Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Intense]

Liberalism versus Liberalism versus Progressivism

conservatives have hijacked part of liberalism and tied it to 'classic' liberalism which died ages and ages ago. they have tied traditional liberalism (liberalism of the last century) to progressivism.

You may as well deny we have a Bill of Rights why you're squawking that bullshit.

Classical liberalism is alive and well - you're reading a classical liberal's post right now... I subscribe to Thomas Jefferson's sociopolitical philosophy.

BTW, progressivism is not liberalism at all - it's the exact opposite as a matter of fact..

Exactly. It consciously chose to abandon Individual Rights, like they were an obstacle to their divine scheme. They don't want to eliminate injustice or bad intent, they want to eliminate the competition, and anyone willing to stand up to them. What they want is No One to be Willing to Testify against them.

 

[Bfgrn]

My now inactive thread on the addictive effects of free stuff dispensed by the government was intended to illustrate the negative consequences of that for a society based on individual liberties.

This thread has illustrated in spades how most modern day liberals/progressives are absolutely incapable of even understanding the principles underlying classical liberalism, much more so they seem incapable of articulating it or a rebuttal against it. Further they are unable to discuss any such principle at face value but think only in the context of non sequiturs, red herrings, and straw men.

I cannot imagine how the human spirit would not embrace liberty and self governance once they understood the principle. Is the corruption of free stuff/nanny state so strong that it destroys the natural human longing for liberty? Or are they so addicted to the free stuff that they are emotionally incapable of saying anything that might jeopardize that free stuff even if they do understand the principles of classical liberalism?

Some People Never make it to the point where they can see through their own eyes. It's about conditioning, needing to belong taking precedent over Honest Witness. There is a First Principle hidden in there. Sometimes too, the Abused resist being Liberated.

The addicted almost always resist being liberated. Such is the nature of addiction. Which, in my opinion, is the overt or subliminal motive in making more and more Americans addicted to illusions of government freebies, benevolence, promised protection, etc. As each one is mezmerized or brainwashed into accepting tentacles of government closing around them, the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those manipulating the tentacles is significantly increased.

It was specifically that threat/danger/reality that the Founders worked so hard to prevent. And little by little the leftists/liberals among us chip away at the protections offered by freedom and embracing increasing servitude to a governing authority.

Your social Darwinism is making me physically ill. You are one sick piece of work. Do you EVER have an adult like thought in your tiny dogma driven mind?

Let's take a look at Medicare. Before Medicare senior citizens were the most likely group of Americans to end up in poverty. After Medicare, they became among the LEAST likely to end up in poverty. Before Medicare, many seniors had to be supported by their children.

We live in a society with employer based health insurance. Senior citizens DON'T HAVE an employer. The cost of insurance without an employer is unaffordable for young, healthy people. It would be astronomical for senior citizens. Seniors would pay the highest premiums because of actuary risk and frequency of illness.

Medicare has created INDEPENDENCE for seniors, not dependency.

 

[Intense]

Some People Never make it to the point where they can see through their own eyes. It's about conditioning, needing to belong taking precedent over Honest Witness. There is a First Principle hidden in there. Sometimes too, the Abused resist being Liberated.

The addicted almost always resist being liberated. Such is the nature of addiction. Which, in my opinion, is the overt or subliminal motive in making more and more Americans addicted to illusions of government freebies, benevolence, promised protection, etc. As each one is mezmerized or brainwashed into accepting tentacles of government closing around them, the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those manipulating the tentacles is significantly increased.

It was specifically that threat/danger/reality that the Founders worked so hard to prevent. And little by little the leftists/liberals among us chip away at the protections offered by freedom and embracing increasing servitude to a governing authority.

Your social Darwinism is making me physically ill. You are one sick piece of work. Do you EVER have an adult like thought in your tiny dogma driven mind?

Let's take a look at Medicare. Before Medicare senior citizens were the most likely group of Americans to end up in poverty. After Medicare, they became among the LEAST likely to end up in poverty. Before Medicare, many seniors had to be supported by their children.

