnitude_ of the cost.  Of which there are many and they should certainly be addressed before some half baked plan gets foisted on everyone.  But this idea that it is offensive on the basis that I shouldn't have to pay for you, is not only ignorant, it's intellectually offensive.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> NO one would force you to participate or contribute with the above so it would not be YOUR health care if you choose not to participate.  If you can afford better health care then kudos to you.  Those who cannot afford even the most basic of service can have an option for the most basic services.  It's a win, win, win.
> 
> I;ve addressed your concern regarding taxes being used to fund it.  Thus, your concern about whose role it iis to pay for someone else's health care is moot.  If you think you can pay for better service then you are free to do so, thus your concern about efficiency and govt responsibility is moot as well.  If you are given an option not to participate then what is your main objection?
> 
> ...



I don't think private contributions are very realistic for one thing.  And I'm not oppossed to be taxes to help people that can't help themselves.  So I don't think you're compromise is too far off from what I would like to see.  

Another rason UHC is being suggested and form it would take is something closer to what Canada has.  It isn't being propossed just for those that can't afford it.  It's being propossed as way to reduce healthcare expenses for everyone.  Instead of paying premiums, co-pays, etc. you'd just pay taxes and that would be that.  As I alluded to, that applies to our system because even with insureance companies health care costs to the actual patience is still going through the roof. Believe me, no ones more than me what an absolute pain the ass our insureance system currently is.  What do they cover? What don't they cover?  What asanine condition do I need to meet to grant an asanine prior authorization?  It's all so insureance companies can avoid paying out as much as possible.

My suggestion then is to fix that.  One step that could be taken is to reduce government regulation of insurance companies which is a significant expenditure to them and as we all know extra expenses on anything almost always get based on to the consumer.  Yes I know I'm just saying some things, that is mainly because I don't really know where the cost for certain services or drugs come from.  For example one drug I have to be on if I had to pay for by myslef, no insureance, would cost $800 a month.  I would love to know what goes into makeing it cost that much.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> How do you reconcile the above bolded with the bolded below?
> 
> 
> *I know firsthand that medical services cost far more than most anyone could afford w/o insureance providers* and on top of that *insureance providers are signifcantly reducing what they will cover.*
> ...



Because the idea is the premiums that I pay I will eventually get back when I use services.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> The idea that it is so offensive to have one's taxdollars used to provide basic healthcare for someone else seems a bit silly to me, at best.  It's not as if we currently enjoy an individual line item veto with respect to how our tax money gets used.  I'm sure there are a lot of people that aren't terribley ecstatic over aid sent to Israel for example.  Or what about the bucketfuls of money being spent occupying a foreign land for which the benefits to us are dubious at best?  The list goes on and on.  The only logical arguments against UHC are the one's centered around feasibility, efficiency and the _magnitude_ of the cost.  Of which there are many and they should certainly be addressed before some half baked plan gets foisted on everyone.  But this idea that it is offensive on the basis that I shouldn't have to pay for you, is not only ignorant, it's intellectually offensive.



It's only offensive if you assume those things are okay.  Since we are talking about precedent, just because there is precedent for how government has spent our money doesn't mean we've accepted it as okay.  Our taxes are ridiculous because they are paying for a war and wars in the past that have no real benefit for us.  We pay for congresses pet projects.  Our taxes go to all kinds of crap that are just that, crap.  

I am not ignorant about what our taxes get spent and it is intellectually offensive that you took the easy road and assumed my position on government spending.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> At one time all those things were considered reasonable for one to provide for themselves.  Why do you think that has changed?  The advancement of civilization perhaps?



It was reasonable for people to provide themselves roads and bridges?  Your argument then is that as civilization advances we should let government do more things for us?


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> It's only offensive if you assume those things are okay.  Since we are talking about precedent, just because there is precedent for how government has spent our money doesn't mean we've accepted it as okay.  Our taxes are ridiculous because they are paying for a war and wars in the past that have no real benefit for us.  We pay for congresses pet projects.  Our taxes go to all kinds of crap that are just that, crap.
> 
> I am not ignorant about what our taxes get spent and it is intellectually offensive that you took the easy road and assumed my position on government spending.



You have misinterpretted my position, which is probably my fault.  I apologize if I gave you the impression that I've assumed you're a-ok with current tax and spend policies and precedent.  In fact I implied that most people, like me, are not.  My point is that to simply dismiss UHC on the grounds that it violates your right to keep what you earn is to be ignorant, or intellectually dishonest, about how society, civilization and government works.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> I don't think private contributions are very realistic for one thing.  And I'm not oppossed to be taxes to help people that can't help themselves.  So I don't think you're compromise is too far off from what I would like to see.
> 
> Another rason UHC is being suggested and form it would take is something closer to what Canada has.  It isn't being propossed just for those that can't afford it.  It's being propossed as way to reduce healthcare expenses for everyone.  Instead of paying premiums, co-pays, etc. you'd just pay taxes and that would be that.  As I alluded to, that applies to our system because even with insureance companies health care costs to the actual patience is still going through the roof. Believe me, no ones more than me what an absolute pain the ass our insureance system currently is.  What do they cover? What don't they cover?  What asanine condition do I need to meet to grant an asanine prior authorization?  It's all so insureance companies can avoid paying out as much as possible.
> 
> My suggestion then is to fix that.  One step that could be taken is to reduce government regulation of insurance companies which is a significant expenditure to them and as we all know extra expenses on anything almost always get based on to the consumer.  Yes I know I'm just saying some things, that is mainly because I don't really know where the cost for certain services or drugs come from.  For example one drug I have to be on if I had to pay for by myslef, no insureance, would cost $800 a month.  I would love to know what goes into makeing it cost that much.





capitolism, bern.  capitolism.  When has deregulation ever caused the consumer price to drop on anything?  Do you think it costs 800 bucks to make the drug you have to take?  Do we really expect the pharmie industry to pass BACK savings to the consumer when we all know that the only goal in capitolism is profit margins?  What, exactly, do you mean by deregulating insurance?  What, exactly, are the regulations that you think are causing high insurance rates?

Indeed, is it not true that the only way to reduce the high price of health care is to introduce competition to the healthcare market that makes insurance companies compete for business?  What competitive options do you have when paying for your meds?  Doesn't this fly in the face of the usual excuses for capitolism?

Instead of taxes and co-pays I'm suggesting that we grow a Basic Health Care system from the tax deductable financial input of those who will partake of these services and donations from those who feel so passionately aobut universal health care.  I fialto see how this hinders those who choose to pay for their own coverage.

Insurance is no less a product of capitolism than any other business looking to reduce cost while maintaining a very minimum of service.  This system doesn't work for the rest of America who cant afford private health insurance and I don't see how the fear of becoming canada is applicable.


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> It was reasonable for people to provide themselves roads and bridges?  Your argument then is that as civilization advances we should let government do more things for us?



Yes, it was.  Many a private dirt road still exists today in northern New England for example.  As for the second part, not necessarily government, but rather society collectively.  I'm not convinced that a workable solution that guarantees basic healthcare to everyone must be administered by the government.  However, it would certainly require at least minimal government oversight.  The greatest road block to any such solution IMO is insurance companies.  They're making a shit load of money right now and they spend a fair amount of their profit insuring (pun intended) that nothing happens to disrupt their gravy train.  To be honest, I view the label "health insurance" to be a misnomer.  Insurance has historically meant protection against severe financial loss, not getting a yearly checkup or teeth cleaning.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Because the idea is the premiums that I pay I will eventually get back when I use services.



yea... that wa the premise behind social security too.. but when insurance companies have a bottom line to contend with, not to mention profit margins like any other capitolist business, the result are the hoops you have to jump through in order to qualify for coverage.  If a poor person had to pay for 800/month in meds on a wal mart wage how is it reasonable to expect that person to afford such an expense?  Should the person just be stoic about their health and die since they can't afford the same things you can?  Is this the America you want to live in?  I'm not sure if a voting majority will make the same choice.  Like I said, We the People have more stock in the Constitution than the guarantee of a free market.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> It's only offensive if you assume those things are okay.  Since we are talking about precedent, just because there is precedent for how government has spent our money doesn't mean we've accepted it as okay.  Our taxes are ridiculous because they are paying for a war and wars in the past that have no real benefit for us.  We pay for congresses pet projects.  Our taxes go to all kinds of crap that are just that, crap.
> 
> I am not ignorant about what our taxes get spent and it is intellectually offensive that you took the easy road and assumed my position on government spending.



At the same time he makes a valid point about line item objections regarding how taxes are spent.  Blackwater employees might make the same kind of position against a federally funded military undermining their free market preogative.  Would their objections be more or less valid than yours regarding UHC?


----------



## bennylava (Feb 21, 2008)

JeffWartman said:


> To believe in universal healthcare, you have to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money that I earn.  They do not.



To believe that the government should maintain the roads, distribute the mail, run a social security system, and provide for the common defense is to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money I earn. They do not.


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

bennylava said:


> To believe that the government should maintain the roads, distribute the mail, run a social security system, and provide for the common defense is to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money I earn. They do not.



God damn it, you just said in one short sentence what I've been trying, with limited success, to say in several posts.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> God damn it, you just said in one short sentence what I've been trying, with limited success, to say in several posts.



yea... but... the thinkg is, and he can correct me if Im wrong, Bern probably also doesn't think that the government should be responsible for those things (except for the military, perhaps) either.  Which, kinda trumps the argument.

If I were taking his position I'd reply with Toll Roads, UPS/FEDEx and private 401k's which are dependant on investor returns.


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> yea... but... the thinkg is, and he can correct me if Im wrong, Bern probably also doesn't think that the government should be responsible for those things (except for the military, perhaps) either.  Which, kinda trumps the argument.
> 
> If I were taking his position I'd reply with Toll Roads, UPS/FEDEx and private 401k's which are dependant on investor returns.



What about law enforcement?  Enforcement of contracts?  Courts?  Dispute settlement?  And your exception, the military, that sure isn't free.  And I also don't hear people bitchin about how inefficiently it's being run in the hands of the government.

The bottom line is everyone acknowledges the need for at least some level of governance, even the most ardent libertarian.  And since the government doesn't create it's own wealth, it needs to be funded.  The debate then is largly what is the optimal level.  That's why it puzzles me when people dismiss UHC on ideological grounds about their right not to pay taxes.  It's just plain idiotic.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> You have misinterpretted my position, which is probably my fault.  I apologize if I gave you the impression that I've assumed you're a-ok with current tax and spend policies and precedent.  In fact I implied that most people, like me, are not.  My point is that to simply dismiss UHC on the grounds that it violates your right to keep what you earn is to be ignorant, or intellectually dishonest, about how society, civilization and government works.



And my point is just because it's happenned before doesn't mean we should keep doing it.  As far as government taking what I've earned again I have no problem government taking it for the purpose of helping people that can't help themselves or for providing things that I can't find better ways to provide for myself.  Yes you are right that as civilization advances some things will become more diffiuclt to provide, but I think we've both agreed that that doesn't inherently mean government is the solution


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> yea... that wa the premise behind social security too.. but when insurance companies have a bottom line to contend with, not to mention profit margins like any other capitolist business, the result are the hoops you have to jump through in order to qualify for coverage.  If a poor person had to pay for 800/month in meds on a wal mart wage how is it reasonable to expect that person to afford such an expense?  Should the person just be stoic about their health and die since they can't afford the same things you can?  Is this the America you want to live in?  I'm not sure if a voting majority will make the same choice.  Like I said, We the People have more stock in the Constitution than the guarantee of a free market.




Of course it isn't.  What I'm saying is I think there is a way to find a happy medium that makes healthcare affordable, maintains quality, but does not involve the government taking it over. 

As I said one step would be to deregulate insureance companies.  On top of that I would start strongly pushing HSA's.  That would put pressure on insureance companies to figure out ways to cut cost.


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

1.  Relegate insurance companies to the business of insuring against severe financial loss rather than meddling in basic health maintenance.  Perhaps an annual deductable of say...$5,000.  For those that can afford it, you pay a premium to the insurance company just like you do for auto, home, life insurance etc.  And you also pay your own healthcare related costs up to the deductable.  Costs exceeding your deductable are picked up by the insurance provider.  So for example if you get cancer and require $200,000 for chemo, it's covered.  You also allow the free markets to dictate pricing.

2.  Those that can't afford to pay get subsidized by the government.


I know it's a bit oversimplified, but why can't a concept like this work?


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> And my point is just because it's happenned before doesn't mean we should keep doing it.  As far as government taking what I've earned again I have no problem government taking it for the purpose of helping people that can't help themselves or for providing things that I can't find better ways to provide for myself.  Yes you are right that as civilization advances some things will become more diffiuclt to provide, but I think we've both agreed that that doesn't inherently mean government is the solution



No disagreement here.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> yea... but... the thinkg is, and he can correct me if Im wrong, Bern probably also doesn't think that the government should be responsible for those things (except for the military, perhaps) either.  Which, kinda trumps the argument.
> 
> If I were taking his position I'd reply with Toll Roads, UPS/FEDEx and private 401k's which are dependant on investor returns.



Actually we would have to start with Benny's premise first, which doesn't really jive.  Why government can collect for roads has nothing to do with some moral right to my money. The basic idea - and I use the term basic loosely because are tax system isn't so basic anymore - is that we need roads, I (along with others) will most likely be using said roads, they also provide non-quantifiable benefits such as allowing free flow of commerce which is in everyone's best interest (God, I can't even use that term w/o hearing GW saying it my head).  Since I will be using it I believe government than does have the right to stick me with part of the bill (in the form of taxes) in building and maintaining it.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> What about law enforcement?  Enforcement of contracts?  Courts?  Dispute settlement?  And your exception, the military, that sure isn't free.  And I also don't hear people bitchin about how inefficiently it's being run in the hands of the government.
> 
> The bottom line is everyone acknowledges the need for at least some level of governance, even the most ardent libertarian.  And since the government doesn't create it's own wealth, it needs to be funded.  The debate then is largly what is the optimal level.  That's why it puzzles me when people dismiss UHC on ideological grounds about their right not to pay taxes.  It's just plain idiotic.



enforcement of contracts, courts and dispute settlement (im assuming you mean civil court) are the product of the state not the fed.  While I live in Missouri I don't pay for any of this happening in your state.


And I agree about the military.  If you scroll up you'll see that I asked the very same question regarding the free market prerogative of Blackwater.


But, you know what?  even the first libraries and fire protection districts in America were based on a subscription rather than taxes.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Of course it isn't.  What I'm saying is I think there is a way to find a happy medium that makes healthcare affordable, maintains quality, but does not involve the government taking it over.
> 
> As I said one step would be to deregulate insureance companies.  On top of that I would start strongly pushing HSA's.  That would put pressure on insureance companies to figure out ways to cut cost.



