The DNC is history. The RNC begins on Monday.
What’s to like and dislike (speeches, spectacle, etc. ) about them both?
|
|||
|
Great CenturyLink bundles in Minnesota now available.
Subscribe and Follow LoGro
|
DNC and the RNC: the good, the bad, the uglyBy Griff Wigley, on August 29, 2008, 6:29 am
1,620 comments to DNC and the RNC: the good, the bad, the ugly |
Search posts, comments, pages
Current Discussion Threads
Blog Monthly ArchivesBlog Category Archives |
|
|
Copyright © 2012 Locally Grown Northfield - All Rights Reserved 
|
|||
dy admitted earlier that if one calls socialists by the term “socialist” then they will in turn call libertarians racists. Thus to avoid being tagged a racist I think it best we use the definition they have not objected to of “a system enforced through state sponsered violence against its own citizens.”
Regarding “Griff’s URL trap”, I think the problem has been fixed by disabling the Rich Text Editor plugin I was using that didn’t like underscore characters. Like_this_!
So AOK to paste those long URLs.
And a tip of the blogger hat to Patrick Enders for helping to diagnose the problem.
David,
You can of course use whatever words you want, but do you realize that “a system enforced through state sponsered violence against its own citizens” is NOT a necessary, or sufficient, definition of socialism?
You could just as easily say that capitalism, or christianity, is “a system enforced through state sponsered violence against its own citizens” and be equally inaccurate.
perhaps you mean “military occupation” or “martial law,” like the post-coup government down in Honduras? Or maybe a system like that in Colombia, where state-sponsored paramilitary groups have ranged freely?
I think it’s a safe bet that a lot of us are opposed to such things -- even those of us who you think are ‘socialists.” Good thing those things mostly doesn’t exist around here -- except perhaps in occasional military/police actions against citizen protesters.
Patrick, I am talking about our system and what will happen when a million or so people do not comply with purchasing health insurance (assuming such an idiotic law is passed). The government then fines them $1,000s each and starts stripping licenses or what ever they decide to force compliance. Then someone gets pulled over and a confrontation ensues and they are gunned down by police. Or conversely someone gets so frustrated they commit suicide or kill someone. This will happen absolutely as a result of these laws. This is clear from a macro view also -- as the US becomes more violent and aggressive as each year new social conformity laws are passed. To deny this is to be a fool, to accept it as a cost of large scale conformity is to be a socialist or a communist. To hate these laws and see them as antithetical to everything the America once stood for is to be a libertarian.
David,
That’s a lot of speculation you have there. Again, you throw out words like “socialist” and “communist” in ways that have little relationship to what those words actually mean.
On a more factual line of thought, perhaps you could cite actual crime statistics (including a timeline of ‘social conformity laws’) to support your assertion that:
A very quick ‘google’ seems to refute your assertion, and finds the following facts -- complete with easy-to-read graphs:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm
(Much more detail available on the linked sites.)
Patrick, I know one social conformity law enforcement lead to the largest single incident of multiple murder in MN history right hear in Rice County.
Compare 2000 to 1900 (or 1950) and I you will see a radical uptick in violence (esp police violence against citizens). You would probably also note several million more people are locked up in prison today than at that time -- such a large number of minorities as to appear as a modern day slavery.
David,
Ah, slavery again. Of course.
I note that you’ve also shifted your position from “the US becomes more violent and aggressive as each year new social conformity laws are passed” to “I know one social conformity law enforcement lead to the largest single incident of multiple murder in MN history right hear in Rice County.”
Your one incident (whatever its particulars, and I have no idea what you’re alluding to) taken alone, cannot be said to prove anything about overall societal trends.
Could you perhaps find any statistical evidence that supports your assertions about crime rates over the last two centuries?
Patrick, this is a matter of definitions. How many people can be imprisoned in a country before you would concede that they are enslaved? 100,000, a million, two million or ? (of course, you do not answer these types of questions when asked)
I did not shift anything but your time reference so you could go back prior to the “nanny state.”
The nanny state at work:
“Police detail grisly deaths before fire Father suspected of slaying 5 at farmhouse, officials say; [METRO Edition]
Richard Meryhew, Pat Doyle, Staff Writers. Star Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Dec 11, 1999. pg. 01.A
Abstract (Summary)
[Richard] Cook said authorities believe Rivas’ prospect of three months in jail for failure to pay child support triggered the murder-suicide.”
David, you wrote:
Imprisonment for violation of a crime does not equal slavery, so I do not necessarily think that there is any particular number at which imprisonment would necessarily equal slavery.
It would, however, at some point become increasingly a police state.
Here’s a working definition of slavery:
A subset of people who are imprisoned could be considered slaves only if they meet that definition. If there is a prison in which those requirements are met, then that might be slavery.
Note that slavery does still exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Current_situation
Patrick -- Once as a tot, I was asking my father (a State Trooper, now retired) about why some things that were trivial were illegal. His response, to generate revenue for the state. I then asked, what would happen if everyone suddenly complied with the law, and the state had no one to give tickets to? His reply, they would keep making things illegal until they had generated the revenue they needed to function.
While taken at face value, this seems ridiculous. Once you give it some thought, this is exactly what is going on today. First seat belts, then more seat belts, then car seats, then more car seats, next cell phones (14 states already have the use of them illegal while driving) -- all increasingly oppressive rules designed to generate revenue for the state, so they can pass more laws to generate more revenue . . . For a non, banana republic example, take a look at Singapore, a industrialized socialist city-state. It’s illegal to spit on the sidewalk there (disgusting yes, but not illegal here yet). But I digress.
David’s example is not far off. If the state continues to push the American people, people are going to get hurt. I too want to know, how many US citizens have to be unlawfully imprisoned before it becomes unacceptable?
Guy,
We’re talking two different issues, and I think to some extent we agree on your current point. I think that we are already past the point where there are far too many persons in prison for non-serious crimes. (Note that I don’t agree with your blanket opposition to safety laws. However, I would agree that the punishments must be proportionately small for small violations, and certainly imprisonment for failure to wear a seatbelt would be deeply wrong.)
My disagreement with David Henson was over his free use of the term ‘slavery.’ Excess imprisonment is not, by definition, slavery. It’s a whole different problem in its own right, and conflating the two does not help address either of them.
Patrick, you argument over definitions is not with me, it is with Merriam Webster:
(Slave)
“1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence”
I think forcing people to buy insurance certainly moves the citizen-state relationship in the direction of number 2. In fact, you have to view people to a degree as chattel of the state to find any logic for forcing compliance. I think your friend Paul Z refers to it in even more materialistic terms as “our having an interest.”
David,
That’s a very slippery slope that leads you from Mirriam-Webster to your conclusion.
Patrick, are you saying that 1. forcing people to buy insurance is not making them more “subservient to a dominating influence (the state)” or that 2. you believe society reducing individual liberty is justified?
David,
There is a very big difference between “more” and “completely.”
I am more subservient to Ken Bank than I am to you. I am not enslaved by Ken Bank.
David,
In ref to 953.9: I’m not sure what you’re getting at in quoting me about the the state “having an interest”. But a society *does* have a legitimate interest, partly economic and partly moral, in promoting good health among its members, and adequate care for those who fall ill.
Whether this interest justifies any particular policy, such as compulsory health insurance, is a legitimate question. One consideration is how to balance other legitimate societal interests, such as privacy and autonomy for individuals. Your view appears to be that privacy and autonomy trump almost everything else.
That view may be defensible, but it certainly requires defense — not rhetorical overkill about slavery, violence, idiocy, socialism, communism, slippery slopes, etc.
What I find missing in this line of thinking is any reasonable sense of scale or proportion. For instance, I suppose one could say that requiring people to buy insurance moves in the direction of demanding “complete subservience to a dominating influence”. So does requiring that library books be returned on schedule, or that we drive on the right side of the road.
But these are all far cries from actually *arriving* at anything like “complete subservience” to any dominator, or dominatrix. We can and will disagree on how dangerous to liberty any requirement for compliance may be, and on whether some cost to absolute autonomy may sometimes be a price worth paying. That’s what might make this discussion interesting. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Without-Bush-media-lose-interest-in-war-caskets-8310113-62427012.html
Now to something completely different….Remember all th hoopla concerning Bush not allowing the press to cover caskets coming from Iran?
The caskets are still rolling in, this time from Afghanistan..where is the press??
Yeah..right Obama is Potus now….
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574414831869954664.html
remember accounting is a bachelor of arts not one of science.
The latest “hidden” cost of healthcare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29socialism.html
Germany had elections last week. For the longest time the SPD was the ruling partie. Finally after years of failed socialist promises the Germans got sick of the experiment.
This particular election just confirms a trend in Europe.
Guy…
Interesting that your post finishes with a prediction of violence against ‘the state’. Not necessarily by you, I understand, but more of a broad, unspecific, prediction nevertheless. And while it can’t be said that you condone such action, I read it that you think such action is an understandable outcome of the enforcement of laws with which you do not agree.
David…
In the incident referenced, you seem to blame the ‘nanny state’, rather than the person who murdered his family for the tragic consequences of his act. Or at least that his guilt is mitigated by the fact that he faced jail for violation of a law with which you do not agree. In an earlier post you predict that a citizen will get so ‘frustrated’ that they ‘kill someone’ because they have to buy health insurance.
Ok…so you both are willing to make arguments that use the threat of violence as reason to oppose laws passed, or under consideration, by our elected representatives. This to me seems to be real violence and coercion (“people are going to get hurt”), as opposed to your use of those terms to describe the use of law to give a ticket for not wearing a seat belt. This seems to say…’embrace my concept of freedom or your life is at risk’. Could you explain how that is not coercive?
Guy don’t be intimidated by William accusing you (and I) of supporting violence. A favorite trick of liberals on this site is to misconstrue statements or attack specific vocabulary rather than debate straight up because their positions become too difficult to defend.
William, the fact in the Rivas case is one can draw a direct line (in fact one almost cannot draw anything but a straight line) from policies that were to “protect children” to an outcome of dead children. What shocks me is the absolute unwillingness to discuss this publicly and admit the failure of these policies. If we as a society are to continue to relinquish more and more liberty to the state then let’s at least codify outcomes and a means to undo bureaucracy when those outcomes fail (as in the above case). Otherwise we get an ever growing and ever less effective governmental structure.