We live in a society with employer based health insurance. Senior citizens DON'T HAVE an employer. The cost of insurance without an employer is unaffordable for young, healthy people. It would be astronomical for senior citizens. Seniors would pay the highest premiums because of actuary risk and frequency of illness.

Medicare has created INDEPENDENCE for seniors, not dependency.

We live in a Society where we like to improve the quality of life for each of us. When presented with a problem, we look for solutions. When solutions create more problems, we should be looking for better solutions. Try to be more objective. Consider that more Bureaucracy does not always equate better solutions, as enticing and lucrative as all those administrative salaries are. Remember, the primary function is People Care. Now put that Vacation Brochure down, and get back to work.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.

You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative

Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.


******* waste of time

Damn Ed, are you just giving up?

 

[Foxfyre]

Some People Never make it to the point where they can see through their own eyes. It's about conditioning, needing to belong taking precedent over Honest Witness. There is a First Principle hidden in there. Sometimes too, the Abused resist being Liberated.

The addicted almost always resist being liberated. Such is the nature of addiction. Which, in my opinion, is the overt or subliminal motive in making more and more Americans addicted to illusions of government freebies, benevolence, promised protection, etc. As each one is mezmerized or brainwashed into accepting tentacles of government closing around them, the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those manipulating the tentacles is significantly increased.

It was specifically that threat/danger/reality that the Founders worked so hard to prevent. And little by little the leftists/liberals among us chip away at the protections offered by freedom and embracing increasing servitude to a governing authority.

Your social Darwinism is making me physically ill. You are one sick piece of work. Do you EVER have an adult like thought in your tiny dogma driven mind?

Let's take a look at Medicare. Before Medicare senior citizens were the most likely group of Americans to end up in poverty. After Medicare, they became among the LEAST likely to end up in poverty. Before Medicare, many seniors had to be supported by their children.

We live in a society with employer based health insurance. Senior citizens DON'T HAVE an employer. The cost of insurance without an employer is unaffordable for young, healthy people. It would be astronomical for senior citizens. Seniors would pay the highest premiums because of actuary risk and frequency of illness.

Medicare has created INDEPENDENCE for seniors, not dependency.

Well if I bother you so much, please just put me on ignore and you won't have to see my 'sickening' posts.

How do you suppose senior citizens survived before Social Security? Before Medicare? Some experienced very difficult circumstances. Some experience very difficult circumstances now because Social Security in no way provides any kind of standard of living for many, probably most. Those lulled into depending on Social Security for their retirement are far worse off than those who prepared themselves privately for retirement. Medicare has driven healthcare costs beyond the reach of most people these days. I am old enough that I was able to watch that happen--in fact was working in hospitals where I could observe that first hand.

And there are all the other social consequences of a government dependent society that students of socioeconomics and history are able to see. Those truly trapped in dogma--those who see anybody questioning the statist philosophy as being the evil ones--are perhaps now too handicapped to be objective about any of it.

My 'tiny little dogma driven mind' is pretty capable of recognizing the negatives in government dependency and the dangers if we don't start turning that around now. So, if it is all right with you, I would like to continue to discuss the pros and cons of classical liberalism versus modern day American progressivism.

 

[Bfgrn]

The addicted almost always resist being liberated. Such is the nature of addiction. Which, in my opinion, is the overt or subliminal motive in making more and more Americans addicted to illusions of government freebies, benevolence, promised protection, etc. As each one is mezmerized or brainwashed into accepting tentacles of government closing around them, the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those manipulating the tentacles is significantly increased.

It was specifically that threat/danger/reality that the Founders worked so hard to prevent. And little by little the leftists/liberals among us chip away at the protections offered by freedom and embracing increasing servitude to a governing authority.

Your social Darwinism is making me physically ill. You are one sick piece of work. Do you EVER have an adult like thought in your tiny dogma driven mind?

Let's take a look at Medicare. Before Medicare senior citizens were the most likely group of Americans to end up in poverty. After Medicare, they became among the LEAST likely to end up in poverty. Before Medicare, many seniors had to be supported by their children.