I hope you'll agree that Im making an effort into finding a viable middle ground.  I'm just curious as to why this MUST be the product of theprivate secotr when, clearly, there is no hisotry of the private sector handing saving backs to the consumer when the "investor returns" excuse is the next viable step in rationalizing profit margins despite consumer cost.

As I said, what exactly are you looking to deregulate?  HSA?  personal savings accounts?  How is that supposed to work when poor people don't have the money to put towards health insurance to begin with?  How long would it take you to keep your account at at least 800 bucks per month?  I don't think that it would put pressure on insurance companies because I don't think that enough people have enough cash flow to create significant competition.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Actually we would have to start with Benny's premise first, which doesn't really jive.  Why government can collect for roads has nothing to do with some moral right to my money. The basic idea - and I use the term basic loosely because are tax system isn't so basic anymore - is that we need roads, I (along with others) will most likely be using said roads, they also provide non-quantifiable benefits such as allowing free flow of commerce which is in everyone's best interest (God, I can't even use that term w/o hearing GW saying it my head).  Since I will be using it I believe government than does have the right to stick me with part of the bill (in the form of taxes) in building and maintaining it.




You use every road in your state?  Every road benefits the free flow of commerce?  Was commerce the concern behind We the People anyway?  We can all rationalize our positions as sound and logical.  There are a LOT of roads that I'd rather not pay for when Iknow that I'll never use them.  I COULD argue that THOSE roads should be given to private DOTS and maintained by tolls coming from those who choose to use them by citing  better private maintenance among a myriad of other reasons not to participate in a road tax.  How is this any different from applying the same to rejecting UHC?  I will never set foot on a road in soutwestern missouri.  why should I pay for their roads and commercial vectors?


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> That's quite the contradiction you have there.  More government control makes us freer? Oookkaay.  Why am I responsible for your health, more so than you are?



No contradiction at all, consider if I don't have to worry about building 'roads' then I am free to do other things. That's the way society functions for itself. If healthcare (HC) is not an issue I am free to change jobs etc. I know many people who remain in jobs they would give up in a minute except they have HC there. Same with some working wives/husbands who could have more freedom if they didn't have to worry about HC. This is the *first election* in which hc has become an issue, what that means is it is becoming acceptable and once business starts prompting it it will be fact. Conservatives can remain behind in their cave but ideas grow and eventually are accepted. It's coming no doubt about it.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> You use every road in your state?  Every road benefits the free flow of commerce?  Was commerce the concern behind We the People anyway?  We can all rationalize our positions as sound and logical.  There are a LOT of roads that I'd rather not pay for when Iknow that I'll never use them.  I COULD argue that THOSE roads should be given to private DOTS and maintained by tolls coming from those who choose to use them by citing  better private maintenance among a myriad of other reasons not to participate in a road tax.  How is this any different from applying the same to rejecting UHC?  I will never set foot on a road in soutwestern missouri.  why should I pay for their roads and commercial vectors?



What does We the People have to do with roads in the first place?  Our system of taxing for roads is the most efficient one there is regardless of how often you use them.  Your tax dollars aren't going to pay for every road so that argument is moot.  That is why we have country roads, state roads, and federal roads.  Federal taxes pay for the federal roads, the interestates which yes are vital to commerce.  Your state taxes or possibly gas taxes are used to fund your state roads.  since it would be silly to have a toll on every little road to get them paid for that is the next best option.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> No contradiction at all, consider if I don't have to worry about building 'roads' then I am free to do other things. That's the way society functions for itself. If healthcare (HC) is not an issue I am free to change jobs etc. I know many people who remain in jobs they would give up in a minute except they have HC there. Same with some working wives/husbands who could have more freedom if they didn't have to worry about HC. This is the *first election* in which hc has become an issue, what that means is it is becoming acceptable and once business starts prompting it it will be fact. Conservatives can remain behind in their cave but ideas grow and eventually are accepted. It's coming no doubt about it.



Yes you are so far ahead of the curve. 'Progressive' is it?  I agree whole heartedly that something needs to be done about health care expenses and how there paid for, but if you think government will be this great solution you are sadly mistaken.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I hope you'll agree that Im making an effort into finding a viable middle ground.  I'm just curious as to why this MUST be the product of theprivate secotr when, clearly, there is no hisotry of the private sector handing saving backs to the consumer when the "investor returns" excuse is the next viable step in rationalizing profit margins despite consumer cost.



No, what I've said is governments involvment should be limited to providing for those that have no means of providing for themselves.  that leaves everyone else whos healthcare is generally paid for partially by their employer and through premiums.  Think of how productive we could be if one of a companies expenses wasn't healthcare or if it was significantly reduced.  



Shogun said:


> As I said, what exactly are you looking to deregulate?  HSA?  personal savings accounts?  How is that supposed to work when poor people don't have the money to put towards health insurance to begin with?  How long would it take you to keep your account at at least 800 bucks per month?  I don't think that it would put pressure on insurance companies because I don't think that enough people have enough cash flow to create significant competition.



We shouldn't even be haveing a debate about the poor anymore.  I've stated several times now I have no problem with government taxing to help people that can't help themselves.  There will always be a need for that level of government involvment.  As for everyone else you know my position is that those who are capable should pay.  However our medical industry as gotten so out of whack that almost no one can afford it on their own.  In that sense the medical profession is kind of anomoly in that it is something we need but almost none can afford.  that needs to be addressed no doubt, but government takeing over doesn't do that.  If we want to fix the problem let's fix it, not come up with some solution that doesn't even address it.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> What does We the People have to do with roads in the first place?  Our system of taxing for roads is the most efficient one there is regardless of how often you use them.  Your tax dollars aren't going to pay for every road so that argument is moot.  That is why we have country roads, state roads, and federal roads.  Federal taxes pay for the federal roads, the interestates which yes are vital to commerce.  Your state taxes or possibly gas taxes are used to fund your state roads.  since it would be silly to have a toll on every little road to get them paid for that is the next best option.



It illustrates the focus of the Constitution is the people rather than the roads.  Yousee, I can use the same talking points against something that you accept as a government responsibility.  Your statement regarding taxing for roads is a personal opinion not a fact.  Just like, "we need UHC" is an opinion and not a fact.  And, in fact, you can't prove that local people only pay for local roads so the point stands.  Indeed, I pay taxes for MISSOURI roads, not just the ones I drive on.  How do my state taxes NOT get put into the same state pot that pays for roads 150 miles from me?  Again, Commerce is not the prerequisite for Constitutional consideration.  I can make the same arguement that you can against UHC regarding PRIVATE toll roads.  Again, "silly" is an opinion on par with "our current health care system is a complete failure for the poor"  so, who gets to decide whose opinion stands?  Cause, if you put it to a vote you'll notice that the PEOPLE don't rationalize free market tool roads and, chances are, they will vote for a similar government solutions to health care.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Yes you are so far ahead of the curve. 'Progressive' is it?  I agree whole heartedly that something needs to be done about health care expenses and how there paid for, but if you think government will be this great solution you are sadly mistaken.



no more mistaken than those3 who claim that free market capitolism is the panacea for everything commerical.

you know, with the evidence of the current clusterfuck that only benefits those who can afford outlandish healthcare.  Capitolism doesn't operate on benevolence.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> no more mistaken than those3 who claim that free market capitolism is the panacea for everything commerical.
> 
> you know, with the evidence of the current clusterfuck that only benefits those who can afford outlandish healthcare.  Capitolism doesn't operate on benevolence.



It operates on whoever provides the best service at the best price.  People point to our society and say 'look capitalism isn't working' w/o actually asking if we're operating in such a system in reality in the first place.


----------



## jillian (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> It operates on whoever provides the best service at the best price.  People point to our society and say 'look capitalism isn't working' w/o actually asking if we're operating in such a system in reality in the first place.



Free market does no such thing. Corporations don't and aren't supposed to act in the public interest.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Feb 21, 2008)

The current healthcare system is broken.  We pay more per person than any other industiralized nation, but rank 37th in overall quality.

What are the alternatives?  Staying the course is not one of them unless you are a doctor or a pharmaceutical company


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> It operates on whoever provides the best service at the best price.  People point to our society and say 'look capitalism isn't working' w/o actually asking if we're operating in such a system in reality in the first place.



indeed, every turn in history where free market capitolism is allowed to rear it's head we get things like monopolies, child labor, unsafe work environments, share cropping and the "let them eat cake" routine.  


Be clear about what exactly you want to deregulate before using this as an excuse for the failures of capitolism.  Like I asked earlier, when has deregulation EVER resulted in a price drop for consumers instead of a larger profit margin?  A margin that uses investor 40k programs as an excuse to hoard funds instead of releasing it into a lower price for consumers, no less.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> It illustrates the focus of the Constitution is the people rather than the roads.  Yousee, I can use the same talking points against something that you accept as a government responsibility.  Your statement regarding taxing for roads is a personal opinion not a fact.  Just like, "we need UHC" is an opinion and not a fact.  And, in fact, you can't prove that local people only pay for local roads so the point stands.  Indeed, I pay taxes for MISSOURI roads, not just the ones I drive on.  How do my state taxes NOT get put into the same state pot that pays for roads 150 miles from me?  Again, Commerce is not the prerequisite for Constitutional consideration.  I can make the same arguement that you can against UHC regarding PRIVATE toll roads.  Again, "silly" is an opinion on par with "our current health care system is a complete failure for the poor"  so, who gets to decide whose opinion stands?  Cause, if you put it to a vote you'll notice that the PEOPLE don't rationalize free market tool roads and, chances are, they will vote for a similar government solutions to health care.



So the statement we _don't_ need roads would also be an opinion?

As far as what people will choose as I've stated before the people will usually choose the easiest most painless option.  Politicians know this so they say things like we'll provide healthcare to everyone WHOOPEEE!.  And of course the vast majority don't think about what the ramifications woudl be of government running our healthcare.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> indeed, every turn in history where free market capitolism is allowed to rear it's head we get things like monopolies, child labor, unsafe work environments, share cropping and the "let them eat cake" routine.



And yet our country is the closest thing to free market capitalism there is and we have none of those things where countries like China and Taiwan do.  Explain.  



Shogun said:


> Be clear about what exactly you want to deregulate before using this as an excuse for the failures of capitolism.  Like I asked earlier, when has deregulation EVER resulted in a price drop for consumers instead of a larger profit margin?  A margin that uses investor 40k programs as an excuse to hoard funds instead of releasing it into a lower price for consumers, no less.



When hasn't it?  As far as a shift is concerned government has pretty much only regulated things more and more, not less.  Banking is one of the few that come to mind which was beneficial

http://www.answers.com/topic/deregulation?cat=biz-fin


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

jillian said:


> Free market does no such thing. Corporations don't and aren't supposed to act in the public interest.



What I said has nothing to do with the public interest.  Corporations exist to make a profit which they accomplish through providing the best good or service at the best price (among other things).


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> What I said has nothing to do with the public interest.  Corporations exist to make a profit which they accomplish through providing the best good or service at the best price (among other things).



They also sometimes make profits via collusion and fraud.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> So the statement we _don't_ need roads would also be an opinion?
> 
> As far as what people will choose as I've stated before the people will usually choose the easiest most painless option.  Politicians know this so they say things like we'll provide healthcare to everyone WHOOPEEE!.  And of course the vast majority don't think about what the ramifications woudl be of government running our healthcare.



certainly not TAX FUNDED roads.

toll roads promotes the entrepreneurial spirit, eh?

indeed, and thus I've tried to consider a compromise or an alternate system that works for those who want a basic health care and those who want to pay for their own.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> They also sometimes make profits via collusion and fraud.



Certainly.  Unless you think that's a rule rather than an exception, what's your point?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> 1.  Relegate insurance companies to the business of insuring against severe financial loss rather than meddling in basic health maintenance.  Perhaps an annual deductable of say...$5,000.  For those that can afford it, you pay a premium to the insurance company just like you do for auto, home, life insurance etc.  And you also pay your own healthcare related costs up to the deductable.  Costs exceeding your deductable are picked up by the insurance provider.  So for example if you get cancer and require $200,000 for chemo, it's covered.  You also allow the free markets to dictate pricing.
> 
> 2.  Those that can't afford to pay get subsidized by the government.
> 
> ...



Because democrat socialists do not want it to work.

Yours is basically the same idea I've been a proponent of in prior health care discussions.  Basic, everyday care would go back to being paid for by the consumer directly to the clinics and doctors, providing a competitive market which would result in lower costs for everybody.   Third parties would be relegated to a minimum interference.  Insurance companies would go back to dealing with catastrophic situations and essentially get out of health care management.  The individual would win and control his own health care. 

The kicker is two-fold:

1. Socialized health care proponents claim this would result in a two-tier health system - one private and one government.  I find this laughable since it seems they think the private system would outperform the government system for the poor.

2.  Socialists have the overriding, unspoken goal of control.  Control a man's health care and you control the man.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> certainly not TAX FUNDED roads.
> 
> toll roads promotes the entrepreneurial spirit, eh?



Yo're skirting your original point which was that it is an opinion to say we need roads.



Shogun said:


> indeed, and thus I've tried to consider a compromise or an alternate system that works for those who want a basic health care and those who want to pay for their own.



I think we're there already.  What about what I've proposed do you disagree with.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> And yet our country is the closest thing to free market capitalism there is and we have none of those things where countries like China and Taiwan do.  Explain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




yea, we have none of those things BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.  What created our child labor laws?  OSHA?  a plethora of other regulations that keeps capitolists from making profit at any cost?  I'm not defending china's standard of living even though they FEED off of our capitolism.


When has banking deregulations causes lower prices for consumers again?  I'm looking for specifics.  From this angle, it seems the second excuse to use after deregulation is the profit motive of investors.  We see this same cycle happening with oil companies lately.  We could deregulate the oil industry and the prices for gas still wont go down.


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Certainly.  Unless you think that's a rule rather than an exception, what's your point?



It was just a passing comment.  There are many things that influence how profits are made.  There are many variables.


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Because democrat socialists do not want it to work.
> 
> Yours is basically the same idea I've been a proponent of in prior health care discussions.  Basic, everyday care would go back to being paid for by the consumer directly to the clinics and doctors, providing a competitive market which would result in lower costs for everybody.   Third parties would be relegated to a minimum interference.  Insurance companies would go back to dealing with catastrophic situations and essentially get out of health care management.  The individual would win and control his own health care.
> 
> ...