William,
Vague threats of violence towards the government (“not by me, but by others”) seems to be becoming a bit of a theme in conservative circles:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/020180.php
Patrick, let me make sure I am clear: are people who do not support a socialist agenda* a) racist or b) violent or c) violent racists ?
*I have heard objections to the term “socialists” by posters here but I am not sure what term would be acceptable -- just let me know.
David,
Aside from throwing around a lot of inflammatory words, I don’t see the point of your last message.
The man is guilty of the crime (no doubt) but without the policies the crime would not have occurred. The policies brought about a different outcome than intended. But big intrusive government folks such as yourself oppose removing failed programs. The teachers told reporters they were stunned that Rivas was a great guy and very helpful at school. Sadly, the event was never properly reviewed, but it would appear the government pressure cracked this man. This was not a lone event by a mile, you can see similar events all over the country but in this one the policy impact is crystal clear.
William -- I can see how you could draw that from my post, but please be assured, the last thing I want is to dictate to folks how they should live their life. In return I would like the same respect. This country was built on some fundamental ideals, among these self reliance. I paid for my college in order to provide a better life for myself and my family. One of the benefits that I work for is my health insurance, it is factored into the compensation package that my employer offers me for my services. Why should I be required to pay a tax to subsidize the health insurance of a deadbeat (something I am required to do today, just not overtly)? The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the right to mandate that we, the people, purchase any item. Thus this mandate, should it come to pass, would be unconstitutional, and thereby illegal. At some point the illegalities will mount to the point that it is incumbent upon any free man to throw off that mantle of tyranny, and that, my friend, is when people will get hurt.
I’ve been in a war zone, and the last thing I want to see is that horror visited on American soil. I believe that that very sentiment is encouraging the left wing to push for the removal of our freedoms. That they believe that the conservative portion of our citizenry, the portion that stands up for our individual freedoms, will go along rather than see another revolution in the streets of America. I see it slightly differently, I see that if we continue to go along, and sacrifice our individual liberties for the sake of tranquil relations with those who do not believe as we do, it won’t be America any longer.
I seem to be waxing poetic, but I will leave you with a quote from the greatest president in the 20th century:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 -- 2004)
Thanks for the link, Patrick. Healthcare reform seems to be the issue driving much of this inclination to violence. Note the Facebook poll (now removed) asking respondents “Should Obama be killed?”
Choices:
No, Maybe, Yes and Yes if he cuts my healthcare.
The usual suspects, Rush Limbaugh and Ken Beck, are out in front with this type of thing, but I wonder wonder who is driving it behind the scenes. Karl Rove? That guy will be speaking at St. Olaf in coming days. Anyone have time & place?
I am very disappointed that neither amendment (Rockefeller or Schumer) passed in the Senate Finance Committee yesterday, but glad they tried. It is critical that we get that public option. Seems to me even Ken Bank agrees.
Stephanie,
There will be several more opportunities to include a public insurance option in the Senate Bill before it is finally voted on. This choice -- which will only of any use to anyone if it turns out that the government can in fact offer quality insurance for less than private companies can -- may yet be an option for those of us who are interested in taking it.
David…I don’t think I misconstrued anything. You both virtually promised violence if laws you opposed were passed. That certainly seems to be a coercive political strategy. You have not explained otherwise.
Just for the record…One mad man’s execution of his family does not prove that child support laws are a failure.
William, that’s it in a nutshell, when the health policies fail (which they will) then you will have some excuse that it is not the fault of a redistributive policies but just a sign that we need more government.
The statement that violence is a proven side effect of the policies is the same as to “promise violence.” Either you are dumb (in which case we should not bother with discussing) or you are intentionally falsely accusing people of threatening violence because they do not agree with you -- in which case you should either apologize or reexamine your values.
make that “‘not’ the same as”
Karl Rove is at St. Olaf TOMORROW Thursday, Oct. 1, 7 pm at Skoglund Center Auditorium. Doors open at 6:30 and I imagine there will be a line to get in. St. Olaf website gives full details. There will be a question and answer segment.
I understand this aspect of your argument: In order to avoid violence, do not pass health care reform. Whether it is your promise, or your prediction, it rests on the threat of violence. Bringing that threat, or prediction, into the debate adds nothing to civil political discourse except for an element of coercion.
It is well known that there are unbalanced individuals who will use any reason to rationalize acts of isolated violence. Maybe it’s a bill for child support, maybe it’s a message in a Beatle’s song, maybe it’s because they DON’T have health care. But if you notice, no one is making the argument that we should pass health care reform or else we can expect violence.
And since such acts are isolated and irrelevant, what is the point of bringing them into the debate except to frighten (coerce) those who don’t agree with you.
Of course maybe you mean that these incidents of violence will not be isolated acts of deranged individuals. That somehow these acts will become commonplace, or even organized, and then we REALLY better watch out.
I may be dumb, but I have a pretty good nose for hypocricy. And when you decry your perception of the coercion and threats of violence of the state, and then use the very same tactics to advance your argument, I get a real strong whiff.
William, the state uses violence to enforce mandates, that is the point. It’s not a tacit threat by the state, it is an overt threat. Your attempts to deflect that force to peaceful opponents arguing against this state violence is silly.
What’s “silly” is bringing up ‘threats of violence’ and ‘coercion’ in this discussion in the first place.
And what is even more “silly” is using the very same things to then advance your argument…but enough of that.
Governments at all levels enforce their mandates. And behind that enforcement is some kind of threat, including the threat of violence. This might include the violence of taking my money for safely driving my car at a speed above the limit set by law, right on up to an offense requiring capital punishment.
The threats you decry are based on law. Law passed by our elected representatives. Perhaps you would have it otherwise, but for now that’s what we have. If I understand correctly, you object to the growth of such laws and mandates, as well as some currently in place. But what of the laws you agree with? Don’t they also include the ‘overt threat’ of violence? How would property rights, the basis of your version of liberatarianism, be protected without the threat of violence? Will you sue me in civil court when I move into your spare bedroom?
Look, go ahead and object to any infringement on your ‘freedom’ that government causes now or in the future. But what is the point of continuing to bring up ‘threats of violence’ and ‘coercion’ when such threats are inherent in any law that contains as little as a $10.00 fine.
My understanding of the health bill’s fine is not $10.00 but in excess of $1000.00 (I’m not sure if that is annual or how the government intends to collect). The key is to hold all societal areas of forced coercion to a minimum unless absolutely no other way exists -- the current health care bills are unneeded expansions.
William -- Please read 957.7
In response to 962: As this country slides further and further towards a socialist tyranny the State will continue to take away essential freedoms that we take for granted today. If we don’t learn from the past (in this case, not our past, but the past of communism/socialism/totalitarianism) the we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. Let’s take the German Nazi party as an example (Peter, please feel free to correct me if I’m off base), the Nazi party started out as the Socialist Workers party and the implementation of their ideals led to what -- violence.
Perhaps the Nazi’s were just misguided, lets try another. Obama surrounded himself with Marxists in college (from his own book), and is doing the same today. Karl Marx advocated the use of violence to bring about true social change. Vladimir Lenin was also a Marxist, his history is violent and bloody. His successor, Uncle Joe Stalin, his history is worse.
I could go on all night with examples of where this country is being taken that have failed. Each one of them is bathed in a blanket of blood, and for the most part it is blood of the people (usually a disarmed people) by the State. The reference to violence is not a coercive threat, but a lesson that is staring us in our faces. All we have to do is look at it and understand it. Whether it is a group of concerned citizens refusing to pay oppressive taxes, then meeting the taxman at the end of the driveway with a gun (Waco, Ruby Ridge) or an oppressive regime running down peaceful protesters in a city square with tanks, it results in the same thing -- people getting hurt.
WRT fines, the numbers I’ve seen are in the range of $3000 -- $3400 per person. One portion of the original bill was empowering IRS to collect the information and fines.
What I find most disconcerting about this whole thing is that it’s not uncommon for the IRS to lose a laptop with taxpayer info on them. So now the plan is to give all of our health care information to the IRS to manage, that makes me feel secure.
One final thing, we all know how the IRS collects it’s money. They levy your house, garnish your wages, and in general take first and ask questions later.
Guy, you wrote:
And, to finish off:
Wow. You’ve pretty much nailed ‘em all there, huh?
BTW, you left out ACORN.
looks like guy loves fox news to no end
Guy:
In 957.7 you say that the Constitution doesn’t allow the feds to mandate any purchase, and conclude that requiring people to purchase health care is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, etc. Such “illegality”, you fear, might help drive patriotic citizens beyond some breaking point, with hell to pay.
I have no comment on the legal substance of this constitional argument. But — if you’re right — wouldn’t the first step be to seek redress in the courts? If indeed such a requirement were so obviously unconstitutional, wouldn’t this be clear to the courts? The Supremes, for instance, are not exactly a cabal of Marxists.
Speaking of Marxists, you say that “Obama surrounded himself with Marxists in college … and is doing the same today.” Could you mention some of the Marxists Obama is now “surrounded” by?
Yes, the first redress should always come from within the system. It’s when the system fails (we are already seeing the balance of power become unbalanced) to the point that it no longer represents a significant portion of the populace, it’s the duty of the citizens to set the system right.
As for the latest ‘Supreme’, we could argue her politics another day. Here are your Marxists in the Obama cabinet:
Van Jones, Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. In his relatively recent past Jones was a Marxist revolutionary. From 1992 until 2002, Jones was a member of a radical communist group that was dedicated to “organizing a revolutionary movement in America.” Arrested during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, and briefly sent to jail, Jones met, he said “communists and anarchists,” and decided “ ‘This is what I need to be part of.’” He said that he spent “the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.”
Mark Lloyd, FCC’s “diversity officer”. He’s a big fan of Venezuela’s socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez. Although Chavez has shot unarmed demonstrators, Lloyd has called socialist Venezuela a model, praised its authoritarian leader’s “incredible revolution” and defended his attacks on independent media.
Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary of State (nominated). He has a reputation as a loud defender of Venezuelan dictator Chavez’s terrible record on freedom of the press.
