The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[emilynghiem]

Hi PMZ: As a prochoice Democrat, I will try to help "eliminate" some of these arguments that are partisan-pointed, and try to get to the conflict underneath all that

1. One bias I see YOU have is that you assume "Republicans" did not have "any other solution" and this is FALSE. I know lots of health care solutions promoted by Greens, Democrats, conservative Republicans, and Libertarians that were ignored or dismissed for politicians to push ACA mandates as "the only choice" or "the only way."

This shows your projected belief against "Republicans" and shows a bias. So if you don't want biases coming up in the arguments, don't come into them with loaded guns like this.

2. One thing you said was the point was to "improve insurance" by regulating it not to deny existing conditions and thus to cover people who would otherwise be excluded

Even with that intent:

A. this was imposed on insurance with the ADDED CONDITION THAT ALL CITIZENS BE REQUIRED TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE. Had the argument or condition/regulation involved 'INSURANCE COMPANIES' ALONE, YES you might be right. They would be forced to find some way to cover all people or they could not serve/sell their services.

HOWEVER with this added condition to the contract, this involved citizens who DID NOT AGREE to be forced by law to buy such insurance which is not the same as paying for health care. To "improve insurance" would have to occur WITHOUT this contested clause.

You cannot take one point of context and say that it regulated insurance to improve it.
That was only based on a major clause that is contested across the board (nonpartisan by Democrats and Greens and independents who didn't want private insurance involved)

B. In reality people are losing their insurance who had it before. I just heard on the radio a woman in college calling in, saying she lost her insurance right before bone marrow surgery which is time sensitive. She used to be covered under the high risk pool, but under the new rules she was dropped. And she did not have time to go through the website because of glitches, and her surgery was already scheduled. So she had to pay for it herself. if she didn't have that, she would not have insurance to pay for it.

C. Just because insurance is required to cover people doesn't mean it will be affordable or they will come through with the payments. You are still not covering all people with this plan, nor has any of it been proven better or worse than before, and yet the mandate will be enforced WITHOUT PROOF AND based on "faith" only that it works, similar to religion.

The bias I see that is most dangerous here is not recognizing the faith in insurance/ACA mandates as "religious" but pushing these political beliefs as fact, then arguing that this side or that side is "partisan."

It is one thing to trust or distrust people based on affiliation by party.

It is another thing to be so entrenched in one's partisan-biased views that it becomes a political religion that is not recognized as such. That is the greatest conflict I see here.

CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com



"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube

I have to say that you are the prototypical conservative, desperate for a simple, black and white world. And that's exactly what Fox propaganda gives you.

Most people understood Obama's point. That Obamacare wasn't offering a product for people who had adequate coverage and were happy with the cost and source of it. It absolutely doesn't. It established some minimum coverage standards. It uncovered policies that were inadequate relative to those standards. It required insurers to deliver adequate coverage. Insurance improved.

Did he choose the best brief way to say that? I thought so. I believe that most people did.

But, this whole thing has nothing at all to do with that question.

It has to do with Republicans avoiding accountability for having no solution to, no alternative for, the biggest obstacle in our economy to global competition. They simply have ignored the problem. It's not at all about the American people and our future. They offered no way for themselves to win. They could only try to prevent Democrats from winning. And the American people.

It's pure politics with no regard at all for America and Americans.

And it cost them plenty on election day 2012. But even bigger defeats are coming.

I encourage Republican anger at me. I bring it on. It's the seed of their demise. As propaganda is based on making people angry then giving them a scapegoat, conservatives seeth with anger. And I take advantage of it.

I don't care about winning here. Just in the voting booth, and conservatives are their own worst enemy there. I just encourage them.

Here at the end, you seem to admit that you are partisan against Republicans.
So how can you complain about partisan arguments when you were asking for one?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Tyrone and PMZ: I see you are both sincerely passionate about this ACA issue
and not letting good solutions you believe in get crushed by what you see as partisan opposition.