OK, maybe you weren't the best choice for me to use as the subject of my joke in the humor section.

Edit:  And btw:  Republican socialists don't won't it to work either.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> What I said has nothing to do with the public interest.  Corporations exist to make a profit which they accomplish through providing the best good or service at the best price (among other things).



TO MAKE PROFIT.  not reduce any consumer prices post-deregulation.

These, good sir, ARE the flaws of free market capitolism.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Yo're skirting your original point which was that it is an opinion to say we need roads.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we're there already.  What about what I've proposed do you disagree with.



NO, my original point was that it is an opinion that we need roads paid for with TAXES.  scroll up.  This illustrates my point exactly.  YOU think that roads paid with taxes is acceptable and an entrepreneur can say that such is a socialist effort to control commercial ventures into the potential toll road industry.  With every excuse youve given about better quality, no less.

I think we'd have to make another thread entirely for a compromise solution.  I'll toss ideas back and forth like we did with the education thread but i'm pretty sure it would be gobbled up among the noise.

Im all for reasonable deregulation, dude.  But, i'd have to know exactly what it is we are trying to deregulate.


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> TO MAKE PROFIT.  not reduce any consumer prices post-deregulation.
> 
> These, good sir, ARE the flaws of free market capitolism.



psst.  I hate to be mr. persnickety english professor, but it's spelled capitalism.  And seeing it with an "o" over and over is like fingernails on the chalkboard of my brain.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

this is one of those things you will have to get over.  you'll probably figure out that impressing people online ranks very low in my hierarchy of important daily activities.  my advice to you is dont read ben franklins autobiography if misspelled words effect you that much.


notice, i left out the capitolizaton and punctuation just for you.


----------



## manifold (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> this is one of those things you will have to get over.  you'll probably figure out that impressing people online ranks very low in my hierarchy of important daily activities.  my advice to you is dont read ben franklins autobiography if misspelled words effect you that much.
> 
> 
> notice, i left out the capitolizaton and punctuation just for you.



I know, I was mostly just giving you a hard time.


----------



## MasterChief (Feb 21, 2008)

This thread has kind of got'en off track a little bit.  Let me try to bring it back to center.

How many of you know of someone who lives in a country with UHC and likes it?  I had a close friend take a vacation in Britain--she is British and married an American.  While there, she got sick and had to go to the hospital.  Her condition got worst because the simplest things took so long. Her husband became increasingly concerned and finally just took her out of the hospital, got her on a plane to the US and into a US hospital where she made a full recovery.  She is convinced that had she stayed in UK, and under their UHC, she'd be dead. I know of nobody who has lived, or found themselves, under a UHC system that praises it. 

Imagine for a moment that you are a woman and you find lump in your breast, do you want to be told it may take six to ten weeks to see a doctor?  I think not, but that is the average wait time under a UHC system and why Cannooks come south all the time to get medical treatment. 

Check it out--the horror stories of the UHC system are many. Those of you who are all for a UHC system need to see that you are just trading one set of problems for another.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> I know, I was mostly just giving you a hard time.



yea, me too.  NO harm no foul, dude.  Welcome tot he board.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 21, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> This thread has kind of got'en off track a little bit.  Let me try to bring it back to center.
> 
> How many of you know of someone who lives in a country with UHC and likes it?  I had a close friend take a vacation in Britain--she is British and married an American.  While there, she got sick and had to go to the hospital.  Her condition got worst because the simplest things took so long. Her husband became increasingly concerned and finally just took her out of the hospital, got her on a plane to the US and into a US hospital where she made a full recovery.  She is convinced that had she stayed in UK, and under their UHC, she'd be dead. I know of nobody who has lived, or found themselves, under a UHC system that praises it.
> 
> ...



Have you heard one of the latest?   
February 18, 2008 
Patients in Britain were waiting for hours on end inside the government's emergency rooms, so the Labor government decreed that no one should have to wait more than four(!) hours for treatment without, of course, seeing to it that there were sufficient personnel to implement that decree. The solution: Keep patients in ambulances for hours so that the four-hour clock doesn't start until the ER staff is sure they can beat it. 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019475.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=515332&in_page_id=1770

How the UK's single-payer system killed 17,000 Britons
2-21-08
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/30896


----------



## Taomon (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> The debate about universal healthcare and so forth, as we all know, has been raging for several years now.  To be quite frank, I'm still undecided and conflicted about where I stand on the issue.  My question to the members of this forum is this:  Is healthcare a right?  And by "right," I don't mean the unalienable kind endowed by the creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the kind defined by the laws of man.  What do you think?



Anyone who believes that it is good to fleece the general public (working class & poor) for necessary medical care is just plain ignorant.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> NO, my original point was that it is an opinion that we need roads paid for with TAXES.  scroll up.  This illustrates my point exactly.  YOU think that roads paid with taxes is acceptable and an entrepreneur can say that such is a socialist effort to control commercial ventures into the potential toll road industry.  With every excuse youve given about better quality, no less.



Okay, then lay out for me a practical, fair business plan for the private sector supplying our roads and maintening them.



Shogun said:


> I think we'd have to make another thread entirely for a compromise solution.  I'll toss ideas back and forth like we did with the education thread but i'm pretty sure it would be gobbled up among the noise.
> 
> Im all for reasonable deregulation, dude.  But, i'd have to know exactly what it is we are trying to deregulate.



Well we could start malpractice insureance which I believe the government required are doctors to have.......


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> TO MAKE PROFIT.  not reduce any consumer prices post-deregulation.
> 
> These, good sir, ARE the flaws of free market capitolism.



That isn't a flaw at all.  It's that purpose that gives people jobs.  that creates healthy competition and it's that competetion that provides us with quality goods and services.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> I'm not sure I follow your logic.  According to my interpretation of your statement, then a foot soldier in the Iraqi desert has violated my rights by taking my money.  Afterall, governmental money is taxpayer money.  I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so insane as to really believe that, so please explain?



No manifold the American solider is protecting your rights.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Anyone who believes that it is good to fleece the general public (working class & poor) for necessary medical care is just plain ignorant.



Anybody who thinks that it's good to make tax-paying socialized medicine patients wait 4 hours in the emergency room (after even more time sitting outside in the ambulance) is also just plain ignorant.

This is the typical result of socialized medicine&#8230;you wind up with poor care&#8230;and the scary thing is that the average person has no alternative choice...how's that for a lack of "human rights"?


----------



## jreeves (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> Can you explain what you mean by the phrase "the rights of the taxpayer?"
> 
> Are you suggesting that there is a relationship between the amount one pays in taxes and the level of rights they are entitled to receive?



Rights of a taxpayer, not to have their money spent on programs that fail.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/congress/pd042700e.html

All taxpayer's have the right not to have their government spend the country into bankruptcy, with new unaffordable programs.

http://www.federalbudget.com/


All taxpayer's have the right to not pay past what their fair share is, for new income redistribution programs.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6


----------



## Gunny (Feb 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> Is the money that you earn not at least partly enabled by the infrastructure and laws of civilization?  Is it not just a little bit disingenuous to view the issue through such a narrow lense, almost in a vacuum even?



Absurd.  One can survive and prosper without the "laws of civilization" while the weak cannot survive without those laws to protect and enable them.  

I think YOU have your "narrow lense" twisted a bit backward.


----------



## Paulie (Feb 21, 2008)

Shogun said:


> NO one would force you to participate or contribute with the above so it would not be YOUR health care if you choose not to participate.  If you can afford better health care then kudos to you.  Those who cannot afford even the most basic of service can have an option for the most basic services.  It's a win, win, win.
> 
> I;ve addressed your concern regarding taxes being used to fund it.  Thus, your concern about whose role it iis to pay for someone else's health care is moot.  If you think you can pay for better service then you are free to do so, thus your concern about efficiency and govt responsibility is moot as well.  If you are given an option not to participate then what is your main objection?
> 
> ...



Shogun, this all sounds good in theory, but it's only YOUR idea.  It's not what is actually being offered by the democrats.  In fact, the Dem's aren't even offering the kind of "socialized medicine" that exists in other industrial nations.  They are more or less looking to revamp the current financial structure of the system, and mandating coverage.  I believe Kucinich had a plan that differed vastly from Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, which was more along the lines of an ACTUAL federal socialized healthcare.  But he's too "kooky" for most people, so instead they're getting what the establishment candidates are offering, which is pretty much MORE OF THE SAME.  I mean, is it ever NOT?  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The United States will never see complete government-funded, socialized medicine.  The Insurance, Medical, and Pharma industries are WAY too far in bed with government for it to ever happen.  This is of course my opinion, but I really only think the Dem's are using this to pander for votes.

Not that the republicans aren't pandering as well.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 22, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Anybody who thinks that it's good to make tax-paying socialized medicine patients wait 4 hours in the emergency room (after even more time sitting outside in the ambulance) is also just plain ignorant.
> 
> This is the typical result of socialized medicine&#8230;you wind up with poor care&#8230;and the scary thing is that the average person has no alternative choice...how's that for a lack of "human rights"?



Actually, you are going by flawed examples. The quality of life in America and the standards that we fight to maintain are much higher. 

If socialized healthcare comes to fruition in America we would not be waiting in emergency rooms for 4 hours. People do that now for colds and minor injuries instead of going to doctors offices because they do not have insurance.

Socialized healthcare would clear up the emergency rooms of people with minor injuries as they would see a primary care physician. This would also create more jobs by the way.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Actually, you are going by flawed examples. The quality of life in America and the standards that we fight to maintain are much higher.
> 
> If socialized healthcare comes to fruitition in America we would not be waiting in emergency rooms for 4 hours. People do that now for colds and minor injuries instead of going to doctors offices because they do not have insurance.
> 
> Socialized healthcare would clear up the emergency rooms of people with minor injuries as they would see a primary care physician. This wuld also create more jobs by the way.



You mean you hope it wouldn't be that way.  Look around.  Countries with socialized medicine aren't exactley running like clockwork or even close to it.  The number one problem that most countries with some form of government run health care is waiting.  As someone said earlier what you will essentially be douing is exchanging one set of problems for another.  You will be exchanging convenience, responsiveness, and quality of care for affordability.  And what good is cheap medicine if it's shitty medicine?


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

jreeves said:


> No manifold the American solider is protecting your rights.



I don't disagree, in reality that is. However, according to the logic in your previous proclamation, my statement still stands.  You still have not explained why you think paying taxes is a violation of your rights sometimes but not all the time.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Rights of a taxpayer, not to have their money spent on programs that fail.
> 
> http://www.ncpa.org/pi/congress/pd042700e.html
> 
> ...




Them's some pretty subjective rights.  How about all the money spent in Iraq?  I bet more people consider that a failed program than not.  Of course when you keep redefining the definition of success, I guess that's a bit tricky to prove (but that's an entirely different discussion).  Regardless, you've failed to convince me of anything and didn't really even attempt to answer the question asked, no offense.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Absurd.  One can survive and prosper without the "laws of civilization" while the weak cannot survive without those laws to protect and enable them.
> 
> I think YOU have your "narrow lense" twisted a bit backward.



You prefer anarchy and you call me absurd???

Duly noted.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Anyone who believes that it is good to fleece the general public (working class & poor) for necessary medical care is just plain ignorant.



I agree, fleecing the public for any reason is ignorant.


----------



## bennylava (Feb 22, 2008)

Consider this: we already have a form of universal healthcare, the ER. People who don't have health insurance wait until their illnesses  are really bad and then end up going to the ER where if their problem is bad enough they can't be turned away.
Some hospitals are mandated to provide care through the ER of people who aren't suffering from a life threatening situation. They are already given funding from the government to pay for care for the indigent through our taxes. 

I would rather give the money I'm paying now for health insurance to an organization that is actually concerned with maintaining the health of the american public rather than solely making a profit. 

The people who are rich enough to say "Well that's not my problem, it's theirs" might be singing a different tune if they lost their jobs or their fortune and had no way to pay for their medications or doctor visits. 

It's a shame that we pay for Iraqi's to have full medical care but our own citizens are left to fend for themselves.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

bennylava said:


> I would rather give the money I'm paying now for health insurance to an organization that is actually concerned with maintaining the health of the american public rather than solely making a profit.



Assuming for a second the government actually does care about your health, that doesn't change the fact the government is horribly inefficient at running pretty much everything.  Again you'll just be exchanging one set of problems for another.  Instead of people waiting because they can't afford it, they will be waiting because service isn't available.  Healthcare is a service and like any service if you reduce the price of it, demand will go up.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> ...that doesn't change the fact the government is horribly inefficient at running pretty much everything.



What about the military?  Law enforcement?  Would you really feel safer if national defense and law enforcement were privatized?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> What about the military?  Law enforcement?  Would you really feel safer if national defense and law enforcement were privatized?



Are they as efficient as they could be?  Probably not.  How about our school system, or SS, or even your vaunted medicare?

If you're comfortable with government run health care given it's bearuacratic record, then more power to ya.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Are they as efficient as they could be?  Probably not.  How about our school system, or SS, or even your vaunted medicare?
> 
> If you're comfortable with government run health care given it's bearuacratic record, then more power to ya.




I was merely responding to your assertion that the government is terrible at running everything.  Two of the biggest, most important things they run seem to be doing alright IMO.  And you still didn't answer the question.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> I was merely responding to your assertion that the government is terrible at running everything.  Two of the biggest, most important things they run seem to be doing alright IMO.  And you still didn't answer the question.



To answer honestly, no I wouldn't.  I fully admit there are things that government has the greatest responsibility to.  There are certain duties government has and in a perfect world that would be what out taxes go to.  Those, which you listed, are essentially protecting the citizens of the country because again it is not reasonable to expect a sole individual to able to hold a perp accountable for a crime, or fight a house fire, or thwart the attack of a terrorist.  Those are things government _should_ do.  That is different from the question of whether they are doing those things efficiently in terms of infrastructure and finance.

P.S. You didn't answer my question either.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> To answer honestly, no I wouldn't.  I fully admit there are things that government has the greatest responsibility to.  There are certain duties government has and in a perfect world that would be what out taxes go to.  Those, which you listed, are essentially protecting the citizens of the country because again it is not reasonable to expect a sole individual to able to hold a perp accountable for a crime, or fight a house fire, or thwart the attack of a terrorist.  Those are things government _should_ do.  That is different from the question of whether they are doing those things efficiently in terms of infrastructure and finance.
> 
> P.S. You didn't answer my question either.



It is also not reasonable to expect a sole individual to administer their own brain surgery.  