Carol Browner, Climate Czar. Member of Socialist International’s “Commission for a sustainable world society”.
Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture. Proposed a Socialist agenda sufficiently early in his campaign that he got knocked out of the running
I’m sure there’s more, but I figure I’ve set off enough alarms in the DHS/NSA databases as it is.
Guy:
In 964.1 you say: “It’s when the system fails (we are already seeing the balance of power become unbalanced) to the point that it no longer represents a significant portion of the populace, it’s the duty of the citizens to set the system right.”
I want to be clear on your point here. Are the citizens supposed to set things right if *any* significant portion of the populace feels unrepresented? Or is this supposed to happen when the “system” represents *no* significant portion of the populace? I’m not splitting hairs — the difference is crucial.
Your list of “Marxists in the Obama cabinet” also raises some questions. Least important, have you checked how many of these are actually “in the Obama cabinet”? More important, how many are actually Marxists? (Van Jones might qualify, or formerly have qualified, but he was never in the Cabinet.) Are “socialist” and “Marxist” the same thing? Does having said nice things about a socialist make you one?
Since you appear to use non-standard definitions of both “Marxist” and “cabinet”, I’d say the case has not been made.
Food for thought:
You can try to control the media ->
http://www.breitbart.tv/chicagoans-for-rio-not-everyone-in-illinois-wants-the-2016-olympics/
You can try to control the guns -> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
But you can’t control the people ->
http://www.kctv5.com/news/21176602/detail.html
Paul -- I’ll get those names, they’re not hard to find -- just look at the ACORN membership list (that one’s for you Patrick
). Off to work.
Guy,
Watch out for the taxman. He’ll probably try to steal some of your wages.
Today’s payday. So sir, you are indeed correct.
Guy…Are you saying that if the people elect representatives who promise to address certain inequalities in society that it is the right of people who oppose such a promise to forceably remove them from government? Correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I read your post(s).
Just what would be substituted in place of representative democracy? Who would determine the political direction of the country and how would such a determination be accomplished?
My point rests on the idea that “freedom” has many meanings. You might feel that providing health care to all citizens, at some cost to you, violates your freedom. But I feel that providing such care promotes my freedom, and the freedom of society in general. Your concept of freedom does not trump mine. One could argue that the very idea that it could, violates an underlying principle of almost any concept of freedom: the ability to choose. Anyway, the only way we have to resolve such disputes is through our elected representatives, and if the constitutionality of law they pass is in dispute, through the courts. Isn’t that good enough?
Merriam Webster-Freedom: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
William, you want to coerce Guy into paying for something you deem increases your freedom? Why not find a way to accomplish your goals without coercion?
> Your concept of freedom does not trump mine.
Nor does yours trump mine. There is an old saying that goes “Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.” In this situation I take that to mean, your right to spend money stops at my pocket. You have every right to purchase health care, with your own money, for whatever indigent you can find, and I will not try to stop you.
I on the other hand have those same rights, plus the right to purchase health care of my choice for my family and not for the indigent sleeping in the town square. Your rights end when they begin to adversely affect myself and my family. This is a fundamental principle of rights in America, and if you don’t understand that then there is no reason to continue this conversation.
Let’s try another tack . . .
I don’t understand how you feel that it’s acceptable to take money from my pocket every week and spend it on whatever program you feel is appropriate. If I met you outside your home every payday afternoon and absconded with 35% of your paycheck to use for my own purposes, what would you call it? I would call it theft.
So in short, what gives you the right to take 10% more of my check and spend it?
David…we have taxes, that’s a given. I’m not going to argue their coercive or voluntary nature. Is there a proposal on the table, that would bring coverage to virtually all Americans without increasing taxes?
Just in from the party that hates America…
There were one or two sane voices, but was anyone else listening?
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/weekly-standard-newsroom-erupts-into-cheers-at-news-of-olympics.php?ref=fpblg
Patrick, you are right, we should all be sad the Chicago will not have an empty bird’s nest like China.
One sad thing in this debate is the confusion between health care and insurance. Americans are not being forced to buy health care they are being forced to buy insurance … they could very well get less or inferior health care as a result. If Guy’s number of over $3000.00 is correct, which seems very high, then one has to wonder if this is not just away to rob the American people to refill the coffers of financial institutions.
William- Your question “Is there a proposal on the table, that would bring coverage to virtually all Americans without increasing taxes?” is a good one. If I remember the president correctly, he said he did not want to add to the deficit. I think the discussion here has revolved around this concept that not increasing the deficit would necessitate raising taxes and how much that would be? That is the question for which we need the answer.
Patrick…Very good point. These pundits and quite a few GOP leaders want the unemployment numbers to grow, they want continuing frustration with the health care system, they would love to see the markets give back the gains of the last six months. And they are gleeful when America loses an Olympic bid. They hate Obama and love their wealth and privilege much more than they care for ordinary Americans.
As to this recent ‘failure’. I think the point is that Obama knew the odds going in. They had a good idea of how every member of the olympic committee would vote before they left. And yet he went anyway. To try to overcome the odds. Such a trip was not politically expedient. It certainly could be considered ill timed, given the recent lack of success by the administration. And still he gives it a shot…for a city and a country he loves and represents.
William- This comment of yours, “They hate Obama and love their wealth and privilege much more than they care for ordinary Americans.” could have been written this way toward the Bush administration: “They hate Bush and love their entitlements much more than they care for ordinary Americans.” The Dems really felt they were robbed of the election in 2000, and the bitter vitriol was barely covered by a surface venier during Bush’s whole term. In fact, it is still spilled quite freely, even on this blog. I think these types of sweeping characterisations of adherents to a particular ideology are neither constructive nor do anything to address the problems we are facing here in the USA.
Hosting the Olympics is a short term solution to a long term problem. We have a real economic problem in this country that short term projects and increased government regulation are not going to cure. A short term project, like constructing an Olympic facility will do nothing except give folks a false sense of security by making the employment numbers look better. This makes me think of some of FDR’s depression era programs. Olympic facilities require government spending to get built. Where is that money coming from? Oh, yeah, from me. Please see post for 966.2 -- I have the same question here.
The IOC has a long history as a corrupt body. This decision is simply a reflection of the Obama administrations inability to offer up big enough bribes, which may be the silver lining. But I wouldn’t expect anything less from the the man who gave the Queen of England an iPod filled with his speeches.
And yes, I smiled when the results were posted, but it’s no uncommon from people on either side of the aisle to dance around the corpse of a slain foe, regardless of their hand in the slaying.
america first, eh guy?
Guy…
I do not have the right to ‘take your money’, but I believe government does have that right. It is a right, given by the consent of the people, to promote the public good. It takes your money for any number of purposes to promote that good. One such purpose is to improve the level of economic freedom of those who have the least. One method of promoting that purpose is, and has been, through funds raised by taxation. The constitutionality of such taxation has been upheld on many occasions.
The definition of the public good, the programs to promote it, and the methods to pay for it, change as the peoples’ values change. The expression of those values is manifested in our electoral process. As you know, democrats won the last election, it should come as no surprise, that they are now attempting to carry out the peoples’ mandate to expand programs that benefit those with the fewest advantages. Doing so does not constitute ‘theft’.
John G….
Sorry if I seem vitriolic. I will attempt to calm myself. I guess since the the talking heads who despise Obama are obviously wealthy and priviliged there was no point in my mentioning it.
Not that I expect you to comment on every unconstructive example of ‘sweeping charicterization’ that does ‘nothing to address the problem’, but how about the allegation that Chicago was not chosen because Obama did not offer big enough bribes????
Of course, Oprah and the Kennedys are so poor
William- I don’t have a problem with you being passionate about something. I allow you to have your feelings, just as I have mine. Passion is neither right nor wrong, but it is subjective. I just thought your comments were a little out of character from the many reasoned, level-headed comments you post.
I haven’t heard anything about any “bribes” to the Olympic Committee, but I know that part of the process in securing a site involves incentives. This is just normal, so if someone is calling these “bribes,” I think it is a misnomer. The US has hosted the games a number of times, and, although I do not have any proof of this, I am sure that the committee desires to spread the hosting position around to all the countries involved. I don’t have a problem with them going to Brazil. As far as the President taking an extra trip to influence that decision, I really don’t have a problem with that, either, although it appears that many do have a problem. Nothing invested, nothing gained, so at least he tried.
As far as your assesment of taxation, I think you are making a good point. The colonian revolution was not against taxes, but rather, taxation without representation. I think we have a good pattern for being represented in our government system. I may not agree with all the laws and regulations enacted, but I do have the freedom to vote for representation. I also have the freedom to communicate with those that represent my district and state. Not every country has that. I think there is a perspective that we Americans have lost as we have entered the age of instant communications. Governance still takes time. Just because I can communcate something instantly does not mean I will see any effect immediately. The process works, and I think we need to allow it to function.
William -- Sorry to be so long in replying. I’m looking up the exact verbiage, but it goes something like this.
I respectfully disagree that “Doing so does not constitute ‘theft’.” To be properly accurate the proper noun is ‘extortion’ not theft, but the intent is still the same. The definition of ‘extort’ (as in ‘to extort’) from Merriam-Webster.com: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power. This last piece is the key.
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states (I’ll paraphrase): Everything that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is decided by the States. The Constitution gives the Federal government (and this is what I’m looking for verbiage on) jurisdiction over 4 items: (1) defense of the United States, (2) maintenance of inter-state trade (largely construed as maintaining a working road system) -- note this is trade between the states, not within the states; (3) & (4) I just can’t remember, but it is not maintaining a welfare state; making POTUS the CEO of GM; privatizing the banks; HUD; FEMA; Cash for Clunkers; etc.
The Federal government has the right to levy taxes (section 8 of the original Constitution & 16th amendment) for these items only. Other spending programs, and the taxes levied to support such are unconstitutional and thereby illegal. Many of the taxes we pay today are unconstitutional, however, in this age of big government, this is the world we live in. At this point, I do not think it is possible for the Federal government to ever return to a position where they were not extorting taxes from the people it purports to serve, I would settle for 0 growth in government spending as a good faith start.