May I ask your help to come up with analogy of something equivalent in your beliefs
which you would agree that fed govt could not or should not mandate, but you could
argue that "policies would improve" or "more people would be helped" with such a mandate?

I tried the analogy with spiritual healing, that this is free, safe and more cost effective, and would save more lives, cuts costs, and even prevent or cure criminal conditions so that more resources could be saved and cover more people's health care, as well as housing and education to reduce the burden on taxpayers WITHOUT charging us more costs as with ACA.

But people do not know how spiritual healing works, or that it is medically proven, and that even if it were scientifically established, it would still require free choice. So that analogy doesn't work but gets sidetracked into having to prove it first, etc.

What about mandates about sex? Wouldn't it be better for public health and safety to require that all people show written proof they both consent to the sex (to reduce rape and/or have written proof it wasn't rape or abuse), have resources to pay for any babies resulting (similar to showing proof of insurance or ability to pay), and/or have no diseases (to cut costs of health care). And if they have sex without showing proof then they pay a fine to federal govt to cover the added costs or risks and/or to pay for all the people who screw up and cost taxpayers for unwanted consequences that otherwise would have been prevented.

That is obviously not a good analogy. But can you change it or replace it with something that would be the same or similar from YOUR viewpoint of why opponents do not want to be required or report to federal govt whether they bought insurance or pay a fine/penalty?

Thanks if you can please help.
I got stuck trying to explain this to Luddly.
You both seem more open to discuss and share ideas, so can you help us?
Thank you!

 

[PMZ]

I cited my evidence you dumb ass troll it's called quoting.

I see your problem. Quotes are evidence. Evidence of what? Language?

Now you can't read your own writing? ROFL

Is there a point buried here?

 

[PMZ]

Hi PMZ: As a prochoice Democrat, I will try to help "eliminate" some of these arguments that are partisan-pointed, and try to get to the conflict underneath all that

1. One bias I see YOU have is that you assume "Republicans" did not have "any other solution" and this is FALSE. I know lots of health care solutions promoted by Greens, Democrats, conservative Republicans, and Libertarians that were ignored or dismissed for politicians to push ACA mandates as "the only choice" or "the only way."

This shows your projected belief against "Republicans" and shows a bias. So if you don't want biases coming up in the arguments, don't come into them with loaded guns like this.

2. One thing you said was the point was to "improve insurance" by regulating it not to deny existing conditions and thus to cover people who would otherwise be excluded

Even with that intent:

A. this was imposed on insurance with the ADDED CONDITION THAT ALL CITIZENS BE REQUIRED TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE. Had the argument or condition/regulation involved 'INSURANCE COMPANIES' ALONE, YES you might be right. They would be forced to find some way to cover all people or they could not serve/sell their services.

HOWEVER with this added condition to the contract, this involved citizens who DID NOT AGREE to be forced by law to buy such insurance which is not the same as paying for health care. To "improve insurance" would have to occur WITHOUT this contested clause.

You cannot take one point of context and say that it regulated insurance to improve it.
That was only based on a major clause that is contested across the board (nonpartisan by Democrats and Greens and independents who didn't want private insurance involved)

B. In reality people are losing their insurance who had it before. I just heard on the radio a woman in college calling in, saying she lost her insurance right before bone marrow surgery which is time sensitive. She used to be covered under the high risk pool, but under the new rules she was dropped. And she did not have time to go through the website because of glitches, and her surgery was already scheduled. So she had to pay for it herself. if she didn't have that, she would not have insurance to pay for it.

C. Just because insurance is required to cover people doesn't mean it will be affordable or they will come through with the payments. You are still not covering all people with this plan, nor has any of it been proven better or worse than before, and yet the mandate will be enforced WITHOUT PROOF AND based on "faith" only that it works, similar to religion.