As for the question I didn't answer, are you talking about the things the government hasn't run well?  If so, I agree, they've gotten a lot of things wrong.  I just don't think by itself that's reason enough to suggest they can't run anything well.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

For the record:

I absolutely do not support any healthcare solution proposal that merely layers government beauracracy on top of what currently exists.  As long as insurance companies and drug companies are allowed to retain so much control and influence over the matter, things will only get worse, not better.  And therein lies the rub:  They've got so many politicians in their back pockets that I'm almost certain we are all just a bunch of ineffectual message board dillholes debating a thing for which we have no power to change.  And that kinda sucks.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> It is also not reasonable to expect a sole individual to administer their own brain surgery.



Not the same thing at all.  I think you know that.  As a said there is element of government duty to its citizens.  One of them is NOT performing surgery. 



manifold said:


> As for the question I didn't answer, are you talking about the things the government hasn't run well?  If so, I agree, they've gotten a lot of things wrong.  I just don't think by itself that's reason enough to suggest they can't run anything well.



It is inherrent in government that spending will be inefficient as well as administration.  History has shown that over and over, but you're okay with them taking care of your health?

How can you say they are more responsible for your health than you are.  You have mentioned in posts things about civilization advancement and what not.  Civilizations don't grow and become stronger by being babysat by their governments which is what our government is turning to.


----------



## bennylava (Feb 22, 2008)

One of my good friends lives in Toronto, and I've heard stories of how long they have to wait at the ER. At the same time, I've heard the same stories from people here waiting at the ER. It just depends on what day it is, what time of year it is, for how long you have to wait.

I think the biggest cost in healthcare is the pharmaceutical industry. We could start out by tackling that behemoth and forcing it to stop wasting money on TV advertising and on bribing doctors with kickbacks and free vacations. 
The cost of some prescriptions is absolutely outrageous. There is no reason for a tube of anti-eczema cream to cost $500 a month. What is it made out of, gold?

I find it suspect that one of my prescriptions by brand name costs 90 bucks or more a month, but somehow the generic version costs $4 a month. There is something very wrong there. 

Let's control the pharmaceutical industry first, that would help everyone out. Unfortunately they've brainwashed the american people and seem to have control of the FDA as well.


----------



## jillian (Feb 22, 2008)

Denny, I think you're looking at this wrong. It's not so much that healthcare is a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's about what is in our best interests as a society. It isn't in our best interest to have an underclass that uses hospitals as primary care physicians. It isn't in our best interests as a society for people not to take their children for well visits, vaccinations and all the other things they need. 

It's simply wrong, in a country with such wealth for people not to be able to get medical care.

People with money will always be able to pay for their own doctors and obtain care when they want. And just because government is helping to pay the bill does not mean government is providing medical care.

It's obscene that 50&#37; of all bankruptcies in this country result from catastrophic illness and that millions of people are uninsured now who WERE insured in 2000.

On a final note, I'd point out that the Constitution guarantees only the MINIMUM standards to which individuals are entitled.... not the max.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Not the same thing at all.  I think you know that.  As a said there is element of government duty to its citizens.  One of them is NOT performing surgery.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think they are more responsible for my health than I am.  I never said they were.  I also haven't taken a firm position on whether I endorse the idea of government run UHC.  I'm still consolidating, and refuting were applicable, the arguments advanced on both sides.  And I wholeheartedly dismiss this notion that government run UHC is somehow a violation of the rights of the well to do.  That particular argument holds absolutely no water.

As for the subject of civilization, I do not think that making the collective decision that we will not allow any of our citizens to suffer without proper medical treatment is the same thing as saying we all need to be babysat by the government.  That is a stawman argument.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Okay, then lay out for me a practical, fair business plan for the private sector supplying our roads and maintening them.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we could start malpractice insureance which I believe the government required are doctors to have.......





Do you live in a state with no toll roads or something?  Have you driven through toll roads before?  I can use every arguement that conservatives use regarding the free market preogative of health care on the issue of publicly funded roads.  Have any DOTs shrunk?  Are their products, the roads, a better vlaue than a private entrepreneurs who owns his road?  Wouldn't the cost go down if we let some draconian CEO balance profit with value?  Wouldn't the gov stop taking YOUR money for roads that YOU shouldn't have to pay for if you don't use them?  Who needs highway handouts, right?  Transportation welfare?  Socialism of the road?  The gov doesn't own railroads, eh?  Why can't private business run DOTs BETTER than the gov?  All of these arguements can be turned around even though you accept the role the gov plays in maintaining roads.  Is it then fair to assume that you are a commie because you can fathom giving road mantenance responsibility to the gov in order to preserve a minimum standard and wide applicability?



So, no malpractice insurance.. and then what.  A doctor fucks up and kills your wife and then washes his hands like a drunk driver without even minimal liability insurance?  Should victims of malpractice just be stoic about a mistake and take it like a man?  What would replace this regulation of medical performance?  I mean, it's not like taking a car in and some mechanic fucking up your transmission, eh?  I can fathom reduction of rates for docs who have a history of minimal safe performance but what are the reprocussions of removing malpractice insurance despite the hypothetical consumer benefit (that, again, never happens quite like promised.  I'm still waiting for a single example of deregulation lowering consumer prices in any tangible, long term fashion)


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 22, 2008)

jillian said:


> Denny, I think you're looking at this wrong. It's not so much that healthcare is a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's about what is in our best interests as a society.



That's true.

I don't think mandatory national health care is in our best interests.  I think we should extend it to those who want and need it, but still allow to obtain private insurance if they like, or simply to pay in cash if they wish.  Seems to me a good compromise for getting people covered and still preserving high standards of quality and incentives for innovation, etc. I don't like the idea that the government thinks its ok to force people who are perfectly happy with their medical care to give it up.  Sounds like a good way to eventually settle at the lowest common denominator, which we do quite a bit of in this country these days.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> That isn't a flaw at all.  It's that purpose that gives people jobs.  that creates healthy competition and it's that competetion that provides us with quality goods and services.



And yet there were JOBS around before free market capitolism, in communist nations AND those that fall in between.  Clearly, it is an error to assume that capitolism is the reason we have jobs.  So too it is an error to assume that gree and profit margins are the only thing that causes people to work.  HEALTHY competition?  yes, the history of monopolies and mega conglomerates teaches a solid lesson on the importance of competition.  Weren't we JUST talking about Microsoft?  Quality goods and services?  Like Vista?  Like current gas prices?  

Yea, i know the talking points sound good in their pre-packeaged form but they don't really reflect reality these days, do they?


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> And yet there were JOBS around before free market capitolism, in communist nations AND those that fall in between.  Clearly, it is an error to assume that capitolism is the reason we have jobs.  So too it is an error to assume that gree and profit margins are the only thing that causes people to work.  HEALTHY competition?  yes, the history of monopolies and mega conglomerates teaches a solid lesson on the importance of competition.  Weren't we JUST talking about Microsoft?  Quality goods and services?  Like Vista?  Like current gas prices?
> 
> Yea, i know the talking points sound good in their pre-packeaged form but they don't really reflect reality these days, do they?



Hey I've been using Vista for over a year with no trouble.  Eats up unnecessary amounts of RAM though.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Assuming for a second the government actually does care about your health, that doesn't change the fact the government is horribly inefficient at running pretty much everything.  Again you'll just be exchanging one set of problems for another.  Instead of people waiting because they can't afford it, they will be waiting because service isn't available.  Healthcare is a service and like any service if you reduce the price of it, demand will go up.




sooo... capitolist business cares MORE about our health than Profit margins?  o rly?  Horribly inneficient?  which is it, government roads suck or dont?  it seems that you are straddling a fencepost here.

Indeed, reducing the price causes demand to go up in reflection of a society that NEEDS wider applicable health care.  Do you usually go buy tampons just because they are marked down in price?  Im going to assume the answer is no because you don't have a need for tampons quite like this nation NEEDS wide applicable health care.  I'm betting that qa lower price in road building supplies won't cause anyone to start building roads out in the middle of the desert anytime soon.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Hey I've been using Vista for over a year with no trouble.  Eats up unnecessary amounts of RAM though.



and I hope you continue to have success with it...  BUT, who can deny the masses downgrading back to XP because vista is a beast?  How would you say this lackluster product is the result of M$'s aggressive market strategy that eliminates competition rather than compete with better products?  Hell, the only major slugger since 3.x has been 95, 98 upgrade and xp.  Most of which are the product of forcing companies like Dell to use ONLY their OS.  That doesn't strike me as competition and vista is the result that proves it.  In 3 years vista will be the latest ME.

there are plenty of reviews by people smarter than I regarding cpus that will paint a similar picture.


----------



## jillian (Feb 22, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> That's true.
> 
> I don't think mandatory national health care is in our best interests.  I think we should extend it to those who want and need it, but still allow to obtain private insurance if they like, or simply to pay in cash if they wish.  Seems to me a good compromise for getting people covered and still preserving high standards of quality and incentives for innovation, etc. I don't like the idea that the government thinks its ok to force people who are perfectly happy with their medical care to give it up.  Sounds like a good way to eventually settle at the lowest common denominator, which we do quite a bit of in this country these days.



I don't think there's any plan that's being considered which would force me to change doctors. Right now, my husband and I are both able to get health insurance through our employers. We use my plan because his takes too big a chunk out of his salary. When I use out of network physicians (which I do for certain things) I have to pay out of pocket and each of us has a $250 per year deductible before it's covered. And even after the deductible is met, we get 80% of "reasonable and customary". So, for a $600 doctor's bill, I got back about $80.

Something's wrong with that. And it's because the insurance lobby is one of the most powerful in this country, along with the AMA and pharmaceutical industry. 

My parents spend a fortune on prescriptions. Why? Because our government put a plan in place in which it allowed the pharmaceutical industry to dictate that it had no power to negotiate prices.

And the best... I learned in the course of my employment that hospitals charge more to people who are UNINSURED. Does this make any sense to you? There's no free market forces in place to control that. They charge what they want.

So no, I don't think it's in our best interest for everyone not to have health care coverage. And making such a plan "optional" takes away the funding for it since only the people who can't afford any coverage would participate.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> and I hope you continue to have success with it...  BUT, who can deny the masses downgrading back to XP because vista is a beast?  How would you say this lackluster product is the result of M$'s aggressive market strategy that eliminates competition rather than compete with better products?  Hell, the only major slugger since 3.x has been 95, 98 upgrade and xp.  Most of which are the product of forcing companies like Dell to use ONLY their OS.  That doesn't strike me as competition and vista is the result that proves it.  In 3 years vista will be the latest ME.
> 
> there are plenty of reviews by people smarter than I regarding cpus that will paint a similar picture.



I think Vista will become the standard (unless Microsoft comes up with a new OS) but not because of fair competition.  The reason I think it will become the standard is that gamers typically drive the upgrade market.  Drive massive portions of it, in fact.  Not only is MS getting ready to quit releasing XP (in June) but they're releasing DirectX 10 only for Vista.  There are already a few of games out that use DirectX 10 and before long anyone who wants a really cutting edge game is going to have to use it. And then people who want to play it are going to have to have Vista.  So people will upgrade even if they don't really want to.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 22, 2008)

jillian said:


> So no, I don't think it's in our best interest for everyone not to have health care coverage. And making such a plan "optional" takes away the funding for it since only the people who can't afford any coverage would participate.



I disagree.  I've heard that argument before, but not seen numbers to back it up.

In fact, for many years Holland had exactly that program (people above a certain income level couldn't participate in the national health care program) and they never had funding issues.  They changed their system a few years back, though, to quasi-privatize the national system because of poor care received.


----------



## jillian (Feb 22, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> I disagree.  I've heard that argument before, but not seen numbers to back it up.
> 
> In fact, for many years Holland had exactly that program (people above a certain income level couldn't participate in the national health care program) and they never had funding issues.  They changed their system a few years back, though, to quasi-privatize the national system because of poor care received.



In Holland, you were talking about government provided health care, not health COVERAGE. I think that's different than what's being proposed. (I'm not certain of that, though).

But the posters on this board from Australia and NZ might want to weigh in on the way their governments handle these things, because it's my understanding that it's fairly successful, if a bit beaurocracy-laden (in Australia, at least).

And you didn't address my other issues.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> And yet there were JOBS around before free market capitolism, in communist nations AND those that fall in between.  Clearly, it is an error to assume that capitolism is the reason we have jobs.  So too it is an error to assume that gree and profit margins are the only thing that causes people to work.  HEALTHY competition?  yes, the history of monopolies and mega conglomerates teaches a solid lesson on the importance of competition.  Weren't we JUST talking about Microsoft?  Quality goods and services?  Like Vista?  Like current gas prices?
> 
> Yea, i know the talking points sound good in their pre-packeaged form but they don't really reflect reality these days, do they?



I never said it was the reason why we have jobs.  I said it provides jobs.  As far as your history lesson on monopolies goes you could use a healthy dose of perspective.  Citing exceptions or rare occurances that contradict the general rule hardly proves your point.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> I think Vista will become the standard (unless Microsoft comes up with a new OS) but not because of fair competition.  The reason I think it will become the standard is that gamers typically drive the upgrade market.  Drive massive portions of it, in fact.  Not only is MS getting ready to quit releasing XP (in June) but they're releasing DirectX 10 only for Vista.  There are already a few of games out that use DirectX 10 and before long anyone who wants a really cutting edge game is going to have to use it. And then people who want to play it are going to have to have Vista.  So people will upgrade even if they don't really want to.



which flies in the face of the idea that capitolist businesses benefit the consumer.  Sure, vista might become M$ standard but i'd argue that their reptilian strategies, and the lackluster products they produce, are exactly the type of thing that illustrates my points in this thread.

who owns DX10, by the way?

microsoft.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

jillian said:


> Denny, I think you're looking at this wrong. It's not so much that healthcare is a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's about what is in our best interests as a society. It isn't in our best interest to have an underclass that uses hospitals as primary care physicians. It isn't in our best interests as a society for people not to take their children for well visits, vaccinations and all the other things they need.



I agree.  Where we differ is the solution to the problem.  Think about it from the perspective of someone oppossed to it for a second.  Wouldn't I have to have a pretty good reason to be oppossed to UHC considering it would cost me less money? 



jillian said:


> It's simply wrong, in a country with such wealth for people not to be able to get medical care.



Who ever invented that particular rationale needs to be beaten.  That the wealth of a country is somehow suppossed to correlate to what it's health _should_ be just doesn't jive.  It doesn't address why people are wealthy (which we've discussed at length).  The only premise I can surmize is that given the actual dollar amount of wealth in this country it should somehow comver medical expenses?  Well wealth is owned by people and if that's the rationale your operating under that wealth correlates to health then it should be the governments right to tax people until it deems everyone is healthy enough.  That okay with you?



jillian said:


> It's obscene that 50% of all bankruptcies in this country result from catastrophic illness and that millions of people are uninsured now who WERE insured in 2000.