Now the State (Minnesota) has the right to tax me for whatever they want (and they do), and I have the right to move to another state.
Guy:
There’s no need to “paraphrase” the 10th Amendment. It’s easy to look up anywhere.
Try Wikipedia, for instance, where it’s also remarked that “The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified.”
I don’t Wikipedia as an infallible source of anything, but W’s point (and that of the 1931 Supremes) seems sensible to me: The amendment says, essentially, that the feds have only the powers the feds have.
Concerning the four federal powers the Constituion supposedly delimits: You couldn’t remember two of them, so one can’t be sure, but perhaps you’re thinking of the so-called “enumerated powers” mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. (Again, it’s easy to look up.) There are about 20 of these in the Constitution, many of which have little or nothing to do with taxation.
Here’s one that does have to do with taxation: … to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States … .
I’m no constitutional scholar, but the term “general welfare” sounds more expansive to me than four tightly delimited areas would suggest. In any event, the main practical issue is not really my amateur constitutional scholarship against yours. The real issue is with how the Supreme Court has actually interpreted these parts of the Constitution over the years, and how it might reason in the future.
You may be sincerely convinced of your views’ merits, and it’s certainly your right to advocate for them. But you have your work cut out for you — the Supremes haven’t sung this tune for a long, long time.
Paul,
Don’t look for a logical response. This thread has devolved far past your commentary based on such things as what the Constitution actually says.
How dare you quote the Constitution and how the Supreme Court has interpreted it!
Don’t you know you could simply paraphrase and guess at what you think are the powers of the federal government?
You’re such a bastard for supporting your argument about the Constitution with the actual document!
“the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State”
90% of crimes in the US do not go before a jury.
Maybe it is time for a constitutional convention to define government’s role.
———————————-
There was great debate about limiting taxation to 4% at the original constitutional convention but the objection was government would just jump the tax to 4% right away.
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime” (13th amendment)
Imprisonment is in fact slavery by legal definition which was disputed in a prior post. So the USA now has over 2 million people enslaved far more than any other nation on earth.
I would argue that we are all in involuntary servitude to the state given the levels of takings.
Brendon- Re. your comments in 972.5, there has been two camps of thought since the inception of our nation between populists and powerful central government that I’m not sure either camp has definitive language in the Constitution to eliminate the other. IMO, the framers of the constitution recognized this and deliberately framed the document to force us to get along. As is usually the case in a disagreement, when one party runs out of arguments to support their convictions, the discussion disentigrates into name calling and subjective accusation. In this day and age of instant communcations, this process happens quite quickly.
David H.- your comment, “I would argue that we are all in involuntary servitude to the state given the levels of takings,” is perhaps a matter of definition. Can “involuntary servitude” be defined as commitment? I could choose to not pay my taxes, but there are consequences for my choice. I can look at this as involuntary servitude. I can also recognize that for the country to exist, it must be supported financially. Since most people are inherantly selfish, the ideal that the government could operate on philanthropism is probably unrealistic. So, to establish some sense of equality, taxes are exacted form everyone. How this is done is a source of great debate which has been going on for many years. Our present system seems inequitable. That is why I believe a flat % tax rate with no deductions is most equitable. Everyone carries the same proportion of the burden of the government. I know there is an argument for making allowances for certain income levels and incentives for investments, but IMO, this is where the inequity enters into the equation.
Paul -- You are absolutely correct, I could have looked it up online. However that did not occur to me, I had it in my head to locate my pocket Constitution(which I still have not located). I paraphrased because I was being lazy, I had a hard copy of a portion of the 10th in front of me and I didn’t want to type it in. I apologize for posting a half assed response and will endeavor to do better going forward.
Paraphrasing aside, the merit of my argument is not diminished. The Federal government does not have the rights it is exercising today. This, IMO, is why the Constitution was penned the way it was. The framers had just fought a war of revolution to be free of an overstepping (yes, this is an understatement) central government. With that fresh in their experiences, they would naturally take steps to control the central government of the new country from going down the same path. I believe the simplest approach is the most correct, read the words and follow their guidance. As I’ve stated before, as the central government reaches further and further into our lives, it will become incumbent upon all free men to resist that encroachment through the use of force if necessary.
General welfare is not Social welfare. Prior to the New Deal Social Welfare was the purview of the church and other private citizens. It was part of what kept people together as a community, taking care of the deadbeats. Now, it has become an entire way of life (one day I can go into the story from my EMT days where we took an in labor 16y/o mom to the hospital to give birth to the 3rd generation of welfare recipient) with people looking to the great government teat instead of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and doing something to solve the problem. When social welfare was under community control, deadbeats had to look the community in their eyes and I believe that provided some motivation for the person to become a contributing member of society. Now, all a deadbeat has to do is look in their mailbox to see if the check has arrived, and there is no incentive to become a more productive member of society. This form of peer pressure is now not politically correct, and I think that’s hogwash. But I’ve gone off topic again.
I am an amateur when it comes to the Constitution also (in fact I dropped Con Law in favor of spending more time in the ComSci lab), so as far as I’m concerned, your argument, however misguided, is just as valid as mine
John, I am not sure I agree with “Since most people are inherently selfish” but if true I would not put some of them in a position of central control of the rest.
David H.- Don’t look now, but that is exactly what is going on. Why are “special interest” groups so effective in influencing policy decisions? It is called political contributions.
John, I think you and I agree in general. I think selfishness comes from power structures (rather than fallen individuals). The power structure we have now leads to the ultimate in selfish behavior. The structure is failing globally and maintaining it requires ever more selfish behavior by those empowered. I am starting to think we focus too much on taxes rather than decentralization of decision making.
David H.- I agree with the decentralization of decision making. When there are local leaders that you can talk to F2F, there is a much better sense of accountability. When you are one of a few million voters that call or write a representative, IMO, there is little hope of having an effect.
I’m not sure what you mean by “power structures.” Is this levels of authority/accountability? I view government regulations and agencies as amoral. If they are set up in a way that enables selfishness, then they can be changed through the ammending process. When morally challenged people are in these positions of authority, then there will be problems however they are set up. This is the basic difference between yours and my evaluations.
Guy- I think you hit upon a good observation in your post 971.2, in that most government projects last only as long as there is government(read: tax) infusion into the economy. I do not remember a government program that has translated into an economic base for the country. There may be something out there, but I am not aware of it. The latest example is the Cash for Clunkers program. As long as the $3 billion held out, the auto dealers were swamped with customers. As soon as the artificial influx of money was spent, there has not been a sustained trend of purchasing new autos. The other effect is that good used autos, albeit maybe not as fuel efficient, were removed from the market. This has left a very small selection of these types of vehicles for that segment of the market that cannot afford payments, licenses or insurance on a new auto. I wonder if anyone thought about this effect before they initiated the program?
John -- You’re right on the money. What the left continues to forget is that for every dollar of government spending on a given program, at least 2 dollars is collected (I went looking for the exact numbers here too, and could not find them). So, if we siphon 2x dollars out of the economy and build a set of facilities in Chicago that will never be completely utilized again, we will cause more harm than good. The fact that Obama comes from Chicago, smacks even worse of cronyism.
If Chicago (or any city) wants the Olympics, let them do it without Federal money. If having the Olympics is such a good deal, why aren’t the private companies lining up to build the facilities? (same argument can be made for a Vikings stadium too).
The long and short of it is that if the Olympics were to come to Chicago, Chicago would experience an economic surge of hiring and building over the next 7 years (nothing like taking care of the home town crowd, huh?). After which, the economy would correct itself and unless Chicago can find a use for those facilities, they will experience bounce back -- similar to what was seen by the auto dealers after Cash for Clunkers.
Overall, we’re better off without them until the economy is in better shape.
I meant above in reply to Paul
Here’s a hard number on the Olympics. When Vancouver held the Olympics, it’s reported that they lost $1 Billion dollars (even in Canadian, it’s not chump change). Let Rio have the Olympics, at least they’ll get 2 good uses out of the soccer stadium.
John G:
I’m not crazy about the Cash for Clunkers program (a neighbor, who has a spiffy new Prius, is probably happier with it), or about the long-term economic uplift potential of hosting an Olympic Games. (There may be other reasons to do such things, of course.)
But I’m puzzled that you “do not remember a government program that has translated into an economic base for the country.”
How about Hoover Dam? The TVA? The rural electrification program? The interstate highway system? The National Park Service? The US Forest Service? The National Science Foundation? The National Institutes of Health? The USDA? The Army Corps of Engineers? The FAA?
One could say good and bad (very bad, in some cases) things about many of these “government programs”, but can one deny their contribution to our “economic base”?
Paul Z.- Of all the things you listed above, which of these have produced products or revenue without a continuing influx of tax dollars? Which of these projects/services are now profit producing private enterprises? Infrastructure is not an economic base. It provides services for the economic base. I just returned from a trip to the UP, and coming across Wisconsin, I encountered rest stop after rest stop that had been closed. Were they no longer profitable? My point is that government programs/projects do not produce wealth. They redistribute it. Do the services have value? Yes. It is hard to get around if there were no roads or railroads or airports. Our homes would be pretty dark without electricity, and this blog would be worthless without it. But none of these public utilities produce any wealth. They must be supported by taxing the private sector.
John,
True, government services are — by definition, not by any blameworthy fault — not “profit-producing private” enterprises. If they were private enterprises, they wouldn’t be government … can’t blame them for that.
Many of the examples I cited are indeed related to infrastructure. But I’m baffled by (or perhaps just don’t undertand the syntax of) your assertion that infrastructure is “not an economic base”. As you remark, a lot of economic activity depends fundamentally on the built and human infrastructure, and so this infrastructure does indeed produce wealth, not just “redistribute it” — as your own examples illustrate.
Nor do I get your point about closed rest stops in Wisconsin, or its relevance to this discussion. Rest stops, like street lights and streets themselves, are part of the infrastructure that helps us all build wealth.
Reasonable people might differ about how many rest stops there should be, and how lavishly built. (I confess to being a big government spender on rest stops — the one about 30 miles southeast of Rochester along Hwy 90, heading toward Lacrosse, makes me proud to be a Minnesotan.) But to require that rest stops should be profitable as businesses makes no more sense to me than requiring each lamp post and park bench in Northfield to turn a profit.