The bias I see that is most dangerous here is not recognizing the faith in insurance/ACA mandates as "religious" but pushing these political beliefs as fact, then arguing that this side or that side is "partisan."

It is one thing to trust or distrust people based on affiliation by party.

It is another thing to be so entrenched in one's partisan-biased views that it becomes a political religion that is not recognized as such. That is the greatest conflict I see here.

CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com



"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube

I have to say that you are the prototypical conservative, desperate for a simple, black and white world. And that's exactly what Fox propaganda gives you.

Most people understood Obama's point. That Obamacare wasn't offering a product for people who had adequate coverage and were happy with the cost and source of it. It absolutely doesn't. It established some minimum coverage standards. It uncovered policies that were inadequate relative to those standards. It required insurers to deliver adequate coverage. Insurance improved.

Did he choose the best brief way to say that? I thought so. I believe that most people did.

But, this whole thing has nothing at all to do with that question.

It has to do with Republicans avoiding accountability for having no solution to, no alternative for, the biggest obstacle in our economy to global competition. They simply have ignored the problem. It's not at all about the American people and our future. They offered no way for themselves to win. They could only try to prevent Democrats from winning. And the American people.

It's pure politics with no regard at all for America and Americans.

And it cost them plenty on election day 2012. But even bigger defeats are coming.

I encourage Republican anger at me. I bring it on. It's the seed of their demise. As propaganda is based on making people angry then giving them a scapegoat, conservatives seeth with anger. And I take advantage of it.

I don't care about winning here. Just in the voting booth, and conservatives are their own worst enemy there. I just encourage them.

Here at the end, you seem to admit that you are partisan against Republicans.
So how can you complain about partisan arguments when you were asking for one?

I am partisan in favor of progress for our country. My experience is that the Republican Party has abandoned that, simply because their inept performance has put them in survival mode, and they've abandoned even the pretext of serving the country over serving the party. I see the evidence of that as overwhelming.

I am a Republican. They historically have had a very useful and functional perspective that was a great balance with the Democrat useful and functional perspective.

That was abandoned when the dixiecrats, who have always been dysfunctional and anti-American, left the Democratic Party over the issue of equal rights for everyone, and joined the GOP. That’s when they left useful politics behind, and became anti-American.

That’s is not blind bias but observable fact for those unbiased.

There are many parties whose foundation leads them to be against American interests. Communist for example.

I see no reason for those interested in our success to support either Communism or Republicanism.

 

[RKMBrown]

I see your problem. Quotes are evidence. Evidence of what? Language?

Now you can't read your own writing? ROFL

Is there a point buried here?

You asked for evidence. I quoted it. Then you said you can't understand what I quoted. What I quoted was you.

 

[PMZ]

Dear Tyrone and PMZ: I see you are both sincerely passionate about this ACA issue
and not letting good solutions you believe in get crushed by what you see as partisan opposition.

May I ask your help to come up with analogy of something equivalent in your beliefs
which you would agree that fed govt could not or should not mandate, but you could
argue that "policies would improve" or "more people would be helped" with such a mandate?

I tried the analogy with spiritual healing, that this is free, safe and more cost effective, and would save more lives, cuts costs, and even prevent or cure criminal conditions so that more resources could be saved and cover more people's health care, as well as housing and education to reduce the burden on taxpayers WITHOUT charging us more costs as with ACA.

But people do not know how spiritual healing works, or that it is medically proven, and that even if it were scientifically established, it would still require free choice. So that analogy doesn't work but gets sidetracked into having to prove it first, etc.

What about mandates about sex? Wouldn't it be better for public health and safety to require that all people show written proof they both consent to the sex (to reduce rape and/or have written proof it wasn't rape or abuse), have resources to pay for any babies resulting (similar to showing proof of insurance or ability to pay), and/or have no diseases (to cut costs of health care). And if they have sex without showing proof then they pay a fine to federal govt to cover the added costs or risks and/or to pay for all the people who screw up and cost taxpayers for unwanted consequences that otherwise would have been prevented.