Yes it is.  All I'm suggesting is let's not take the typical easy road and just go 'eh, let the government handle it'. 

]


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> still waiting for a single example of deregulation lowering consumer prices in any tangible, long term fashion)



I gave a link to one.  Did you miss it?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> I gave a link to one.  Did you miss it?



this link?

*Many government regulations are designed to protect people from the negative consequences (i.e., externalities) of buyers and sellers who have little incentive to look out for the welfare of third parties.* For example, slaughterhouses may have the freedom to kill animals for sale to their customers in grocery stores without taking into account obnoxious odors or sounds emanating from the slaughterhouse. Neighborhood residents, however, incur externality costs. Through agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the government controls what slaughterhouses can and cannot do in order to lessen the negative effects on the population.

*Some concerns have arisen about deregulation, however. The airline industry has become more concentrated since deregulation. In 1978 eleven carriers handled 87 percent of the traffic, while in 1995 seven carriers handled 93 percent of the traffic. Although some feared reduced safety, that has not materialized. Some of the bank failures in the 1980s were attributed to deregulation; yet depositors receive higher interest.* 


Like I said, Bern.. I can talk about deregulation but it's going to have to be specific instances rather than demonizing the entire pie.  As you can see, even talking points like deregulation have a negative impact on the consumer that are not as peachy as is promised.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> I never said it was the reason why we have jobs.  I said it provides jobs.  As far as your history lesson on monopolies goes you could use a healthy dose of perspective.  Citing exceptions or rare occurances that contradict the general rule hardly proves your point.



And, capitolism is not the end all source for job creation.  Lots of things provide jobs.  


RARE occurances?  STRIVING FOR A MARKET MONOPOLY is a RARE occurance is it?  Funny, I can't recall a single business whose ever expressed a concern for their competition for the sake of talking points and consumer prices...  What the hell is so rare about conglomerates?  Parent-companies?  

from your own source, homey...
*
Most societies rely on competitive markets to handle the allocation of scarce resources to their highest and best uses. Yet markets are not without their shortcomings. For this reason, governments sometime institute regulatory control. In 1887, the first regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was created to regulate monopolistic pricing policies of railroads.*


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> And, capitolism is not the end all source for job creation.  Lots of things provide jobs.
> 
> 
> RARE occurances?  STRIVING FOR A MARKET MONOPOLY is a RARE occurance is it?  Funny, I can't recall a single business whose ever expressed a concern for their competition for the sake of talking points and consumer prices...  What the hell is so rare about conglomerates?  Parent-companies?
> ...



Again you're using exceptions to make your point.  Indicated by the use of the word 'sometimes' in your citation.  No system is going to be perfect.  You could make the argument that capitalism is bad if we are all subjected to the whims of one or two super corps. but that isn't reality.  You spend all this time poo pooing monopolies, so what unique term would you use to describe government running the healthcare industry?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

Savings and Loan Crisis

The US Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s was the failure of several savings and loan associations in the United States. More than 1,000 savings and loan institutions (S&Ls) failed in "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[1] The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government (that is, the U.S. Taxpayer either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts) [2], which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. The resulting taxpayer bailout ended up being even larger than it would have been because moral hazard and adverse-selection incentives compounded the systems losses. [3]

A taxpayer-funded government bailout related to mortgages during the S&L crisis may have created a moral hazard and acted as encouragement to lenders to make similar higher-risk loans during the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. [4]

The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990-1991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II. [5]

*Deregulation*

*Although the deregulation of S&Ls gave them many of the capabilities of banks, it did not bring them under the same regulations as banks.* First, thrifts could choose to be under either a state or a federal charter. Immediately after deregulation of the federally chartered thrifts, the state-chartered thrifts rushed to become federally chartered, because of the advantages associated with a federal charter. In response, states (notably, California and Texas) changed their regulations so they would be similar to the federal regulations. States changed their regulations because state regulators were paid by the thrifts they regulated, and they didn't want to lose that money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Again you're using exceptions to make your point.  Indicated by the use of the word 'sometimes' in your citation.  No system is going to be perfect.  You could make the argument that capitalism is bad if we are all subjected to the whims of one or two super corps. but that isn't reality.  You spend all this time poo pooing monopolies, so what unique term would you use to describe government running the healthcare industry?



Sure, no system is perfect.. do you accept that answer regarding socialism too or is it just applicable to capitolist fuckups?  YOu know, commie cuba didn't happen in a vacuum, dude.  There is a very real reason why the peasant class sided with fidel and che and it has nothing to do with drinking commie juice.

In fact, if IM using the expection and not the rule then why did YOUR wource agree with my point regarding deregulated airlines?  the first railroads?  

How is it reality that grabbing for as much market share as possible is not a drive towards a monopoly?  Ever hear of Microsoft?  Are THEY just an exception too?


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Again you're using exceptions to make your point.  Indicated by the use of the word 'sometimes' in your citation.  No system is going to be perfect.  You could make the argument that capitalism is bad if we are all subjected to the whims of one or two super corps. but that isn't reality.  You spend all this time poo pooing monopolies, so what unique term would you use to describe government running the healthcare industry?



I dont consider the exceptions to be very rare.  I understand that there should be a balance - a certain degree of regulation and a certain degree of freedom. The question is not whether or not to draw the line but where to draw the line.  Some people think that there should be more regulation and some people think that there should be less regulation.  Some people think that it is enough to punish blatant fraud  lies.  Some people think that government should go further and punish those who engage in severely deceptive practices.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Savings and Loan Crisis
> 
> The US Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s was the failure of several savings and loan associations in the United States. More than 1,000 savings and loan institutions (S&Ls) failed in "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[1] The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government (that is, the U.S. Taxpayer either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts) [2], which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. The resulting taxpayer bailout ended up being even larger than it would have been because moral hazard and adverse-selection incentives compounded the systems losses. [3]
> 
> ...



I'm going to have to disagree with your s&l example.  There is a lot of misinformation about the true cause of the crisis.  It's actually pretty simple.  The s&l's had a lot of "junk" bonds in their portfolios.  Government regulators, in their infinite wisdom, decided these investments were too risky and mandated they sell them.  The market was flooded and the prices went throught the floor, the s&l's lost billions.  Time has vindicated Milken & company as very few of these risky bonds went into default, and they included the bonds that launched crappy fly-by-night companies such as microsoft and intel for example.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with your s&l example.  There is a lot of misinformation about the true cause of the crisis.  It's actually pretty simple.  The s&l's had a lot of "junk" bonds in their portfolios.  Government regulators, in their infinite wisdom, decided these investments were too risky and mandated they sell them.  The market was flooded and the prices went throught the floor, the s&l's lost billions.  Time has vindicated Milken & company as very few of these risky bonds went into default, and they included the bonds that launched crappy fly-by-night companies such as microsoft and intel for example.



in light of our current fiasco with sub-prime mortgages I think im gonna have to disagree.


1980-1982   Statutory and regulatory changes give the S&L industry new powers in the hopes of their entering new areas of business and subsequently returning to profitability. For the first time, the government approves measures intended to increase S&L profits as opposed to promoting housing and homeownership.

March, 1980--Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) enacted. The law is a Carter Administration initiative aimed at eliminating many of the distinctions among different types of depository institutions and ultimately removing interest rate ceiling on deposit accounts. Authority for federal S&Ls to make ADC (acquisition, development, construction) loans is expanded. Deposit insurance limit raised to $100,000 from $40,000. This last provision is added without debate.

November, 1980--Federal Home Loan Bank Board reduces net worth requirement for insured S&Ls from 5 to 4 percent of total deposits. Bank Board also removes limits on the amounts of brokered deposits an S&L can hold.

August, 1981--Tax Reform Act of 1981 enacted. Provides powerful tax incentives for real-estate investment by individuals. This legislation helps create a "boom" in real estate and contributes to over-building.

September, 1981--Federal Home Loan Bank Board permits troubled S&Ls to issue "income capital certificates" that are purchased by FSLIC and included as capital. Rather than showing that an institution is insolvent, the certificates make it appear solvent.

1982-1985   Reductions in the Bank Board's regulatory and supervisory staff. In 1983, a starting S&L examiner is paid $14,000 a year. The average examiner has only two years on the job. Examiner salaries are paid through OMB, not the Bank Board. During this period of supervisory and examination retraction, industry growth increases. Industry assets increase by 56% between 1982 and 1985. 40 Texas S&Ls triple in size between 1982 and 1986; many of them grow by 100% each year. California S&Ls follow a similar pattern. 
*
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/index.html*


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> in light of our current fiasco with sub-prime mortgages I think im gonna have to disagree.
> 
> 
> 1980-1982   Statutory and regulatory changes give the S&L industry new powers in the hopes of their entering new areas of business and subsequently returning to profitability. For the first time, the government approves measures intended to increase S&L profits as opposed to promoting housing and homeownership.
> ...




Those things all contibuted for sure.  However, even collectively it doesn't add up to the losses they suffered when they were forced to liquidate high yield "junk" bonds for pennies on the dollar.  The bottom line is the govt. fucked up royally on that one, just like they did when they took steps to contract the money supply after the 1929 stock market crash.  Deregulation allowed them to buy the junk bonds in the first place, yes.  But then shortsighted oversight forced them to sell them.  Had they been allowed to hold them to maturity, there would never have been a crisis.  The passage of time has proven this to be true.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> Those things all contibuted for sure.  However, even collectively it doesn't add up to the losses they suffered when they were forced to liquidate high yield "junk" bonds for pennies on the dollar.  The bottom line is the govt. fucked up royally on that one, just like they did when they took steps to contract the money supply after the 1929 stock market crash.  Deregulation allowed them to buy the junk bonds in the first place, yes.  But then shortsighted oversight forced them to sell them.  Had they been allowed to hold them to maturity, there would never have been a crisis.  The passage of time has proven this to be true.



do you have a source for this or shall I just take your word on it?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Sure, no system is perfect.. do you accept that answer regarding socialism too or is it just applicable to capitolist fuckups?  YOu know, commie cuba didn't happen in a vacuum, dude.  There is a very real reason why the peasant class sided with fidel and che and it has nothing to do with drinking commie juice.



Agreed. But I beleive communism has had does fail because it completely ignores human nature. Whether you think it bad or not, we don't put others above ourselves.  We are driven by incentives, that for producing will be rewarded.  In pure communism, it doesn't matter whether I pump out 5 widgets a day or 10 or if I make 9 faulty ones or 1 faulty one.  What I get in return is always going to be the same.  Thus I have no incetive to do my job well.



Shogun said:


> In fact, if IM using the expection and not the rule then why did YOUR wource agree with my point regarding deregulated airlines?  the first railroads?



I don't know if your looking at something different or if your picking the few pieces oppossed to deregulation.  The link i gave has a myriad of other links within it. http://www.answers.com/topic/deregulation?cat=biz-fin Some examples do indeed show that some dergulatino attempts have not helped.  The majority of what is there though is an eplanation of what deregulation is designed to accomplish. As to airline deregulation, where it is mentioned notes that post deregulation consumer fairs went down.  



Shogun said:


> How is it reality that grabbing for as much market share as possible is not a drive towards a monopoly?  Ever hear of Microsoft?  Are THEY just an exception too?



People point to Microsoft and use windows as a suppossed example that they have a monoply on OS's.  The fact is though, you don't have to have Windows or Vista on your computer. You do have other options.  There is another instance in where a single company can have large or almost monopolistic market share and that is they simple have the better product.  The company I work for has 80&#37; market share in the product it produces.  We dont' cut corners, we dont' rest on our laurels, we have a better product than the other guy, period.  Most everyone that buys that product knows this and that is why we have the market share we have.  Now what do you suggest the government meddle in where our company is concerned?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> do you have a source for this or shall I just take your word on it?



Why can't people objectively judge for themselves whether someone knows what they're talking about or not?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Why can't people objectively judge for themselves whether someone knows what they're talking about or not?



Because in this world of opinions and assholes, Bern, there is something to be said for evidence.  You know, like the S&L evidence that Im using to indicate that deregulation is no mana from heaven.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

*Agreed. But I beleive communism has had does fail because it completely ignores human nature. Whether you think it bad or not, we don't put others above ourselves.  We are driven by incentives, that for producing will be rewarded.  In pure communism, it doesn't matter whether I pump out 5 widgets a day or 10 or if I make 9 faulty ones or 1 faulty one.  What I get in return is always going to be the same.  Thus I have no incetive to do my job well.*


Who is ignoring human nature, Bern?  Those of us who understand to role that greed plays in capitolism or those of us who are insisting that monopolies are the exception?  Work is not the prerequisite for living a human life.  We don't value our health care just because some of us have it while others have to work their ass off for it while still others just don't apply.  Health care is not the reason we work either.  I have no problem with a blended mix of capitolism and socialism.  Indeed, your acceptance of govt. roads indicates that you don't either.  The question becomes not a matter of how to we achieve any pure form of either but rather how can we create an American standard of living that is worth the effort involved in participating in this nation.  This might just be the time and place where we the people add UHC to our short list of roads, clean water and fire protection.



*

I don't know if your looking at something different or if your picking the few pieces oppossed to deregulation.  The link i gave has a myriad of other links within it. http://www.answers.com/topic/deregulation?cat=biz-fin Some examples do indeed show that some dergulatino attempts have not helped.  The majority of what is there though is an eplanation of what deregulation is designed to accomplish. As to airline deregulation, where it is mentioned notes that post deregulation consumer fairs went down.  *


did those fairs stay down?  no?  Is the design of deregulation a guarantee that it's application is as beneficial as you claim?  no?  You origianlly said "Deregulation" as if that one word was supposed to explain everything.  I specifically asked you for actual examples and THIS is why.  I told you, im willing to discuss deregulation but im not willing to burn the entire forrest down just because Deregulation is a talking point that sells.  There have been clear detriments in the aftermath of deregulation which deflates using it as a cure for anything besides a lack of excuses.



*
People point to Microsoft and use windows as a suppossed example that they have a monoply on OS's.  The fact is though, you don't have to have Windows or Vista on your computer. You do have other options.  There is another instance in where a single company can have large or almost monopolistic market share and that is they simple have the better product.  The company I work for has 80% market share in the product it produces.  We dont' cut corners, we dont' rest on our laurels, we have a better product than the other guy, period.  Most everyone that buys that product knows this and that is why we have the market share we have.  Now what do you suggest the government meddle in where our company is concerned?*


vista is not a better product.  As steerpike mentioned, after the next direct x, ANOTHER MICROSOFT PRODUCT, anyone who doesn't hop on board the M$ bandwagon can look forward to not having necessary driver support to play any of their games.  Does that sacrifice sound like much of an option to you?  Sure, dude... linux would be great if all I wanted to do was use command lines to network my house.  