John, a bridge has no economic value unless people and goods want to use the bridge for commerce. This is why the stimulus bill is failing in a big way … they should stop right now and divide the rest of the funds out as debit tax gift cards for every American -- a decentralized approach would rush the funds where they are actually needed and if such requires a bridge, one can be sure that it will get built.
Paul Z.- Perhaps we are defining “economic base” differently. I would consider Malto-Meal part of Northfield’s economic base, in that it actually produces a product, sells it and pays its employees. It does not require any influx of taxes, but rather, adds to the tax base of the community. Shecler Park provides a recreational service to the community, but it requires an influx of taxes to do so. It is not self supporting and is a drain on the tax base rather than adding to it. See the difference? Perhaps it is just semantics. Both are necessary for society to function, but when government dicides to get into the private industry sector, it drains taxes away from other sources to do so. I therefore consider government buy-outs as artificial and not sustained growth.
John G:
In 974.4 you contrast Malt-o-Meal, which “actually produces a product, sells it, and pays its employees”, without any “influx” of tax money, to Sechler Park, which does very different things, and therefore requires such an “influx”. Malt-o-Meal, you say, is part of our “economic base”, while Sechler Park is a “drain”.
Indeed, Malt-o-Meal and Sechler Park are very different types of economic entities, and it would be wrong to confuse the two. Grass-flavored cereal sounds revolting, and softball among the giant cereal machines would be awkward. And I would stoutly oppose any governmental breakfast food (Public-Option-O’s? Federal Flakes?), however tasty.
Our disagreement is not over such things, but over whether public goods — like Sechler Park and roads and streetlights and libraries and schools and police and libraries and public hospitals and public sculpture and the National Science Foundation and … — are indeed parts of our “economic base”, as I believe, or just “drains”, as you seem to suggest.
My point is not just that these are nice things to have around, as indeed they are and as you acknowledge, but that they contribute, often quite directly, to our economic prosperity. Without those tax-draining roads, for instance, how could Malt-o-Meal distribute its products?
It’s fair to ask whether Sechler Park is really needed, whether it’s worth what it costs (whatever that may be), and how much it contributes to the good quality of life that attracts tax-paying people and businesses to Northfield and keeps them here. But let’s not ignore or deny the economic, not just recreational, value of public assets.
Paul Z. Again, I think we are just defining things differently. My comment about, “Both are necessary for society to function,” is what you are saying also. Perhaps “drain” has wrong overtones for Shecler Park. I was just differentiating between those entities that contribute to taxes and those supported by taxes. As far as your comment about infrastructure, “but that they contribute, often quite directly, to our economic prosperity,” is valid but not measurable with hard figures. Malto-Meal’s gross sales and tax contributions can be illustrated with hard figures. 5th. Street cannot. Also, could you give me an example of an infrastructure that contributes directly to our economic base? What I’m looking for is some $$ poured into the economy. As I understand an “economic base,” it is those entities and their output that constitute the GDP.
Paul Z, you really need to distinguish between voluntary private economic activity and coerced government economic activity (even if coerced through a democratic process). The private activity is far more powerful and dynamic because nobody is being forced into the choice. The personal computer and the graphical browser created a powerful engine because everyone wanted one and choose to trade their time and labor for them. Does some value come from the coerced activity -- sure even the great pyramids have value -- but the key is to limit it when ever possible as freedom is its own reward.
David H:
In 974.7 you ask that I “distinguish between voluntary private economic activity and coerced government economic activity (even if coerced through a democratic process).”
Leaving aside your highly idiosyncratic notion of coercion …
Of course there’s a difference between public and private economic activities — I said, or tried to say, this emphatically in 974.2, 974.5, and elsewhere. This difference is one reason public goods (streetlights, roads, parks … ) shouldn’t be judged by exactly the same benchmarks as, say, Malt-o-Meal. The storm sewer in my neighborhood — which the public (including me) pays to maintain — does not keep books or run a balance sheet, but it’s not necessarily just a drain (thanks for the metaphor, John G) on society. It also helps me and my neighbors and the city control otherwise possibly costly flooding and other damage.
We agree that public expenditure can, at least sometimes, have at least some economic value. Where we disagree, I think, is on whether public expenditure can ever give good value for money. The pyramids, as you say, may not have been the best buy, but all that Moses/bulrushes/Charlton Heston/ stuff happened around 4600 years ago, and we’ve made progress since then (in some areas, anyway). On the “coercion” front, for instance, those Egyptians had the real thing.
Sure, some things are done best by the private sector, but hardly all. Seen any private sewer systems lately?
Paul, I could come over to your house and steal all your money and then use it to create a nice public space for people, but the nice public space does not justify the taking. And if this was easy to get away with then you would probably be demotivated to add value to society and rebuild that nest egg. Parks and sewers can, are and have been built based on private voluntary decisions. But, be honest, our government has moved WAY beyond parks and sewers.
David H:
You wrote:
.. I could come over to your house and steal all your money and then use it to create a nice public space for people, but the nice public space does not justify the taking
Help me here: What you describe above is outright theft by one private citizen from another. Do you really see this as morally or legally equivalent to a governmental requirement that, for instance, people pay property taxes? To put it another way: Is all taxation “theft”? If not all, which? Do speed limits count as “coercion”? Does all governmental enforcement (tax penalties? library fines?) count as “violence”?
I don’t mean to quibble over diction. But it’s hard to communicate when we disagree, or seem to, on what these loaded words actually mean.
Paul, taxes are taxes but my point was more to your logic. Just saying parks are nice therefore taxes are justified is no different (logically) than saying parks are nice therefore stealing to pay for them is justified. The fact that parks are nice does not justify taking taxes to pay for them. I think Just Foods and The Cow are nice features of Northfield but people voluntarily choose to participate. I think Ray pointed out the soccer fields building was built privately. Personally, I would prefer to see an all in % of income that can be justified for taxation (including mandates) (like 10%) and then determine what it best be spent on.
More left wing activists -> http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=208762
Sorry if it’s a little stale, but it didn’t get much play in the mainstream media.
This is even better -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEr65ZX6gLw&feature=player_embedded
Also a pretty good analysis of what happened in Copenhagen -> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/10/02/embarrassment-in-copenhagen/
And pretty good opinion piece on the indoctrination in schools -> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/10/05/revealed-how-liberalism-exploits-the-vulnerable/ (beware, it mentions enslavement)
certain conservatives hate obama more than they love the USA
The truth had to come out some time:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybqwr87
Patrick, did someone hijack your computer?
Patrick- I really think this is a dead end subject with grave consequences. That lady from Florida has already lost her head.
In the (not fake) news today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/health/policy/08health.html?hp
Patrick- Lets hope the figures are correct. Also, I’m hoping we will not abandon the reform if it ends up costing more than what the GBO is estimating. Although, I guess there isn’t really precedence of that. I can’t think of any government program that has been abandoned over the last few decades. Some would argue that that fact is the reason we are in the financial straights that we find ourselves in.
“The bill would require people to have insurance but reduced the penalties for those who violate the requirement.”
Seems amazing that the article does not bother to mention the amount of these penalties.
Also in the news:
Government Medicine Kills
Let’s compare America’s system with Canada’s and Great Britain’s.
By Deroy Murdock
As the Senate Finance Committee prepares to vote on its Obamacare bill, it would behoove senators to ask themselves why on Earth America should move even one inch closer to the government-driven health-care model that plagues Canadians and Britons. Thankfully, the Finance Committee bill lacks the government option for health insurance that sends liberal salivary glands gushing. Still, the bill is awash in mandates, regulations, subsidies, taxes, and plenty of other potential distortions that help make single-payer medical systems deadly.
That’s right. Deadly.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhmOGU0MDdhM2Y5YmEyMzVmNjZhZWZiMTA3ZTQyOTA=
Guy,
Of course it’s a deadly plan. That is, of course, the Democrat Party’s only goal in crafting this legislation. Barack Obama just said so explicitly, as noted in the article I quoted at #976, above. Here’s a more direct link to that article:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_health_care_plan_would_give
Guy,
Interestingly, ‘deadly’ intrusion of the government into the health insurance business is supported by a majority of American physicians -- the people who would, presumably, be most concerned about maintaining independent decision-making and the autonomy of their patient-provider interactions:
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790
Perhaps we’re just deluding ourselves. Perhaps we just don’t understand how well the health care system works now, or how much more dangerous health care would be after the government gets into the insurance business. Or perhaps, it is just possible that we are positioned front-and-center, and are day-to-day witnesses of the mess that exists in health insurance (and the lack thereof) today.
Patrick -- Actually I’m in agreement that the heath-care system does need reform. We need less regulation, not more on the health insurance companies. We need to lift the restrictions about selling insurance policies across state lines and open up the market completely and allow these companies to compete for our business.
I understand what you’re seeing, as a former EMT, the abuse of the system by those that received free health-care is one of the reasons I’m a former EMT rather than still current.
The government has a long track record of making a shambles of whatever business (I figure this is because if they were really good at business, they’d be doing it instead of being civil servants) they go into (Post Office, Amtrack, etc). What in their track record makes people think that this will be any better?
I would fall in support of the existing plan if the government could do 1 thing, if they could open up a series of clinic (similar to those we have today -- Allina, etc) across the country and run them at a break even point, while providing free service to those that do not have health insurance. People who do, like myself, could choose to use or not use the clinic. If the clinic provided better doctors, services, etc than my clinic, I would go there. Call this a scaled down version of what the dems are claiming this new health-care bill is.
Open the business, run it for 5 years. If they can do it, they’d be in a much better position with the American people.
Guy,
These are not survey results that say that doctors are just generally in favor of doing “something” about reforming health care. These are survey results that specifically support offering a public health insurance option which would operate side-by-side, in competitions with existing private insurance plans.
If Congress is in fact able to pass a bill creating such a public insurance option, people will be able to choose between a private insurance plan and a public one -- which will be much like your hypothetical proposal about choosing between public and private clinics.
Patrick -- It’s not about what the Dr’s want, it’s about what the people want:
Most Oppose Obama’s Health Proposal, but Give Low Marks to Republicans
Voters oppose President Obama’s health care reform plan by 47 percent to 40 percent with 12 percent undecided, but they do support several key elements that are part of the proposal, according to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted Sept. 29-Oct. 5.