We live in a society with employer based health insurance. Senior citizens DON'T HAVE an employer. The cost of insurance without an employer is unaffordable for young, healthy people. It would be astronomical for senior citizens. Seniors would pay the highest premiums because of actuary risk and frequency of illness.

Medicare has created INDEPENDENCE for seniors, not dependency.

We live in a Society where we like to improve the quality of life for each of us. When presented with a problem, we look for solutions. When solutions create more problems, we should be looking for better solutions. Try to be more objective. Consider that more Bureaucracy does not always equate better solutions, as enticing and lucrative as all those administrative salaries are. Remember, the primary function is People Care. Now put that Vacation Brochure down, and get back to work.

America WAS confronted with a HUGE problem. Back in the 1960's.

Forty-seven years ago, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the law creating Medicare. In its way, Medicare was a testament to our failure to create a national health insurance system that would cover everyone. With former President Harry Truman looking on, Johnson said the need was great, and urgent. “There are more than 18 million Americans over the age of 65. Most of them have low incomes. Most of them are threatened by illness and medical expenses that they cannot afford.”

At the time, about half of the elderly had no health insurance—they were too old and too likely to get sick, so the private market simply wouldn’t insure them. The elderly were the demographic group most likely to live in poverty, and about one in three older Americans were poor. Blacks and other minorities could not receive treatment in whites-only medical facilities, discrimination that was barred by Medicare.

Now the elderly are among the best-insured Americans, with upward of 95 percent covered by Medicare. The rate of poverty among those 65 and older is under 10 percent. The decline in elderly poverty began with the creation of Social Security—but it accelerated, according to Census Bureau data, only after Medicare coverage began.

 

[Bfgrn]

The addicted almost always resist being liberated. Such is the nature of addiction. Which, in my opinion, is the overt or subliminal motive in making more and more Americans addicted to illusions of government freebies, benevolence, promised protection, etc. As each one is mezmerized or brainwashed into accepting tentacles of government closing around them, the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those manipulating the tentacles is significantly increased.

It was specifically that threat/danger/reality that the Founders worked so hard to prevent. And little by little the leftists/liberals among us chip away at the protections offered by freedom and embracing increasing servitude to a governing authority.

Your social Darwinism is making me physically ill. You are one sick piece of work. Do you EVER have an adult like thought in your tiny dogma driven mind?

Let's take a look at Medicare. Before Medicare senior citizens were the most likely group of Americans to end up in poverty. After Medicare, they became among the LEAST likely to end up in poverty. Before Medicare, many seniors had to be supported by their children.

We live in a society with employer based health insurance. Senior citizens DON'T HAVE an employer. The cost of insurance without an employer is unaffordable for young, healthy people. It would be astronomical for senior citizens. Seniors would pay the highest premiums because of actuary risk and frequency of illness.

Medicare has created INDEPENDENCE for seniors, not dependency.

Well if I bother you so much, please just put me on ignore and you won't have to see my 'sickening' posts.

How do you suppose senior citizens survived before Social Security? Before Medicare? Some experienced very difficult circumstances. Some experience very difficult circumstances now because Social Security in no way provides any kind of standard of living for many, probably most. Those lulled into depending on Social Security for their retirement are far worse off than those who prepared themselves privately for retirement. Medicare has driven healthcare costs beyond the reach of most people these days. I am old enough that I was able to watch that happen--in fact was working in hospitals where I could observe that first hand.

And there are all the other social consequences of a government dependent society that students of socioeconomics and history are able to see. Those truly trapped in dogma--those who see anybody questioning the statist philosophy as being the evil ones--are perhaps now too handicapped to be objective about any of it.

My 'tiny little dogma driven mind' is pretty capable of recognizing the negatives in government dependency and the dangers if we don't start turning that around now. So, if it is all right with you, I would like to continue to discuss the pros and cons of classical liberalism versus modern day American progressivism.