I guess you'd have to tell me what your company markets in order to see if your statement is a matter of fact or opinoin.  After all, is it REALLY shocking when bill gates, or any given robber barron, rationalized their monopolies?



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                          AT
MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1997                           (202) 616-2771
                                               TDD (202) 514-1888


            JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CHARGES MICROSOFT WITH
                    VIOLATING 1995 COURT ORDER


Asks Court to Impose $1 Million a Day Fine if Violation Continues

     WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of Justice asked a
federal court today to hold Microsoft Corporation--the world's
dominant personal computer software company--in civil contempt
for violating terms of a 1995 court order *barring it from
imposing anticompetitive licensing terms on manufacturers of
personal computers. *

     The petition filed today by the Department's Antitrust
Division alleges that Microsoft violated the court order by
*requiring PC manufacturers to license and distribute Microsoft's
Internet browser, called Internet Explorer, as a condition of
licensing Microsoft's Windows 95.  Most PC makers preinstall
Windows 95--the dominant PC operating system--at the factory on
the PCs they sell.*

*"Microsoft is unlawfully taking advantage of its Windows
monopoly to protect and extend that monopoly and undermine
consumer choice," said Attorney General Janet Reno.*

     The Department brought today's action to enforce the earlier
court order, and to prevent Microsoft from being able to expand
and protect its monopoly in the PC operating system market by
anticompetitive means.  The Department also wants to ensure that
PC manufacturers and consumers will be able to choose among
competing software products.

*"Our main concern is that by violating the court order,
Microsoft is using an unlawful advantage to beat back an
important competitive challenge to its Windows monopoly," said
Joel I. Klein, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
Department's Antitrust Division.  "Even as we go forward with
this action today," Klein added, "we also want to make clear that
we have an ongoing and wide-ranging investigation to determine
whether Microsoft's actions are stifling innovation and consumer
choice."*

     Much of Microsoft's market power today results because most
applications programs for PCs--programs such as word processing,
spread sheets and money managers--are written to work with
Microsoft's Windows 95 PC operating system, the Department said. 
Unfettered competition among Internet browser products could lead
to development of a computer environment in which business and
consumer applications would work regardless of which operating
system was installed on the PC.  Software companies are currently
developing applications that use an Internet browser as the user
interface and work on other operating systems as well as with
Windows 95.

* Microsoft's operating system is installed on more than 80
percent of the nation's PCs, and preinstallation on PCs at the
factory is Microsoft's main distribution channel.  *

*Under the 1995 court order, Microsoft is prohibited from
forcing computer makers to license any other Microsoft product as
a condition of licensing Windows 95*.  _Many PC manufacturers want
the ability to choose freely among competing software products
when they decide what to package with their PCs in order to offer
their customers the best mix of software products available._
*
     The petition charges that Microsoft has conditioned licenses
to Windows 95 on manufacturers' licensing of Internet Explorer
and that it has denied manufacturers' requests not to ship
Internet Explorer on new PCs with Windows 95. *

     The Department stressed that it is not taking sides in the
"browser war" between Microsoft and its rival, Netscape
Communications Corporation, or in any emerging competition
between Windows and other products.

* "Microsoft is not entitled to require computer manufacturers
and consumers to take Internet Explorer when they license Windows
95," said Klein.  "Each of Microsoft's products should compete on
its own merits."*

     Klein stressed, however, that today's action in no way
prevents consumers or PC manufacturers from voluntarily choosing
to obtain Internet Explorer and Windows 95, either together or
separately, if they so wish.

     In its petition, the Department asked the court:

     *  To stop Microsoft from requiring PC manufacturers to
        accept Internet Explorer as a condition of receiving Windows 95. 

     *  To require Microsoft to notify consumers of PCs that have
        Windows 95 that they are not required to use Internet Explorer,
        that they are free to use any compatible Internet browser, and to
        give consumers simple instructions about how to remove the
        Internet Explorer icon from their PC desktop if they choose.

     *  To impose large daily fines--$1 million--on Microsoft if
        it continues to violate the court's order.   

     *  To strike down broad portions of non-disclosure
        agreements that Microsoft requires those with whom it does
        business to sign.  

     The non-disclosure agreements may deter companies and
individuals from coming forward voluntarily to provide
information about Microsoft to the Department.  Moreover, they
sometimes require signatories to notify Microsoft first before
complying with the Department's formal requests, or even court
orders, for such information. 

     Microsoft has advised the Department that it would not
insist on prior disclosure when the Department approaches
companies or individuals and assures them that it will keep
information confidential.  But, this informal agreement, Klein
said, does not address the concerns of parties who wish to come
forward voluntarily. 

     Klein stressed the importance of full, voluntary disclosure
of information relevant to the Department's larger investigation
of Microsoft's practices.  He expressed concern that the broad
non-disclosure agreements could possibly hamper its investigation
and indicated that, to remove any possible impediment, even if
unintended, the Department was seeking a court order. 

     "We need a court order to clear the air here so that anyone
with relevant information will feel free to come talk to the
Department without any fear of intimidation or reprisal," Klein
said.  "We will not let Microsoft or anyone else burden that
fundamental right."

     Today's petition was filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, where the 1995 consent decree was entered.

     Microsoft will have an opportunity to respond to the
Department's petition in writing within 11 days.  At that time,
the judge will decide whether a hearing is appropriate.
                               ###
97-435

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/October97/435at.html

*
Microsoft: Don't sell PCs without operating systems*

"We want to urge all system builders  indeed, all Partners  not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business  with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services," wrote Alexander.

Linux vendors and free software supporters, though, believe these base systems can play an important role in supporting the open source market. Some are concerned that Microsoft may be attempting to use its powerful position in the market to hamper competition.

The European branch of the Free Software Foundation hopes that PC vendors will not be swayed by Microsoft.

"We would be happy to see any kind of hardware being shipped without an operating system, or pre-installed with free software. Furthermore, we would be happy to get in contact with any hardware vendor who wants to free his customers this way," said Joachim Jakobs, of the FSF Europe.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39261437,00.htm

*
Windows XP to be phased out by year's end despite customer demand*

Computer makers have been told they'll no longer be able to get Windows XP OEM by the end of this year, despite consumer resistance to Vista and its compatibility problems.

By early 2008, Microsoft's contracts with computer makers will require companies to only sell Vista-loaded machines. "The OEM version of XP Professional goes next January," said Frank Luburic, senior ThinkPad product manager for Lenovo. "At that point, they'll have no choice." 

http://apcmag.com/5835/vendors_in_no_rush_to_ditch_xp_for_vista


*Microsoft gets green light to punish OS-less PC vendors*

MDPs and MDAs

In testimony during the DoJ's antitrust case, IBM alleged that Microsoft used the MDA as a kind of pre-nuptial agreement that dictated the terms of the pricing structure, before formal negotiations over Windows licensing could begun. For example, in October 1994 Microsoft offered IBM an MDA that listed up to $27 per license in potential discounts, if IBM met certain conditions. The more points in the MDA that IBM agreed to, the lower the price became. IBM was then promoting its OS/2 operating system as an alternative to Chicago, which was released as Windows 95 ten months later.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/20/microsoft_gets_green_light/


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> do you have a source for this or shall I just take your word on it?



Whatever you like I suppose.  But I assume you're intelligent enough to realize that actual investment losses don't materialize out of thin air because of deregulation.  You have to actually invest in a security and then have it either default or sell it for a loss.  Virtually all the investment losses that led to the s&l crisis were from junk bonds.  Bonds that ended up paying off and making the rock bottom buyers an ass load of money.  I don't need a "source" to confirm what I already know as a matter of fact.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Because in this world of opinions and assholes, Bern, there is something to be said for evidence.  You know, like the S&L evidence that Im using to indicate that deregulation is no mana from heaven.



I don't disagree with your opinion that deregulation is no panacea, I just think you're missing the big picture when you blame it entirely for the s&l crisis.  Sure an argument can be made that it wouldn't have happened if they were not deregulated.  But I'm saying that mistake was exponentially compounded by ignoring common knowledge about supply and demand and mandating they liquidate.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> Whatever you like I suppose.  But I assume you're intelligent enough to realize that actual investment losses don't materialize out of thin air because of deregulation.  You have to actually invest in a security and then have it either default or sell it for a loss.  Virtually all the investment losses that led to the s&l crisis were from junk bonds.  Bonds that ended up paying off and making the rock bottom buyers an ass load of money.  I don't need a "source" to confirm what I already know as a matter of fact.



Out of thin air?  of course not.  But, According to your opinion of a cause that you suggest as "fact"?  Im afraid so.  Also, you've stated that time has acted to vindicate specific actors in the S&L scandal... I'm afraid your word is not much of a reflective standard.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> I don't disagree with your opinion that deregulation is no panacea, I just think you're missing the big picture when you blame it entirely for the s&l crisis.  Sure an argument can be made that it wouldn't have happened if they were not deregulated.  But I'm saying that mistake was exponentially compounded by ignoring common knowledge about supply and demand and mandating they liquidate.



I guess it depends on what big picture you choose to look at.  how would those second stage exponential mistakes have happened were it not for the very deregulation that I've provided evidence for?  Are they still not, as noted above, the DIRECT result of deregulation?  I guess i'm going to have to side with the FDIC on this one instead of your personal expertise.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Who is ignoring human nature, Bern?  Those of us who understand to role that greed plays in capitolism or those of us who are insisting that monopolies are the exception?



Okay, given the wide variety of good and services out there, prove your point, where are all the monopolies?



Shogun said:


> Work is not the prerequisite for living a human life.  We don't value our health care just because some of us have it while others have to work their ass off for it while still others just don't apply.  Health care is not the reason we work either.  I have no problem with a blended mix of capitolism and socialism.  Indeed, your acceptance of govt. roads indicates that you don't either.  The question becomes not a matter of how to we achieve any pure form of either but rather how can we create an American standard of living that is worth the effort involved in participating in this nation.  This might just be the time and place where we the people add UHC to our short list of roads, clean water and fire protection.



What exactley do you think my problem with UHC is?  Again, considering the fact it would be less expensive for everyone, don't you think someone would probably have a pretty good reason to not want to be treated under a UHC system?  



Shogun said:


> did those fairs stay down?  no?  Is the design of deregulation a guarantee that it's application is as beneficial as you claim?  no?  You origianlly said "Deregulation" as if that one word was supposed to explain everything.  I specifically asked you for actual examples and THIS is why.  I told you, im willing to discuss deregulation but im not willing to burn the entire forrest down just because Deregulation is a talking point that sells.  There have been clear detriments in the aftermath of deregulation which deflates using it as a cure for anything besides a lack of excuses.



I know you'd like to make this dergulation thing complex, but it isn't.  It's fairly simple concept: less governement regulation in private business.




Shogun said:


> I guess you'd have to tell me what your company markets in order to see if your statement is a matter of fact or opinoin.  After all, is it REALLY shocking when bill gates, or any given robber barron, rationalized their monopolies?



trolling motors.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I guess it depends on what big picture you choose to look at.  how would those second stage exponential mistakes have happened were it not for the very deregulation that I've provided evidence for?  Are they still not, as noted above, the DIRECT result of deregulation?  I guess i'm going to have to side with the FDIC on this one instead of your personal expertise.



Nice spin.

The impact of the deregulation "mistake" would have only been a fraction of what it ended up being when the congressional bailout mandated selling the junk bonds.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun,

A couple snippets from old articles since your google must not be working today.

"The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989, requires, among other things, that S&Ls' existing holdings of corporate debt securities not of investment grade ("junk" bonds) be divested by July 1, 1994."


"The junk bond market is preparing for the fallout from a requirement that savings and loans sell their holdings in these high-yield, high risk investments as part of the congressional thrift bailout bill."


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

*Okay, given the wide variety of good and services out there, prove your point, where are all the monopolies?*

Thats the point, Bern.. in THIS country monopolies are dealt with or regulated if it falls into the natural monopoly catagory.  But, if you are looking for a list of facts, as they say.. (i;ll even provide a source)

# U.S. Steel; anti-trust prosecution failed in 1911.
# Standard Oil; broken up in 1911.
# National Football League; survived anti-trust lawsuit in the 1960s, convicted of being an illegal monopoly in the 1980s.
# Major League Baseball; survived U.S. anti-trust litigation in 1922, though its special status is still in dispute as of 2008.
# United Aircraft and Transport Corporation; aircraft manufacturer holding company forced to divest itself of airlines in 1934.
# American Telephone & Telegraph; telecommunications giant broken up in 1982.
# Microsoft; settled anti-trust litigation in the U.S. in 2001; fined by the European Commission in 2004, which was upheld for the most part by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in 2007.
# De Beers; settled charges of price fixing in the diamond trade in the 2000s.
# Apple Inc., Accused of forming a Vertical Monopoly, with iPod, iTunes, iTunes Music Store, and the FairPlay DRM System.
# Joint Commission; has a monopoly over whether or not US hospitals are able to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Historical_monopolies

These are ALL products of *capitolism*, Bern.  Say what you want about social programs that are easily labeled socialism and the chicken dance that follows but there are enough examples in history to indicate that praying for a free market is no solution for everyone.






*What exactly do you think my problem with UHC is?  Again, considering the fact it would be less expensive for everyone, don't you think someone would probably have a pretty good reason to not be treated under a UHC system?* 

I think that your problem with UHC is sort of a knee jerk reaction to anything that you perceive as socialist.  Despite the semi-socialist opinion that the state should tax for the creation of roads.  This is where we are at this point where im defending socialism and you are defending capitolism.

a good reason to not be treated?  eh?  I'm afraid you lost me there.




*I know you'd like to make this dergulation thing complex, but it isn't.  It's fairly simple concept: less governement regulation in private business.*

Its not a matter of obfuscation, dude.  I've posted MY evidence.. where is yours?  You may not want to consider the aftermath of nixing malpractice insurance but, again, I guess we see what happened in the 80s when those who were also a big fan of deregulation didn't give a fuck about their aftermath.  Airliners, in YOUR source above no less, narrowed competition and the next thing you know the fed is bailing out failing airliners since no COMPETITION was around to step up.  

It's not a matter of resorting to the pre-packaged talking point, dude.  I'm asking for specifics that you want to deregulate and replying with actual history instead of rhetoric when the same blind deregulation bandwagon passed by.  If thats too complicated to masticate then.. well.. I don't know what to tell you.