They also trust Obama to do a better job of addressing the issue than congressional Republicans by a 47 percent to 31 percent margin, with 21 percent undecided. Overall, voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party by a 53 percent to 25 percent margin with 18 percent undecided, while they view the Democratic Party unfavorably, 46-38, with 13 percent undecided.
But voters do not want Congress to pass an overhaul bill without bipartisan support. Fifty-seven percent hold that view while 37 percent say Democrats should push a bill through on their own, if necessary. That said, by 59 percent to 29 percent, with 12 percent undecided, they do not believe congressional Republicans are making a good-faith effort to cooperate with Obama and the Democrats.
Fifty percent support the proposal to require people to have health insurance, compared to 45 percent who do not, with 4 percent undecided. (The margin of error in this poll is 1.9 points.) That’s a turnaround since Quinnipiac asked this question in July and 51 percent opposed the idea and 44 percent supported it.
Sixty-nine percent support giving people the option of turning to a government health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers, compared to 34 percent who oppose it. That proposal is in the House bills, but a pair of Democratic measures that would create a public option failed in the Senate Finance Committee late last month.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/08/most-oppose-obamas-health-proposal-but-give-low-marks-to-repub/
Guy,
“Most” usually equals 51% or more.
The AMA used to big the second largest political contributor in the USA so opinions may be biased. Plus, respectfully, who got us into this mess? What are your qualifications to guard the chicken coop Mr Fox?
David,
I’m surprised at your very progressive analogy. Under libertarian philosophy, wouldn’t the foxes and the chickens be best off if there were no guards?
Personally, I’m entirely in favor of government oversight of health care, and agree with your analogy that the foxes need watching. One of the many reasons that I am not a member of the AMA is that I’ve never cared for their long history of absolute opposition to anything that might challenge the traditional fee-for-service model of medicine -- sometimes to the detriment of providing the best possible health care to the largest number of persons.
A few quick examples are included in this NPR story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112345150
- Patrick
Sent from my phone.
Patrick, clearly medicine is operating with price fixing models as a hybrid monopoly and the consumer is losing. The current plan just locks this in and sends even more money to insurance companies. The big clinics that you state are more efficient than past models of medicine are mainly more efficient at controlling pricing of services. The answer is fee for service and more competition. This can be done now or after the government intervention program fails. As consumers have been moved out of the equation the costs have soared, moving them further out will cause either pricing to soar further or over all service to decline. Moving consumers back into the control loop is the only hope for success.
More freedoms being taken as we stand by:
States Enact Stronger Quarantine & No Free Assembly Laws
In some states, like Massachusetts, public health doctors have persuaded legislators to quickly pass pandemic influenza legislation that will allow state officials to enter the homes and businesses without the approval of occupants; to investigate and quarantine individuals without their consent; to require licensed health care providers to give citizens vaccines and to ban the free assembly of citizens in the state23,24.
Homeland Security, Department of Defense & CDC
As Department of Homeland Security officials are declaring that any disease outbreak is a matter of homeland security26,27; as Department of Defense officials are defining public demonstrations as “low level terrorism;”28 as CDC officials make plans to re-route airplanes to designated airports with quarantine centers to screen all passengers for signs of swine flu29; and as fast tracked experimental pandemic flu vaccines are being created to be given to American children first, it is time for all of us – whether we are public health officials addressing what we believe is a true public health emergency or whether we are ordinary citizens simply trying to protect our health and the health of our children -- to act in rational and responsible ways.
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx
U KNOW WHO ELSE DID THIS???? HITLER STALIN AND POL POT!!!!! I THINK THE EMPEROR FROM STAR WARS DID IT 2.
A brief history of quarantine:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/typhoid/quarantine.html
Every once in a while, a truly deadly illness spreads like wildfire through the population, and there is no effective treatment or cure. The most recent truly horrible pandemic was the ‘Spanish’ Influenza of 1918, which killed at least 50 million people worldwide.
For those who don’t want to to the math, that is the equivalent of 450-900 people dead in a town the size of Northfield -- and that same rate of death taking place across the entire world.
Mercifully, these kinds of plagues don’t come along very often, and hopefully, we will be able to rapidly produce vaccines and treatments to combat them when they do come along. However, when all else fails, the only option left is quarantine: isolating the infectious in order to protect the uninfected.
It is good to have laws (and procedures) on the books that can be instituted in the eventuality of another such incurable plague -- because someday, we will face one again.
My quote was from Wikipedia’s “Influenza 1918.”
Another brick in the wall:
http://www.nbc11news.com/localnews/headlines/63813127.html
from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020396.php
Patrick- I think the insurance company has reversed its decision and is now going to cover the child, so your point here is moot. But, you do bring up a good point in how insurance companies analyze risk. When a bunch of bean counters get together to set up some guidelines, they can only relate to numbers and relative risks involved. You would know better than I how much additional risk might be involved in a child ranking above 95. This leads to another question. In the new coverage plans being proposed, will ANYONE be at risk of being dropped from coverage? And, if there are greater risks with providing coverage to everyone, what is it going to cost and who is going to pay for it? I doubt that those with high risk and insufficient funds to pay for it this year will be in any better position to pay for it next year.
I’m glad to read that the insurance company in question, “embarrassed by the publicity”, has “reversed course” in the case of the 95 weight percentile baby. So perhaps the point here is now moot for the family in question, but the story is still a useful illustration of the defects of our current health system — if indeed what we have can be called a system.
It’s easy to dump on the insurance company, and perhaps they deserve it. The idea that a company could simply write off the upper and (presumably) lower 5% of its population sounds absurd on its face. But a profit-making company (or a single-payer system, for that matter) has to operate by some rules, and some of these will always be numerical — bean counting, if you will. The problem in this particular case seems to me to be the apparent silliness of the rule, not the fact that bean-counting rules exist.
A larger problem, IMO, is the absence of any national standard for basic health coverage. In all the other rich countries of the world basic health care is considered to be a right of citizenship, and provided as such. This can be achieved through a national health service (like our VA system or the British NHS), through a single-payer system (as in Canada) or through (mandatory) insurance, often through private companies, for at least basic care (as in France, Switzerland, and elsewhere).
Exactly what counts as *basic* (cosmetic surgery? homeopathy? Viagra? knee replacement for an 87-year old?) is properly open to discussion, and apparently varies from place to place. But I doubt that a 4-month-old child would be denied basic coverage in any of these countries — or have to have parents capable of initiating a campaign of embarrassment to get it.
It’s mildly irksome that an insurance company would behave so foolishly. It’s deeply irksome that as the richest country ever, anywhere, we can’t guarantee each other access to basic health care.
Right, John. As soon as the insurance company starts getting some publicity about how ANOTHER arbitrary decision is affecting policy holders, THEN they reverse their decision and the question is moot--but they would not have reversed their decision if the public was not riled up about how they are continually abused by the insurance companies--coverage denied, cancelled, or priced out of their ability to pay. The insurance companies are doing a terrible job, and it is time for us to step in and regulate what is going on so we are going to pass health care reform.
I say again, my not-for-profit insurance company has increased prices every year for the last 7 years--going from $550 per month with a copay to $1135 per month with a major deductible amount before any benefit. For profit insurance is worse, and more people are dying every few weeks as a result of NO INSURANCE than died in the one-day 9/11 attacks.
We need to act responsibly, realize that access to decent medical treatment should not be reserved for the rich or the well-employed, and get it done.
We have spent more money on the Iraq war than it will cost for 10 years of national, universal health.
Jane- I think you bring up a good point, here, in that health care is expensive. My contribution where I work doubled for this current year (July to July). That is why I keep asking the question- What is it going to cost for everyone to be covered and who is going to pay for it? With our national debt where it is, where is the money to pay that off going to come from? How far into the future can we borrow?
Another good point you touch on is the emotional side of this issue. It is one thing to talk about care for some faceless “individual” without coverage, but when it comes to making a decision about how much money we can pour into keeping your own daughter alive after a mid-thirties heart attack, there is an entirely different spin on the decision. Somehow, in trying to take a sometimes subjective process and make it into an objective process, there are people who fall outside the limits. Who sets these limits? Whether it is a private business or the government, there is still a beauracracy to wade through, and this is where issues get sticky. Seeing as how each situation is indivudual, can health care actually be “universal?”
On health care models here and elsewhere, I recommend T.R. Reid’s book The Healing of America . The link below is related.
Reid looks in some depth at the health care systems in, among other places, France, Germany, Japan, and the UK, and finds lots of ideas in these places for improving what we do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html
I heard an author who traveled the world reviewing the various health care systems. He was in Canada and visited an MD about his sore shoulder. The MD said he would have to see a specialist. He asked how long that would take and the answer was several months. He said, ‘several months to get treatment.’ ‘Oh no,’ the physician said, ‘that is just for your first diagnostic visit, it could take a year to get treated.’ The author said, ‘that seems ridiculously long to an American.” The physician said, ‘well you see in Canada we do not mind waiting as long as rich people have to wait just as long.’
I wonder if he would have gotten treated if he was a fat baby.
David,
The author you are talking about is in fact T.R. Reid, who Paul cites above.
T.R. Reid writes:
The Japanese, he notes, “provide universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans. ”
Sorta like the Democrats are proposing.
I do recommend that you read Mr. Reid’s article, which Paul has linked to above. It is very short, and it is titled, “5 Myths About Health Care Around the World.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html
Mr. Reid’s book is discussed briefly in this article, entitled “One Injury, 10 Countries: A Journey in Health Care”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/health/15book.html?_r=1&em
David H:
The author you heard was indeed T.R. Reid, and you’ve summarized his point quite accurately. One mild correction: It was actually the Princeton health economist Uwe Reinhardt (born in Canada) who said “Canadians don’t mind the watiing list so much as long as the rich Canadian and the poor Canadian have to wait about the same amount of time.”
Indeed, Reid appears less enamored of the Canadian system than of some others, perhaps especially the French, which uses private (but nonprofit) insurance to cover everybody for basic care, along with a complementary network of private clinics, hospitals, etc. — some of them profit-making.