That is obviously not a good analogy. But can you change it or replace it with something that would be the same or similar from YOUR viewpoint of why opponents do not want to be required or report to federal govt whether they bought insurance or pay a fine/penalty?

Thanks if you can please help.
I got stuck trying to explain this to Luddly.
You both seem more open to discuss and share ideas, so can you help us?
Thank you!

First, I believe that a healthy population is in the country's best interest. I don't know if that makes it a right or not, but like education, any goal short of everyone to me is irrational.

In the past our dysfunctional non- system was to let everyone do what ever they wanted, at least up to age 65, but die in the streets. That we eliminated by insisting that hospital e rooms take care of everyone. The most expensive least effective approach.

ACA insists that everyone be responsible for their own health care costs, subsidizes those who we choose not to pay enough to afford necessities, and creates a marketplace free of flimflam artists selling inadequate coverage.
Compared to the rest of the developed world it is the minimum government could and should do.

It's only a start.

I believe that 100% of the Republican resistance to it is dirty politics completely devoid of responsibility to the country. Again their recent performance has them doing whatever can be done, short of better service to the country, to avoid extinction.

Given those beliefs, would you act any differently than I do?

 

[PMZ]

Dear Tyrone and PMZ: I see you are both sincerely passionate about this ACA issue
and not letting good solutions you believe in get crushed by what you see as partisan opposition.

May I ask your help to come up with analogy of something equivalent in your beliefs
which you would agree that fed govt could not or should not mandate, but you could
argue that "policies would improve" or "more people would be helped" with such a mandate?

I tried the analogy with spiritual healing, that this is free, safe and more cost effective, and would save more lives, cuts costs, and even prevent or cure criminal conditions so that more resources could be saved and cover more people's health care, as well as housing and education to reduce the burden on taxpayers WITHOUT charging us more costs as with ACA.

But people do not know how spiritual healing works, or that it is medically proven, and that even if it were scientifically established, it would still require free choice. So that analogy doesn't work but gets sidetracked into having to prove it first, etc.

What about mandates about sex? Wouldn't it be better for public health and safety to require that all people show written proof they both consent to the sex (to reduce rape and/or have written proof it wasn't rape or abuse), have resources to pay for any babies resulting (similar to showing proof of insurance or ability to pay), and/or have no diseases (to cut costs of health care). And if they have sex without showing proof then they pay a fine to federal govt to cover the added costs or risks and/or to pay for all the people who screw up and cost taxpayers for unwanted consequences that otherwise would have been prevented.

That is obviously not a good analogy. But can you change it or replace it with something that would be the same or similar from YOUR viewpoint of why opponents do not want to be required or report to federal govt whether they bought insurance or pay a fine/penalty?

Thanks if you can please help.
I got stuck trying to explain this to Luddly.
You both seem more open to discuss and share ideas, so can you help us?
Thank you!

Sex. All adults have sex in the way that best fits their needs. It's as compelling as eating for most.

The technology is fully available to separate sex and procreation and it is extraordinarily, but not perfectly, reliable.

Unfortunately only half of us can get pregnant, so the responsibility for dealing with ''accidents,'' falls disproportionately on women.

I think that how each woman/couple deals with their problem has to be theirs.

Our common and individual goal should be to, as much as possible, not have accidents. That applies to many areas of life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is sad that this has to happen.

It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.

So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.

' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'

Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.




You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:

"WE need Death Panels.
Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0



What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?

 

[PMZ]

Now you can't read your own writing? ROFL

Is there a point buried here?

You asked for evidence. I quoted it. Then you said you can't understand what I quoted. What I quoted was you.

I said what I said. Quoting me adds nothing to that. If you have evidence that what I said was incorrect let's have it.

 

[PMZ]

It is sad that this has to happen.

It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.

So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.

' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'

Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.




You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:

"WE need Death Panels.
Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0



What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?

All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.