AGAIN, your tiny little dogma driven mind can't decipher WHAT caused health care costs to skyrocket. It was NOT Medicare.

“Medicare was a comprehensive—and comprehensible—program, available throughout the country and with a core set of benefits.”

In other words, it delivers the opposite of what the private insurance industry has been providing. And it is doing so with a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicare’s cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare’s cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.

So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesn’t have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?

Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance “cooperative” that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate.

Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.

How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.

Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.

So celebrate the birthday of Medicare (and Social Security on Aug. 14) and reflect on their lessons for today: that we have a social contract to care for our fellow citizens and we can save money if we fulfill it with a national health program. Tell the debt commission, "No cuts to Medicare. Expand it to all of us."

 

[Intense]

Your social Darwinism is making me physically ill. You are one sick piece of work. Do you EVER have an adult like thought in your tiny dogma driven mind?

Let's take a look at Medicare. Before Medicare senior citizens were the most likely group of Americans to end up in poverty. After Medicare, they became among the LEAST likely to end up in poverty. Before Medicare, many seniors had to be supported by their children.

We live in a society with employer based health insurance. Senior citizens DON'T HAVE an employer. The cost of insurance without an employer is unaffordable for young, healthy people. It would be astronomical for senior citizens. Seniors would pay the highest premiums because of actuary risk and frequency of illness.

Medicare has created INDEPENDENCE for seniors, not dependency.

Well if I bother you so much, please just put me on ignore and you won't have to see my 'sickening' posts.

How do you suppose senior citizens survived before Social Security? Before Medicare? Some experienced very difficult circumstances. Some experience very difficult circumstances now because Social Security in no way provides any kind of standard of living for many, probably most. Those lulled into depending on Social Security for their retirement are far worse off than those who prepared themselves privately for retirement. Medicare has driven healthcare costs beyond the reach of most people these days. I am old enough that I was able to watch that happen--in fact was working in hospitals where I could observe that first hand.

And there are all the other social consequences of a government dependent society that students of socioeconomics and history are able to see. Those truly trapped in dogma--those who see anybody questioning the statist philosophy as being the evil ones--are perhaps now too handicapped to be objective about any of it.

My 'tiny little dogma driven mind' is pretty capable of recognizing the negatives in government dependency and the dangers if we don't start turning that around now. So, if it is all right with you, I would like to continue to discuss the pros and cons of classical liberalism versus modern day American progressivism.

AGAIN, your tiny little dogma driven mind can't decipher WHAT caused health care costs to skyrocket. It was NOT Medicare.

“Medicare was a comprehensive—and comprehensible—program, available throughout the country and with a core set of benefits.”

In other words, it delivers the opposite of what the private insurance industry has been providing. And it is doing so with a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicare’s cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare’s cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.

So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesn’t have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?

Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance “cooperative” that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate.

Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.

How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.

Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.

So celebrate the birthday of Medicare (and Social Security on Aug. 14) and reflect on their lessons for today: that we have a social contract to care for our fellow citizens and we can save money if we fulfill it with a national health program. Tell the debt commission, "No cuts to Medicare. Expand it to all of us."

Translation: Other Peoples

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Foxfyre]

Both Social Security and Medicare were well intended at the time. And both have proved to be unsustainable as ALL entitlement programs based on poorly thought out future earnings are.

Classical Liberals don't concern themselves with assigning blame, but look for practical solutions for the dilemma. And, it is the nature of Classical Liberalism to look to the private sector and the ability of the American ingenuity, productivity, and initiative to produce those solutions.

The modfern day Progressives/Statists seem to be unable to or at least refuse to consider anything other than more and bigger government or more intrusive government as the solution to every problem. And by making more and more people dependent on the government, the government acquires more and more power to do any damn thing to any of us that it chooses to do.

With approximately 50% of the American people already now dependent on the federal government for at least some benefits, we are rapidly approaching the point that we will not be able to turn it around even when most realize they have screwed themselves.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well if I bother you so much, please just put me on ignore and you won't have to see my 'sickening' posts.