*
trolling motors.*

awesome.  i'll tip my hat to that.

Now, would you say that this is something that enough people buy as to require market competition?  While I love fishing Im not sure it is true that the American population relies on your products in order to maintain a standard of living.  roads?  railroads?  phones?  operating systems?  Your market base is probably not as wide, and has as much of a social impact, than the above list.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> Nice spin.
> 
> The impact of the deregulation "mistake" would have only been a fraction of what it ended up being when the congressional bailout mandated selling the junk bonds.



SPIN?


you admit that the error was deregulation yet can't fathom how the exponential fuckups were a DIRECT result of said deregulation?

ooooook.

and it wouldn't have even BEEN a fraction had the initial caps not been busted off by those waving the deregulation banner, eh?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> Shogun,
> 
> A couple snippets from old articles since your google must not be working today.
> 
> ...





um, would you like to explain how a federal BAILOUT in 1989 is in any way, shape or form a viable cause of the S&L moreso than the original deregulation that opened the pandoras box?

You see, this is why evidence is golden while opinions are, well, as common as assholes.


----------



## manifold (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> um, would you like to explain how a federal BAILOUT in 1989 is in any way, shape or form a viable cause of the S&L moreso than the original deregulation that opened the pandoras box?
> 
> You see, this is why evidence is golden while opinions are, well, as common as assholes.




LOL!

I think we're in a bit of violent agreement here.  I more or less agree with you that deregulation was the cause, so settle down beavis.  It's the ultimate COST that I'm talking about.  If instead of forcing them to sell the junk bonds, the government just funded the solvency (liquidity) gap, the overall cost to taxpayers would have been waaaaaaaaay less.  And of course that's an opinion on my part, but an opinion that is strongly supported by the fact that very few of these bonds defaulted.

I get the feeling that the stick up your ass has a stick up it's ass.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> LOL!
> 
> I think we're in a bit of violent agreement here.  I more or less agree with you that deregulation was the cause, so settle down beavis.  It's the ultimate COST that I'm talking about.  If instead of forcing them to sell the junk bonds, the government just funded the solvency (liquidity) gap, the overall cost to taxpayers would have been waaaaaaaaay less.  And of course that's an opinion on my part, but an opinion that is strongly supported by the fact that very few of these bonds defaulted.
> 
> I get the feeling that the stick up your ass has a stick up it's ass.



Hey, i'm just a big fan of evidence while posting in this thunderdome of a forum chock full of people who are absolutely convinced that their opinion is fact.  We can suppose many things in the monday morning quarterback huddle but, at the end of the day, the hand that opened the lid was blind deregulation.  Like I've told Bern, Im open to discuss specific regulations and the problems thereof.  However, my pint in this little tangent is that deregulation is not a miracle cure... even fi we all have opinions about the aftermath of the S&L scandal.

Good day to you, sir, and have a great weekend.


You too, Bern.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Thats the point, Bern.. in THIS country monopolies are dealt with or regulated if it falls into the natural monopoly catagory.  But, if you are looking for a list of facts, as they say.. (i;ll even provide a source)
> 
> # U.S. Steel; anti-trust prosecution failed in 1911.
> # Standard Oil; broken up in 1911.
> ...



But again what you are lacking is persepctive.  I'm not saying monopilies wont' happen under capitalism.  But your list is a fraction of a fraction of the millions of goods and services businesses in our country that are essentially participating in a capitlistic economy. Capitlim is not the solution for everything but by and large it does work.  We're not gonna get anywhere if you're gonna be content with the notion that pointing pointing out the abnormalities of a system somehow proves the whole system doesn't work.  




Shogun said:


> I think that your problem with UHC is sort of a knee jerk reaction to anything that you perceive as socialist.  Despite the semi-socialist opinion that the state should tax for the creation of roads.  This is where we are at this point where im defending socialism and you are defending capitolism.
> 
> a good reason to not *WANT (important word I missed, sorry* be treated?  eh?  I'm afraid you lost me there.



Wrong of course.  i am worried about two things where UHC is concerned 1) Government telling me how to live my life (which they would be justified in doing as they're now footing the bill) and 2) a degradation in quality of care.  

The point that is getting missed is that this whole UHC debate only addresses one aspect of healthcare; the cost.  No one seems to have thought about what impact tinkering with that will have on all of the other components that make up the healthcare industry.



Shogun said:


> Its not a matter of obfuscation, dude.  I've posted MY evidence.. where is yours?  You may not want to consider the aftermath of nixing malpractice insurance but, again, I guess we see what happened in the 80s when those who were also a big fan of deregulation didn't give a fuck about their aftermath.  Airliners, in YOUR source above no less, narrowed competition and the next thing you know the fed is bailing out failing airliners since no COMPETITION was around to step up.



I wouldn't consider getting rid of malpractice insureance at the same time though is it any wonder that a doctors service fees are through the roof when their malpractice insureance is the 5 and sometime 6 figure a year category?  



Shogun said:


> It's not a matter of resorting to the pre-packaged talking point, dude.  I'm asking for specifics that you want to deregulate and replying with actual history instead of rhetoric when the same blind deregulation bandwagon passed by.  If thats too complicated to masticate then.. well.. I don't know what to tell you.



Here we go again.  I gave you specifics.  Again I don't where you got the quotes from the citation I provided, only that they look very different from what was in there.  Like I said there are links all over in there as to how regulation and/or deregulation has affected various industries.



Shogun said:


> awesome.  i'll tip my hat to that.
> 
> Now, would you say that this is something that enough people buy as to require market competition?  While I love fishing Im not sure it is true that the American population relies on your products in order to maintain a standard of living.  roads?  railroads?  phones?  operating systems?  Your market base is probably not as wide, and has as much of a social impact, than the above list.



social impact is not a factor of a monopply.  A monoply is simply where a business is the sole provider of a good or service.  Yes narrowing the term to products that we are more dependant on certainly helps your argument, unfortunately the actuial definition of the term doesn't make that differentiation.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 23, 2008)

manifold said:


> Them's some pretty subjective rights.  How about all the money spent in Iraq?  I bet more people consider that a failed program than not.  Of course when you keep redefining the definition of success, I guess that's a bit tricky to prove (but that's an entirely different discussion).  Regardless, you've failed to convince me of anything and didn't really even attempt to answer the question asked, no offense.



It's a failed notion here's why, concentrate on II.11, that spefically tells you why a socialistic nation (with programs such universal healthcare,welfare,foodstamps etc...) is doomed to fail.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> It's a failed notion here's why, concentrate on II.11, that spefically tells you why a socialistic nation (with programs such universal healthcare,welfare,foodstamps etc...) is doomed to fail.



http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> It's a failed notion here's why, concentrate on II.11, that spefically tells you why a socialistic nation (with programs such universal healthcare,welfare,foodstamps etc...) is doomed to fail.



Since a nation can have universal healthcare and welfare and not be a socialistic nation can you explain what a real socialistic nation's economy is like?


----------



## jreeves (Feb 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html


I'm not saying we are a 100% pure socialistic country but these socialistic agendas, rot the core of capitalism in this country. So to answer your first question using my orginial posting, it is not a "Right" to have governmental ran healthcare. Because you violate other's rights and it contributes to a failed system. As is laid out in the following;

Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives. 
Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter! 
The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components. 

Prices 

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don't appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency. 

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources. 

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource. 

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price. 

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market. 

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency. 

Profits and Losses 

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses. 

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences. 

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated. 

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure. 

Private Property Rights 

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a "tragedy of commons" on a global scale. 

The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource. 

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement. 

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the "common ownership of the means of production," the failure of socialism is a "tragedy of the commons" on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights. 

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 23, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Since a nation can have universal healthcare and welfare and not be a socialistic nation can you explain what a real socialistic nation's economy is like?



I don't understand your question can you rephrase it?


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I don't understand your question can you rephrase it?



Certainly.  I'll enlarge on it a bit.  It's my contention that the abstract economic notions of the free market economy and the total command economy are both unworkable in practice.  Any economy has to contain mixed elements to work effectively.  That means that in reality nations which like to say they have free market economies or totally planned economies don't have them at all, it's a bit of self-delusion.  You mentioned that "socialistic" economies will fail.  I tend to agree that the total social ownership of the means of production has, where it's been tried to date, failed.  But a socialist economy isn't identified by universal healthcare or social security, plenty of countries have those programmes but they're not socialist states. 

Now, in your view, what's a socialist economy?


----------



## jreeves (Feb 23, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Certainly.  I'll enlarge on it a bit.  It's my contention that the abstract economic notions of the free market economy and the total command economy are both unworkable in practice.  Any economy has to contain mixed elements to work effectively.  That means that in reality nations which like to say they have free market economies or totally planned economies don't have them at all, it's a bit of self-delusion.  You mentioned that "socialistic" economies will fail.  I tend to agree that the total social ownership of the means of production has, where it's been tried to date, failed.  But a socialist economy isn't identified by universal healthcare or social security, plenty of countries have those programmes but they're not socialist states.
> 
> Now, in your view, what's a socialist economy?



Where 97% of the taxes in a country are paid by only 50% of the citizens.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Where 97% of the taxes in a country are paid by only 50% of the citizens.



The largest exipenditure by government is social spending...


----------



## jreeves (Feb 23, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Certainly.  I'll enlarge on it a bit.  It's my contention that the abstract economic notions of the free market economy and the total command economy are both unworkable in practice.  Any economy has to contain mixed elements to work effectively.  That means that in reality nations which like to say they have free market economies or totally planned economies don't have them at all, it's a bit of self-delusion.  You mentioned that "socialistic" economies will fail.  I tend to agree that the total social ownership of the means of production has, where it's been tried to date, failed.  But a socialist economy isn't identified by universal healthcare or social security, plenty of countries have those programmes but they're not socialist states.
> 
> Now, in your view, what's a socialist economy?



I lose you there??


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Where 97% of the taxes in a country are paid by only 50% of the citizens.



That could be the problem, I use the definition of a socialist country to be one where the means of production are socially owned.


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The largest exipenditure by government is social spending...



I'd say that would mark a failed state for sure, but that doesn't make it socialist.


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I lose you there??



I think it's the definitional problem, as I indicated.  I mean, anyone is free to chuck around the term "socialist" or "socialistic" or similar as a pejorative but it helps to indicate if it's just a slag-off term or it's being used as an agreed definition.

It makes me think of the first time I was getting ready to visit the US and I bought a guide book, like a Frommer's or something.  I was reading about the cost of "entrees" in restaurants and nearly fainted.  I didn't realise that in the US you use the term "entree" to mean what we call a "main course".  Here we use the term "entree" to mean a form of appetiser course - no wonder I nearly freaked out


----------



## jreeves (Feb 23, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> That could be the problem, I use the definition of a socialist country to be one where the means of production are socially owned.


&#712;socialism noun

the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners

If only 50% of the population is paying 97% of the income tax, tell me how that isn't the very definition....Socialist control a country's wealth through taxes and redistribution of income.


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> &#712;socialism noun
> 
> the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners
> 
> If only 50% of the population is paying 97% of the income tax, tell me how that isn't the very definition....Socialist control a country's wealth through taxes and redistribution of income.



The first part of your post pretty much sums up my understanding of socialism as an economic theory.  But the second part I'm struggling with.  If half of the population is paying 97% of a country's income tax then I'd say that half of the population is on a bloody good earner   But that's only a reference to the tax structures.  It's not socialist simply because of a tax regime.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 23, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> You mean you hope it wouldn't be that way.  Look around.  Countries with socialized medicine aren't exactley running like clockwork or even close to it.  The number one problem that most countries with some form of government run health care is waiting.  As someone said earlier what you will essentially be douing is exchanging one set of problems for another.  You will be exchanging convenience, responsiveness, and quality of care for affordability.  And what good is cheap medicine if it's shitty medicine?



And what good is medicine that you cannot afford or is refused you because of lack of health coverage?


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The largest exipenditure by government is social spending...



I doubted you for a moment but then I found this chart on how congress spends your money.  The top 4 categories are Defense, Health & Human Services, Treasury (interest on debt), and Social Security:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Federal_spendings.png


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 23, 2008)

I would have thought that social spending and defence are quite properly big ticket items for any government.


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 23, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I doubted you for a moment but then I found this chart on how congress spends your money.  The top 4 categories are Defense, Health & Human Services, Treasury (interest on debt), and Social Security:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Federal_spendings.png



I guess that the debt goes up each year no matter who is president.  Notice that in 2004, it was just above 7 trillion.  In 2007 it barely passed the 9 trillion dollar mark.  Doesnt the president sign off on spending bills and dont Republicans say that they support cuts in spending and reducing the size of government?  Oh well. I guess Dems and Repubs are not that different when it comes to this.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 23, 2008)

manifold said:


> The debate about universal healthcare and so forth, as we all know, has been raging for several years now.  To be quite frank, I'm still undecided and conflicted about where I stand on the issue.  My question to the members of this forum is this:  Is healthcare a right?  And by "right," I don't mean the unalienable kind endowed by the creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the kind defined by the laws of man.  What do you think?



Maybe 'right' is the wrong word. Healthcare could be desirable if health of its citizens is important to a nation. As important as education/policing/emergency services/defense/infrastructure that are all 'socialized. In Canada, health is lumped into that group of desirables. In the US, politically not so. People who can afford private care that is the very best are the ones who tend to make policy and decision about it in the US I find. Not surprising there is little political will.

That marketcure video, or story seemed a bit bizarre, as if he was worried the US might fall victim to socialized medicine and end up like some Euro nations or Cuba (ironically all had enviable health care systems superior to the care average people get in America).


----------



## jreeves (Feb 23, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I guess that the debt goes up each year no matter who is president.  Notice that in 2004, it was just above 7 trillion.  In 2007 it barely passed the 9 trillion dollar mark.  Doesnt the president sign off on spending bills and dont Republicans say that they support cuts in spending and reducing the size of government?  Oh well. I guess Dems and Repubs are not that different when it comes to this.



I'm not saying Bush is immune because he is Republican, he's not. He along with Congress has spent this country onto the brink of bankruptcy. If you read down a little further, on that same website, it will tell you Social Spending is the single largest expenditure by the government. That in my opinion is the largest area we can improve, since we have spent the most money there.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Feb 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I'm not saying Bush is immune because he is Republican, he's not. He along with Congress has spent this country onto the brink of bankruptcy. If you read down a little further, on that same website, it will tell you Social Spending is the single largest expenditure by the government. That in my opinion is the largest area we can improve, since we have spent the most money there.