 

[dblack]

It is sad that this has to happen.

It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.

So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.

' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'

Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.




You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:

"WE need Death Panels.
Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0



What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?

All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.

No, they're not. Rationing isn't just a state of limited availability. It's a system of controlled distribution other than via markets. It usually directed by some authority, rather than voluntary exchange.

 

[RKMBrown]

It is sad that this has to happen.

It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.

So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.

' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'

Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.




You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:

"WE need Death Panels.
Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0



What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?

All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.

Bull shit. Did you not watch what happened at the Walmart the other day when they took the limits off the EBT cards? The thieves robbed us blind of nearly everything in the stores. When supplies are handed out for free no amount of supply can satiate the desires of moochers like you.

 

[PMZ]

' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'

Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.




You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:

"WE need Death Panels.
Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0



What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?

All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.

No, they're not. Rationing isn't just a state of limited availability. It's a system of controlled distribution other than via markets. It usually directed by some authority, rather than voluntary exchange.

I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.

When demand exceeds supply, some will get. Some will not. How the decision of who is made is rationing. One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more. Another is greater good. Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage. The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.

 

[PMZ]

' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'

Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.




You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:

"WE need Death Panels.
Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0



What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?

All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.

Bull shit. Did you not watch what happened at the Walmart the other day when they took the limits off the EBT cards? The thieves robbed us blind of nearly everything in the stores. When supplies are handed out for free no amount of supply can satiate the desires of moochers like you.

That’s rationing based on power and low inhibition. The basis of most crime.

Go see the movie Captain Phillips. You'll learn a lot about the consequences of extreme wealth inequity.

 

[dblack]

All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.

No, they're not. Rationing isn't just a state of limited availability. It's a system of controlled distribution other than via markets. It usually directed by some authority, rather than voluntary exchange.

I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.

When demand exceeds supply, some will get. Some will not. How the decision of who is made is rationing. One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more. Another is greater good. Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage. The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.

Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.

 

[PMZ]

No, they're not. Rationing isn't just a state of limited availability. It's a system of controlled distribution other than via markets. It usually directed by some authority, rather than voluntary exchange.

I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.

When demand exceeds supply, some will get. Some will not. How the decision of who is made is rationing. One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more. Another is greater good. Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage. The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.

Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.

Without limited supply there's no need for rationing.

''Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process.''

No evidence again!

 

[PMZ]

No, they're not. Rationing isn't just a state of limited availability. It's a system of controlled distribution other than via markets. It usually directed by some authority, rather than voluntary exchange.

I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.

When demand exceeds supply, some will get. Some will not. How the decision of who is made is rationing. One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more. Another is greater good. Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage. The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.

Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of a free market?

 

[dblack]

I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.

When demand exceeds supply, some will get. Some will not. How the decision of who is made is rationing. One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more. Another is greater good. Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage. The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.

Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of a free market?

Again, I'm content with the usual dictionary definitions and/or wikipedia info. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist or anything unusual.

 

[dblack]

I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.

When demand exceeds supply, some will get. Some will not. How the decision of who is made is rationing. One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more. Another is greater good. Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage. The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.

Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.

Without limited supply there's no need for rationing.

''Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process.''

No evidence again!

WTF? Evidence? Don't you have a web browser or a dictionary? It's just a matter of the definition of the word. The whole idea behind rationing is that it's a control distribution mechanism - ie the opposite of relatively uncontrolled, market-based distribution.

 

[PMZ]

Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.

Without limited supply there's no need for rationing.

''Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process.''

No evidence again!

WTF? Evidence? Don't you have a web browser or a dictionary? It's just a matter of the definition of the word. The whole idea behind rationing is that it's a control distribution mechanism - ie the opposite of relatively uncontrolled, market-based distribution.

I agree with you about the dictionary definition but am trying to figure out why it makes sense to anybody to think that some ways to divey up scarce resources is any more or less legitimate than any other?

They're really all different expressions of power. If you can get away with it, you can do it.