Still, Reid doesn’t completely diss Canada, and he’s at pains to debunk some standard canards. There’s a popular impression, for instance, that huge numbers of Canadians scurry south for medical care, but apparently the available numbers suggests there’s only a trickle. Canadians are also as a group very fond, despite their complaints, of their health system. And, of course, there’s the possibly inconvenient truth that Canada spends about half what we do and achieves better life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and other good outcomes.
Not half bad, eh?
Paul Z.- Is that Canadian spending figure half per capita or half in total?
John G:
Canadians spend about half of what we do per capita . And a good thing, too — if they spent half as much total as we they’d spending about 5 times as much per capita.
To put it another way, Canada spends about 10% of its GDP (which is lower than ours) on health care; we spend around 16 or 17%. I’ve heard people whose views I respect argue that Canadians underspend somewhat on health care, but they have a long way to go before they catch us.
A related statistic, this from the WHO, is the DALE (Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy), which essentially measures “healthy life expectancy” — the expected time one can expect to live in what could be called full health. On this scale Japan (with even lower health spending than Canada) ranks first at 74.5 years. Our country ranks 24th, at 70 years, behind Israel and ahead of Cyprus.
I think Reid’s point was each country needs health care (notice lack of “system”) that best suits their values. Hopefully ours will be about liberty and freedom rather than socialism and sticking it too the rich.
David H:
Yes, T.R. Reid would agree that a country’s health care system reflects its values, and that Canada’s tolerance for longer waits reflects a more egalitarian ethos than we have down here.
And yes, our national approach to health care should reflect our national values. But among these values are freedom from bankruptcy due to illness, and the liberty to move from job to job or place to place without losing access to health care.
Our present arrangement (as you say, David, what we have doesn’t deserve the name “system”) is far from securing those freedoms. Reid’s book demonstrates amply, with real-world examples, that these problems can be addressed far better than we do now.
National values are important, and they differ from place to place. But I dare say the human value of offering care when people need it most, and expecting such care ourselves when we need it, is pretty much universal. Here, too, we have a long way to go.
Paul Z.- Thanks for the clarification on the figures. I thought there were quite a few less of them than there are of us.
It seems there is a lot of finger pointing in this whole process, but I’m still not clear just where the difference is in the cost of our care compared to other countries. It has been suggested that high salaries in the insurance industry are to blame, but the real figures on this show they are a fraction of a percent of the total cost. Others say that litigation drives up the costs, but, again, this is only a fraction of a percent of the costs. Are we dealing with some hidden cost that is driving the whole system? Or, are we just being nibbled to death by ducks? In other words, are the sum total of all the things we consider necessary gradually pricing us out of affordability?
Paul Z, “system” in the over arching socialistic sense is what we have fought major wars to avoid ~ sad to see the left take advantage of youth bereft of historical understanding to build yet another failed “system” for the world. The majority of the modern medical equipment and techniques used throughout the world were developed here in the USA without excessive government oversight … please let me know when I go to the hospital which treatments are “French” that have been developed in the last 20 years. Socialistic systems destroy the incentive to innovate.
Here is a YouTube video on Canadian Health Care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1TEsK0HCAo&feature=player_embedded
And a website on the wonders of their ‘egalitarian’ society http://www.notcanada.com
John G:
The Great White North has about 33m residents; we Yanks number around 304 million. (Thanks, Google.) Given our relative rates of health spending, Canada as a whole shells out around 1 loonie for every 20 bucks we squander. Good deal, eh? The other rich countries are somewhere closer to Canada, per capita, than to us.
Why the difference? I suspect it’s a lot of things, no one of which fully or even substantially explains the big picture. Read Reid to get more insights and detail. Reid observes, for instance, that French doctors work in relatively Spartan offices and gross far less money than our docs normally do. On the other hand, European doctors typically pay *nothing* for medical school and pay much, much lower malpractice premiums. The Europeans are also far ahead of us in, and less paranoid about, standardizing and (appropriately) sharing medical information. A French doctor can put a patient’s carte vitale into a little machine or laptop and see the full record of every procedure, immunization, prescription, etc. for that patient over several decades. Records are encrypted and so, supposedly, not likely to be misused.
IMO the biggest single factor, but still far from explaining everything, toward our high costs here is that health care “consumers” have almost no information about what anything really costs. One interesting feature of the French system, says Reid, is that patients actually pay up front, in cash, at reasonable rates, for essentially every medical service they receive. They are normally reimbursed for at least 75% of the cost within a few days, thanks to the carte vitale , which also handles billing. But every patient constantly sees that he or she is receiving a valuable and costly service. Here we have little incentive or even ability to find out what stuff really costs — it’s either covered, which means essentially free, or not, which means you can’t afford it. It’s hard to lower costs, or even know whether you’re doing so, when the costs are hidden.
Paul Z.- I agree with your comment, “IMO the biggest single factor, but still far from explaining everything, toward our high costs here is that health care “consumers” have almost no information about what anything really costs.” That being the case, does the CBO have any idea what is driving the cost? And, if it doesn’t, how are we going to control costs that we aren’t sure of the source? Perhaps these details are out there somewhere, but I have not had any success in tracking them down. This doesn’t seem like rocket science. There should be some “smoking gun” somewhere, but I have not seen any evidence as to what and where it is.
The other aspect of the healthcare reform needed seems to center around distribution of coverage. It is infered that this is cost driven because of deminished profits. What about the non-profit insurance companies? Why do they drop people from coverage?
I wonder if jesus was a socialist
Jesus didn’t need health care. He healed those who were sick. Perhaps the Roman insurance companies saw this a threat to their profits, and that is the real reason He was crucified.
Anthony, you wrote:
He used to be, but there are people working very hard to fix that:
(Emphasis is mine.)
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
…or not.
john didn’t he charge 10k dollars for removing leprosy???
if he did it for free doesn’t that mean everyone should do it for free?
didn’t he say when you do for the lesser of us you do it for him????
Anthony- 1) Nope.
2) Only if you have the anointing, but then, the laborer is worthy of his hire.
3) Yep.
Puts a whole new light on it, doesn’t it?
I particularly love this bit, from further down the mission statement:
John, when pro governmentalists talk about the “cost of health care” in the USA, I am quite certain they factor out the tremdous export profits and employment that our country reaps. In MN that would include Medtronic, St Jude medical, much of 3M, etc.
David H.- We probably have to be careful about bringing these companies into the discussion. They are, afterall, profitable businesses. I wonder how much R&D is included in the healthcare costs that is actually offset by company profits? Also, how much corporate tax is collected off these profitable companies? Sometimes I wonder if we are not killing the goose that lays the golden egg?
people like david say govt doesn’t work, then they get elected, then they prove it. heck of a job brownie.
Anthony, what does “brownie” mean?
“Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown
David H:
Not sure I follow all that stuff about “pro govermentalists” and whether or not they “factor” stuff in or out, whatever that means.
But somewhere in there you make a good point: our medical system is not just a dry hole down which money is thrown and lost forever. Like other costly activities, health care spawns industries, some of them profitable and employment-making. The medical technology industry would seem clearly to be on this list.
Wondering how large these numbers might be, and whether indeed “pro-governmentalists” unfairly ignore them, I did my usual 4 minutes of web surfing. It appears that in 2005 or 2006 (the most recent figures I found) the top 25 medical technology companies had gross sales of around $150B … I didn’t see profits listed but would guess from a few data that these might amount to something like $30B.
Compare this to about $2000B spent annually in the US on health-related expenses to put the numbers in some sort of context. A careful analysis would, of course, involve other potentially beneficial spinoffs from health care spending, like hospital construction, employment of medical workers, etc. Any cost-benefit analysis should also take due account of the degree to which health care spending accomplishes its main aim: better health among Americans.
So, David, I think you make a valid point. And as a “pro-governmentalist” (by my definition, not necessarily yours … ) I’m glad to hear you praise the side effects of medical spending, much of which comes right out of Uncle Sam’s pocket.
A side point, but perhaps not unrelated: Of those “tremendous export profits” you rightly respect, a nontrivial fraction are earned by German, Dutch, British, and Japanese companies.
Paul Z, I think it is important to understand the difference to the economy of an innovative new technology verses something like a hospital (both are economic activities). Use Northfield to make this simple. Assume a new Bloodiculator device is developed and becomes standard and the headquarters opens up here in Northfield. The gross profit over cost of materials (which end up being bought in Faribault anyway) is 90%. They do $10 million in sales. Bloodiculator pays shareholders (where ever they are) $1 million. $8 million dollars goes to R&D, admin, marketing, etc. a high percentage of which goes right into the Northfield economy. Now what is key here is that this is money from elsewhere flowing right into Northfield and everyone benefits. Compare this to a new local hospital doing $10 million. Most of the hospital purchases are from outside Northfield and most of the dollar flow is from Northfield. Bloodiculator Inc is really a source of revenue to the Northfield and the hospital (while important!) is an expense for Northfield.
Scale this up and it is why innovation is so important to the US economy. The reality is innovation is a product of freedom otherwise we would all be living in the expanded USSR.
david henson,
is innovation trying to figure out how to put lcd tvs in the head rest of SUVS or getting better gas mileage .
whatever makes money gets invented, whatever doesn’t, doesn’t.
I am convinced that’s why there isn’t a cure for diabetes, just chronic treatment.
the reality is: the stuff that doesn’t make money that is beneficial to the whole human race has to be funded from somewhere, and private entities aren’t interested in the stuff that doesn’t make money.
also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc
Anthony, I would think LCDs and the internet through Webinars etc are innovations that have and will have save a whole lot gas (I would not get bent out of shape about a few going into headrests). “Getting better gas mileage” is not an innovation but an aspiration. Let’s look at the auto industry. The US has 3 auto companies who are allowed because of union and wealthy families to operate as a ogliopoly based in Detroit (high government involvement -- higher now). The product has changed very little from my grandmas 1964 rambler to todays autos (compared to phones, etc). The product kills 40,000 plus people each year. The city of Detroit is falling a part at the seams and becoming a case study in how to shrink an urban area. The auto industry is the closest thing to a “planned economy” that we have in America ~ it should be enough for you to not want a further planned economy.