Every dime the government spends should be considered social spending. Remember, the government only exists to serve the society and make our lives better. 


I think the excessive spending is due to a lack of accountability. I'd say 90% of this country thinks the government wastes money, but there really isn't much we can do about it since it's hard to pinpoint who's spending how much and for what. Obama proposed a system where the government has to make it's spending public information. I think it would increase competition on contracts, because people like Cheney can no longer get away with giving their buddies companies big $ contracts without any sort of competition.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Every dime the government spends should be considered social spending. Remember, the government only exists to serve the society and make our lives better.
> 
> 
> I think the excessive spending is due to a lack of accountability. I'd say 90% of this country thinks the government wastes money, but there really isn't much we can do about it since it's hard to pinpoint who's spending how much and for what. Obama proposed a system where the government has to make it's spending public information. I think it would increase competition on contracts, because people like Cheney can no longer get away with giving their buddies companies big $ contracts without any sort of competition.



The Federal Government solely exists to ensure the individual States Get along, a unified voice is present for foreign diplomacy and policy and to provide for the Common defense. There is absolutely NO power or authority at the Federal level for ANY social programs AT ALL.


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 23, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Federal Government solely exists to ensure the individual States Get along, a unified voice is present for foreign diplomacy and policy and to provide for the Common defense. There is absolutely NO power or authority at the Federal level for ANY social programs AT ALL.



That's your narrow minded conservative take on it and I think most would disagree, we the people for the united, not otherwise, states of America.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> That's your narrow minded conservative take on it and I think most would disagree, we the people for the united, not otherwise, states of America.
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."



And yet you can not site a single granted power in the Constitution that allows any social program AT ALL. Other then claiming there is a "general welfare" clause that somehow supercedes the STATED LIMITED powers of the Federal Government in the document.


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 23, 2008)

Gurdari said:


> Maybe 'right' is the wrong word. Healthcare could be desirable if health of its citizens is important to a nation. As important as education/policing/emergency services/defense/infrastructure that are all 'socialized. In Canada, health is lumped into that group of desirables. In the US, politically not so. People who can afford private care that is the very best are the ones who tend to make policy and decision about it in the US I find. Not surprising there is little political will.
> 
> That marketcure video, or story seemed a bit bizarre, as if he was worried the US might fall victim to socialized medicine and end up like some Euro nations or Cuba (ironically all had enviable health care systems superior to the care average people get in America).



That sums up the issue nicely.  It does depend on how healthcare is viewed by a society.  If healthcare is seen as necessary for the general wellbeing of society then it will be made affordable (or free) to all.  If healthcare is seen as just another commodity to be purchased then it won't be made affordable (or free) to all, proponents will call for the operation of market forces to regulate the supply and demand of the commodity called healthcare.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 24, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> That sums up the issue nicely.  It does depend on how healthcare is viewed by a society.  If healthcare is seen as necessary for the general wellbeing of society then it will be made affordable (or free) to all.  If healthcare is seen as just another commodity to be purchased then it won't be made affordable (or free) to all, proponents will call for the operation of market forces to regulate the supply and demand of the commodity called healthcare.



Everything in America is a commodity; food clothing, shelter, medical care, health & well being, even religion. One of the reasons why solar energy is not being touted as a viable energy solution is that the sun cannot be a commodity, nor can the wind.

I just read an article in Scientific America that stated and proved that solar energy could completely replace nuclear and fossil fuels by 2035.


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 24, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Everything in America is a commodity; food clothing, shelter, medical care, health & well being, even religion. One of the reasons why solar energy is not being touted as a viable energy solution is that the sun cannot be a commodity, nor can the wind.
> 
> I just read an article in Scientific America that stated and proved that solar energy could completely replace nuclear and fossil fuels by 2035.



In terms of the commodities you listed, it's nearly the same here (Australia).  Medical care though has a special form as a commodity I think.  Medical care is available to all who need it and if they can't pay for it then they'll get it anyway because it's seen as a basic necessity.  In practice the system is more complex than that but that's the basic philosophy.  The commonwealth government is the single payer for what might be called required health care but private insurance schemes are available for those who can afford them.  Private health definitely makes life easier but it doesn't replace the required health care system.  

In terms of renewable energy, we're starting to get serious about it but I think it will take a lot of commonwealth and state government work to create a viable renewable energy industry.  When it happens though I expect it to still be a commodity as it is now.  For example, my electricity supply is from wind power.  It isn't cheaper for me but it's better than encouraging the burning of coal.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Every dime the government spends should be considered social spending. Remember, the government only exists to serve the society and make our lives better.
> 
> 
> I think the excessive spending is due to a lack of accountability. I'd say 90% of this country thinks the government wastes money, but there really isn't much we can do about it since it's hard to pinpoint who's spending how much and for what. Obama proposed a system where the government has to make it's spending public information. I think it would increase competition on contracts, because people like Cheney can no longer get away with giving their buddies companies big $ contracts without any sort of competition.



No, this is direct social service spending, for example dept. of health and human services. 680 billion dollars worth

www.federalbudget.com


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> That's your narrow minded conservative take on it and I think most would disagree, we the people for the united, not otherwise, states of America.
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."



On the definition of "General Welfare", but if we look at how they ran government at the beginning of our existence, it sure doesn't seem they meant huge social beaucracies.


----------



## Gunny (Feb 24, 2008)

manifold said:


> You prefer anarchy and you call me absurd???
> 
> Duly noted.



Quite a stretch deciding what I "prefer" based on pointing out the flaw in your thinking.  

So let me drop another flaw in your thinking on you:  There's a LOT of space between one extreme and the other.


----------



## Obama4Pres08 (Feb 24, 2008)

manifold said:


> The debate about universal healthcare and so forth, as we all know, has been raging for several years now.  To be quite frank, I'm still undecided and conflicted about where I stand on the issue.  My question to the members of this forum is this:  Is healthcare a right?  And by "right," I don't mean the unalienable kind endowed by the creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the kind defined by the laws of man.  What do you think?




My question is if other countries have universal health care why can't the richest country in the world not have it?

Answer: because greedy non-healthcare for profit insurance companies will not make money and doctors will only make 250K instead of 500K per year and big pharma will not be able to hock thier worthless pills on us at theft-like prices.....

its a tough call


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> My question is if other countries have universal health care why can't the richest country in the world not have it?
> 
> Answer: because greedy non-healthcare for profit insurance companies will not make money and doctors will only make 250K instead of 500K per year and big pharma will not be able to hock thier worthless pills on us at theft-like prices.....
> 
> its a tough call



Novel idea...if you liberals want to pay for universal healthcare go ahead....Why don't we come up with special fund called universal healthcare? If you don't want to pay then fine. Let's see how much funding it gets?? Sound like a good idea?


----------



## Gunny (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> My question is if other countries have universal health care why can't the richest country in the world not have it?
> 
> Answer: because greedy non-healthcare for profit insurance companies will not make money and doctors will only make 250K instead of 500K per year and big pharma will not be able to hock thier worthless pills on us at theft-like prices.....
> 
> its a tough call



Not a tough call at all.  If they earn it, they should be allowed to have it.  

Why do people like you think it's okay to take from me what I have earned and just give it to someone who hasn't earned shit?  That's called STEALING where I'm from.


----------



## JeffWartman (Feb 24, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Not a tough call at all.  If they earn it, they should be allowed to have it.
> 
> Why do people like you think it's okay to take from me what I have earned and just give it to someone who hasn't earned shit?  That's called STEALING where I'm from.


----------



## Obama4Pres08 (Feb 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Novel idea...if you liberals want to pay for universal healthcare go ahead....Why don't we come up with special fund called universal healthcare? If you don't want to pay then fine. Let's see how much funding it gets?? Sound like a good idea?



I would say the same thing for the military.....lets make that an opt out choice on tax witholding form as well.......


----------



## Obama4Pres08 (Feb 24, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Not a tough call at all.  If they earn it, they should be allowed to have it.
> 
> Why do people like you think it's okay to take from me what I have earned and just give it to someone who hasn't earned shit?  That's called STEALING where I'm from.



Well in Texarkana that may be true, but in the civilized world (other countries) people actually have a sense of humanity and altruism that you apparantly don't have.

Its not your fault. 

You are just stuck in 1865.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> I would say the same thing for the military.....lets make that an opt out choice on tax witholding form as well.......



Sounds like a winner to me


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> Well in Texarkana that may be true, but in the civilized world (other countries) people actually have a sense of humanity and altruism that you apparantly don't have.
> 
> Its not your fault.
> 
> You are just stuck in 1865.



No when the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes in this country they shouldn't have to constantly fund a circle of poverty...


----------



## Gunny (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> Well in Texarkana that may be true, but in the civilized world (other countries) people actually have a sense of humanity and altruism that you apparantly don't have.
> 
> Its not your fault.
> 
> You are just stuck in 1865.



No, I'm stuck in 2008 listening to a bunch of leftwingnuts wanting to help themselves to even MORE of my wallet.  

You mean those "civilized" European countries wallowing in mediocrity?  It doesn't require humanity to believe people who don't earn something are entitled to it nonetheless.  It just requires being kinda dumb.

And I don't know shit about Texarkana, fwiw.


----------



## Obama4Pres08 (Feb 24, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> No, I'm stuck in 2008 listening to a bunch of leftwingnuts wanting to help themselves to even MORE of my wallet.
> 
> You mean those "civilized" European countries wallowing in mediocrity?  It doesn't require humanity to believe people who don't earn something are entitled to it nonetheless.  It just requires being kinda dumb.
> 
> And I don't know shit about Texarkana, fwiw.




Get ready gunny, kicking and screaming you will learn to help others and realize no man or country is an island. It will be a learning experience for you.

old dogs can learn new tricks!

even you


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> Get ready gunny, kicking and screaming you will learn to help others and realize no man or country is an island. It will be a learning experience for you.
> 
> old dogs can learn new tricks!
> 
> even you



Wishful thinking on your part....when people find out about 800 billion in new governmental spending....they will think twice. Who's going to expose him now, Hillary...LOL


----------



## Obama4Pres08 (Feb 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Wishful thinking on your part....when people find out about 800 billion in new governmental spending....they will think twice. Who's going to expose him now, Hillary...LOL




yes and that Bush signed it into law, they are going to say great he is finally working with the democrats....heck we may make Bush an honorary democrat for a day for all this spending he has agreed to! HAHA Pelosi is pushing him around like the empty suit he really is!

This is great stuff!


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> yes and that Bush signed it into law, they are going to say great he is finally working with the democrats....heck we may make Bush an honorary democrat for a day for all this spending he has agreed to! HAHA Pelosi is pushing him around like the empty suit he really is!
> 
> This is great stuff!



Obviously there is no one home....800 billion dollars is what Barrack "can't spend enough" Obama has proposed in "additional" governmental spending....D-Do y--yyyou g---gget m--me? I thought maybe if I slowed it down for you, you might understand....LOL


----------



## Gunny (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> Get ready gunny, kicking and screaming you will learn to help others and realize no man or country is an island. It will be a learning experience for you.
> 
> old dogs can learn new tricks!
> 
> even you



Got news for you junior, I do not nor have I ever had a problem with helping those truly in need, and I surely doubt the likes of you are going to teach me a damned thing.  You didn't invent backwards-assed thinking ... it's been around awhile and I rejected it before you were a twinkle in your parents' eyes then as I do now.

And you would be wrong about the being dragged kicking and screaming.  I'll just resort to what everyone else who's tired of being ripped off does and hide my money.  Better that than using it to chase your will 'o' wisps.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 25, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> I would say the same thing for the military.....lets make that an opt out choice on tax witholding form as well.......



You really are a oron, this proves it yet again. The Federal Government is RESPONSIBLE for defending us. The Military is one of the FEW things in the Federal Budget that can NOT be claimed as not being a power of and responsibility of the Government. RETARD.


----------



## manifold (Feb 25, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Federal Government solely exists to ensure the individual States Get along, a unified voice is present for foreign diplomacy and policy and to provide for the Common defense.



LOL!
 

That might've been true for a nano-second after the Constitution was ratified, but nary a moment longer.  For better or worse states rights were eroded with every passing moment from that point forward and the death knell was finally rung by honest Abe and the Civil War.  It still is cute though to see politicians touting states rights as if it still exists.  And even cuter how people buy into the nonsense.


----------



## manifold (Feb 25, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet you can not site a single granted power in the Constitution that allows any social program AT ALL. Other then claiming there is a "general welfare" clause that somehow supercedes the STATED LIMITED powers of the Federal Government in the document.



LOL!  Redux!   

Your interpretation is spot on, no argument here.  It's just that it is inconsistent with reality.  The Tenth Amendment was the first to get shit on and it started right from the get go.  See Gibbons vs. Ogden for example:

Gibbons v. Ogden
US Supreme Court case of 1824 that established the federal government's authority over the states in the regulation of interstate commerce. The decision, involving steamboat operation between New York and New Jersey, abolished monopoly control over navigation and led to increased federal regulation of the economy. 


The conflict arose when New York issued an injunction against Thomas Gibbons, prohibiting his steamboat operation between New York and New Jersey. Although Gibbons was federally licensed, his business was in violation of a state law that granted to Aaron Ogden a monopoly on all steamboat operation in New York. Gibbons appealed to the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the New York law was de facto interference with the federal regulation of interstate commerce and therefore was unconstitutional. 


The case was argued by US Congressman (later secretary of state) Daniel Webster. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion, which became an important interpretation of the commerce clause of the US Constitution.


----------



## manifold (Feb 25, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Quite a stretch deciding what I "prefer" based on pointing out the flaw in your thinking.



Not really.  Correct me if I'm wrong but you said the strong don't need civilization and laws to survive, only the weak do.  In my simple-minded understanding of reality, the absence of civilization and laws = anarchy.  Please educate me as to where my understanding is incomplete.


----------



## manifold (Feb 25, 2008)

BTW:  Why the heck was this thread moved?  The issue being debated is most certainly *political* in nature.  I haven't seen a single post that deals with one's own personal health and lifestyle.  Was it the word "healthcare" that got you all confused?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 25, 2008)

manifold said:


> LOL!  Redux!
> 
> Your interpretation is spot on, no argument here.  It's just that it is inconsistent with reality.  The Tenth Amendment was the first to get shit on and it started right from the get go.  See Gibbons vs. Ogden for example:
> 
> ...



The Interstate clause CLEARLY applies. So long as the individual involved WAS doing business between the States it was IN FACT Interstate trade and NO State can hamper nor impede such , only the Federal Government controls that. I suggest you read the Constitution.


----------