How do you suppose senior citizens survived before Social Security? Before Medicare? Some experienced very difficult circumstances. Some experience very difficult circumstances now because Social Security in no way provides any kind of standard of living for many, probably most. Those lulled into depending on Social Security for their retirement are far worse off than those who prepared themselves privately for retirement. Medicare has driven healthcare costs beyond the reach of most people these days. I am old enough that I was able to watch that happen--in fact was working in hospitals where I could observe that first hand.

And there are all the other social consequences of a government dependent society that students of socioeconomics and history are able to see. Those truly trapped in dogma--those who see anybody questioning the statist philosophy as being the evil ones--are perhaps now too handicapped to be objective about any of it.

My 'tiny little dogma driven mind' is pretty capable of recognizing the negatives in government dependency and the dangers if we don't start turning that around now. So, if it is all right with you, I would like to continue to discuss the pros and cons of classical liberalism versus modern day American progressivism.

AGAIN, your tiny little dogma driven mind can't decipher WHAT caused health care costs to skyrocket. It was NOT Medicare.

“Medicare was a comprehensive—and comprehensible—program, available throughout the country and with a core set of benefits.”

In other words, it delivers the opposite of what the private insurance industry has been providing. And it is doing so with a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicare’s cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare’s cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.

So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesn’t have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?

Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance “cooperative” that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate.

Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.

How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.

Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.

So celebrate the birthday of Medicare (and Social Security on Aug. 14) and reflect on their lessons for today: that we have a social contract to care for our fellow citizens and we can save money if we fulfill it with a national health program. Tell the debt commission, "No cuts to Medicare. Expand it to all of us."

Translation: Other Peoples

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Truths:

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear.
Albert Camus

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[Bfgrn]

Both Social Security and Medicare were well intended at the time. And both have proved to be unsustainable as ALL entitlement programs based on poorly thought out future earnings are.

Classical Liberals don't concern themselves with assigning blame, but look for practical solutions for the dilemma. And, it is the nature of Classical Liberalism to look to the private sector and the ability of the American ingenuity, productivity, and initiative to produce those solutions.

The modfern day Progressives/Statists seem to be unable to or at least refuse to consider anything other than more and bigger government or more intrusive government as the solution to every problem. And by making more and more people dependent on the government, the government acquires more and more power to do any damn thing to any of us that it chooses to do.

With approximately 50% of the American people already now dependent on the federal government for at least some benefits, we are rapidly approaching the point that we will not be able to turn it around even when most realize they have screwed themselves.

The 'practical' solution has already been documented for you. But, your dogmatic mind can't absorb it. All other industrialized nations have implemented the 'practical' solution, and they have lower health care costs than America. WHY? We HAVE your beloved 'private sector' health care. It is an epic failure. EPIC!

Here is your lesson for the day. Try to absorb this into your sick little brain:

'Government' is not some 'other', it is We, the People.

"we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".
President Abraham Lincoln

 

[Intense]

Both Social Security and Medicare were well intended at the time. And both have proved to be unsustainable as ALL entitlement programs based on poorly thought out future earnings are.

Classical Liberals don't concern themselves with assigning blame, but look for practical solutions for the dilemma. And, it is the nature of Classical Liberalism to look to the private sector and the ability of the American ingenuity, productivity, and initiative to produce those solutions.

The modfern day Progressives/Statists seem to be unable to or at least refuse to consider anything other than more and bigger government or more intrusive government as the solution to every problem. And by making more and more people dependent on the government, the government acquires more and more power to do any damn thing to any of us that it chooses to do.

With approximately 50% of the American people already now dependent on the federal government for at least some benefits, we are rapidly approaching the point that we will not be able to turn it around even when most realize they have screwed themselves.

The 'practical' solution has already been documented for you. But, your dogmatic mind can't absorb it. All other industrialized nations have implemented the 'practical' solution, and they have lower health care costs than America. WHY? We HAVE your beloved 'private sector' health care. It is an epic failure. EPIC!