Health care is easy to solve just give everyone a health debit card (no taxes are even required just print more money ~ slight inflation would be the tax). Don’t make them buy insurance just let them spend however they choose, health care would be transformed almost overnight into the best in the world. But the current bills in congress will make our health care system as successful as the city of Detroit.
Anthony- You said, “…private entities aren’t interested in the stuff that doesn’t make money.” And your point here is what? Is it somehow immoral for a company to make money? If a company is set up as a non-profit organization, it surely provides an essential service and salaries for its employees, but it adds nothing to the tax base. A for-profit company adds the additional tax base. IMO, both entities are necessary for our society, and neither one is on some higher moral plane.
As far as the cure for diabetes, since I am diabetic, that would certainly be advantageous to me. But, if I am going to have some chronic desease, diabetes is certainly liveable, for me, at least. Being type II, it is a matter of dietary discipline and a small dosage of oral medication to control my blood sugar. For those insulin dependent, it is definitely another story. But, until the medical researchers figure out how to correct the genetic trait that actually causes it, it will continue to be a chronic disease. It has nothing to do with innovative profits.
lets remove the tax exemption from churches!! that would broaden the tax base!
Anthony- I wouldn’t have any problem with that, as long as the government doesn’t tell us what to preach. Then we can convert Blue Cross/ Blue Shield to a taxable entity, also. And, we can include the VFW, LWV, Boy & Girl Scouts, the Masons, Northfield Care Center, Three Links, etc. We certainly mustn’t discriminate.
Please call your congressman and senator and ask him/her nicely to make all public officials and workers to enroll in the proposed public option.
This would save us the taxpayer a good junk of money. Since we are struggling with an ever increasing debt this would show sincere leadership.
Good idea!
Peter- Yep. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
they are on it already aren’t they?
No. They don’t contribute anything to it.
wouldn’t that be free health care then
Free (no additional charge) for them. Not for us, who pick up all the charges through our taxes.
why aren’t all of the old people in govt being killed off by socialized health care????
Anthony,
They are getting killed off -- one by one. A recent undercover investigation has revealed that just about everyone who enrolls in Medicare dies.
Indeed, a recent undercover investigation by Fox News discovered the shocking news that every senior who enrolled in the Medicare program in its first 5 years is either dead, or nearly so.
Patrick & Anthony- Does this mean that people are just dieing to get government funded health care? Funny thing about death. It appears to be caused by life.
life is a terminal condition
Yes. If I remeber the story correctly, it was an Apple.
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/
Some more information that you may not have known about the Medicare program:
As part of his cruel plan for extermination of old people, President Johnson hired mad scientist, and aspiring mass-murderer, Dr. No to develop the fiendish “I’m going to kill you, but first…” Plan.
Under this plan, seniors are lavished with a bizarre array of life-extending measures, including but not limited to: radioactive decontamination showers, lavish meals, spa treatments, and sleep aids. However, all of this is intended only to prolong the agony that awaits at the horrible moment of Final Release, when the innocent victims of the Medicare program are finally allowed to die of any of a number of horrible natural causes.
careful, you may get quoted on FOX news
For thos of you who care, there is an interesting “letter of the day” in the Strib, today. You can read it here: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUQ7c4E7ME5U.
For some, perhaps their feeling is that Rush is getting a taste of his own medicine. For me, this opinion expresses a concern I have. It appears that almost anyone, given the opportunity to smear someone, has the ability to do so in the modern media circus in which we live. I suppose that if a person is going to epress strong opinions like Limbaugh does, then they are naive if they think these opinions won’t affect their lives. In this case, though, when media hype can actually affect a business deal, it is the epitome of carrying out hatred against a person. Does anyone have a sense of outrage against this attack on freedom of speech, or are we so calloused by negative journalism that we have become apathetic?
Rush can’t take his own medicine. He certainly has earned the contempt of many--it is not media-hype that got him--it was his own radio-hate-message. I will shed no crocodile tears for poor Rush.
I really can’t believe that you would have any basis to defend him, John. He has made millions on being hateful. He is a drug addict that has repeatedly slammed drug addicts. He is certainly a big fat idiot.
Sign me “Femi Nazi” Jane
Does the object of one’s hatred justify the hatred? Can you justify Al Sharpton’s or the Rev. Wright’s speech? If speech is to be free, it must be free to all. I think David L. and Britt could shed some light on what constitutes libelous discourse. I read some of the comments posted on the Strib site, and they are quite interesting.
Also, I don’t think you fit the term “Nazi” in any way, shape or form, at least the way I understand the term.
It is Rush’s term to fit.
He is hateful, spiteful, and mean. This alone is good reason to prevent him from owning an NFL team.
Since when are character qualities, or lack thereof, a prerequisite for owning ball team, or anything else, for that matter? Just think. He could choose to run for a political position rather than just lambast them.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/
A must see documentary on the financial meltdown. it is very good despite the subliminal messages against the GOP.
In the hearings against Brooksley Born they only show Graham asking question. Geez I didn’t realize that only members of the GOP were sitting on comittees.
More disturbing is the fact that Larry Summers, who was a member of the triumvirate that is responsible, is now one of the economic advisors of P-BO ???
The NFL has every right to deny anybody to be a franchisee in their company.
It is however comical that they let thugs like Michael Vick, Ray Lewis and others play in the league…and now are pretending to take the high road.
This comedy spectacle was only topped by Sharpton???
Yup…change we can believe in.
Peter- Great post. You brought in the rest of the arsenal.
I think Rush’s quote (follows) was in poor taste and clearly not going to get player support for owning a team:
“Sorry to say this, I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go. I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”
I don’t think the above was true, and even if true to small degree, for Rush to pick this one point from all the observations he could make shows an attempt to be racially provocative (if not racist).
Excellent documentary, as Peter said. Many people, including me, protested Obama’s appointment of Summers, who was one of the acrchitects of the nations worst financial meltdown. It is creepy to see how committed three men were to undermining any criticsm of their “free” market--which has cost us plenty.
Back to Rush--John George, Rush would never run for public office because he would not stand a chance--free speach does not mean that you get to say whatever you want and people must not judge you--free speach means you get to put your foot in your mouth--and the NFL is right to look at Rush’s record and determine that he is not of the character that they want for a frnachise owner.
I didn’t say he would win. I just said he could run. Of course, so could Al Sharpton. I put both of them in the same radical bag. I agree with Peter’s point, “The NFL has every right to deny anybody to be a franchisee in their company.
It is however comical that they let thugs like Michael Vick, Ray Lewis and others play in the league…and now are pretending to take the high road.” Perhaps money does not always buy influence.
David,
From a purely football point of view I think McNabb is overrated as a quarterback. Case in point his last game against the Raiders.
Some time ago it wasn’t quiet as common to see a succesfull black quarterback.
The first in my personal memory was the QB for the Redskins (sorry I don’t recall his name) who won the superbowl about 20 some years ago.
Around that time I was really rooting for black QB’s, simply because he was one of the first to win an SB.
Maybe that makes me a racist…..but I am not.
Peter, I will go on record supporting your right to buy in to the St Louis team if you choose (however, I cannot loan you any money)
Back on health care systems, I just got this e-mail from my friend who lives in Montreal.
“While, thankfully, I have had few reasons to use doctors here I have learned a lot about the Canadian system.
I will say that when it comes to emergency and critical care the Canadian system and its doctors are top notch. Internal medicine and other specialties are every bit as good as the U.S.
However, from first hand experience, there are procedures that are common in the U.S. that are not even known by Canadian doctors. For an example when Dad fell and cracked a vertebrae in his back he had a procedure done that was routine there but unknown here even among orthopedic surgeons.
The waiting lists here are very real. It is common to wait 6 months or more for an MRI or other scanning tests when they can often be done within hours or at the latest days in the U.S.
And it is 100% true about doctors being paid per patient. The more they can squeeze in a day the more money they make. It is very difficult to get a family physician. Often people end up going to what would be considered in the U.S. “free clinics” where the next available doctor will see you. They have none of your medical history or records to look back on. From first hand experience you are truly only a number.”
I think this is maybe what some mean who are saying we Americans have to re-think our expectations about how we receive medical treatment. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad, but it is different from our present system.
John,
Your Montreal friend’s thoughts are interesting, and there’s no reason to doubt his or her account of personal experience. But note that these views are, as your correspondent notes, *not* based on much experience with the system itself. And, like all individual anecdotes, they are just that. I have Canadian friends, too, and none of them would choose our total health package to theirs.
My information, like yours, is only anecdotal. More valid, perhaps, are some of the broader statistics, like the one that says Canadians pay about half what we do in total, and still live significantly longer. (Our “healthy life expectancy at birth”, according to WHO, is 67 years for men and 71 for women; the corresponding figures are 70 and 74 in Canada.) There might be other broad statistics that give a different picture, but I’m not aware of them. And a lot of people think Canadians would be even healthier and happier if they spent *more* on their health system.
As for being only a number because docs don’t know your health history … that does sound bad. But:
1. Are things better in this respect down here in the US?
2. Recall the French carte vitale , that little credit-card-like thingy with a memory patch, from which le docteur can see the full record of every procedure, immunization, prescription, etc. for that patient over several decades? We and our northern brethren should get with le program .
Paul, are you required in France to allow all records to be visible or does the consumer have any right to privacy?
Paul- Statistics can be meaningful when a person is comparing like treatments for like maladies for like people. The greatest problem we have is how much of the population the statistics actually fit. As I said, the Canadian system is not necessarily bad, just different. One thing we Americans have in common is the expectation of immediate gratification, be it hunger (fast food) or health care (minute clinics). Things that used to take time, such as food preparation, we become impatient with if we have to devote a lot of time to it nowadays. From my friend’s testamony, and there are probably statistics to support this, emergency care seems to be unaffected. There are probably a number of optional care needs (remove a mole? get a bone scan?) which we are used to getting very quickly that will have more delays in the Canadian system.
As far as “le carte vitale,” I side with David H. on this. I have no problem with, and even expect, my family doctor to have access to all my medical history, but I’m leary of having a card with my whole history on it that could be accessed by anyone with a card reader and a hacked software system.