Here is your lesson for the day. Try to absorb this into your sick little brain:

'Government' is not some 'other', it is We, the People.

"we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".
President Abraham Lincoln

Hey, Miss Congeniality...... Yeah You, we agree on pain and suffering, where we disagree is that more of it as not the solution. Not everyone get's to work for the Government, creating more dependency, while living a charmed life. The Rules and Regulations, you set up cross the line and cause the cost increases, unfunded costs, dumped on those that actually buy the services and products. It's real noble what you do with other peoples money to buy votes and support, but, that is the problem. Get it? Good. See, not all remedies are compatible with Federalism, some actually, tear it apart. We want to feed Self Reliance, not Dependency. Government is at least as much of the problem as Private Industry, not less. Government has the force of Law behind it, look at what it has done with that charge. Look at the IRS Laws. Simplify, first Rule. Too many Chief's, not enough Indians. We need Worker Bee's, not more Bosses.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well if I bother you so much, please just put me on ignore and you won't have to see my 'sickening' posts.

How do you suppose senior citizens survived before Social Security? Before Medicare? Some experienced very difficult circumstances. Some experience very difficult circumstances now because Social Security in no way provides any kind of standard of living for many, probably most. Those lulled into depending on Social Security for their retirement are far worse off than those who prepared themselves privately for retirement. Medicare has driven healthcare costs beyond the reach of most people these days. I am old enough that I was able to watch that happen--in fact was working in hospitals where I could observe that first hand.

And there are all the other social consequences of a government dependent society that students of socioeconomics and history are able to see. Those truly trapped in dogma--those who see anybody questioning the statist philosophy as being the evil ones--are perhaps now too handicapped to be objective about any of it.

My 'tiny little dogma driven mind' is pretty capable of recognizing the negatives in government dependency and the dangers if we don't start turning that around now. So, if it is all right with you, I would like to continue to discuss the pros and cons of classical liberalism versus modern day American progressivism.

AGAIN, your tiny little dogma driven mind can't decipher WHAT caused health care costs to skyrocket. It was NOT Medicare.

“Medicare was a comprehensive—and comprehensible—program, available throughout the country and with a core set of benefits.”

In other words, it delivers the opposite of what the private insurance industry has been providing. And it is doing so with a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicare’s cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare’s cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.

So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesn’t have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?

Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance “cooperative” that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate.

Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.

How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.

Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.

So celebrate the birthday of Medicare (and Social Security on Aug. 14) and reflect on their lessons for today: that we have a social contract to care for our fellow citizens and we can save money if we fulfill it with a national health program. Tell the debt commission, "No cuts to Medicare. Expand it to all of us."

Translation: Other Peoples

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You smash your car into a tree, WHO pays for the repairs?

Translation: Other Peoples

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You have a heart attack and are rushed to the hospital, WHO pays for the treatment?

Translation: Other Peoples

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

A tornado levels your house, WHO pays for rebuilding the house?

Translation: Other Peoples

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Social security and Medicare are social INSURANCE programs. Why don't you start with a basic course in civics and ask the teacher how the REAL world works.

 

[Bfgrn]

Both Social Security and Medicare were well intended at the time. And both have proved to be unsustainable as ALL entitlement programs based on poorly thought out future earnings are.

Classical Liberals don't concern themselves with assigning blame, but look for practical solutions for the dilemma. And, it is the nature of Classical Liberalism to look to the private sector and the ability of the American ingenuity, productivity, and initiative to produce those solutions.

The modfern day Progressives/Statists seem to be unable to or at least refuse to consider anything other than more and bigger government or more intrusive government as the solution to every problem. And by making more and more people dependent on the government, the government acquires more and more power to do any damn thing to any of us that it chooses to do.

With approximately 50% of the American people already now dependent on the federal government for at least some benefits, we are rapidly approaching the point that we will not be able to turn it around even when most realize they have screwed themselves.

The 'practical' solution has already been documented for you. But, your dogmatic mind can't absorb it. All other industrialized nations have implemented the 'practical' solution, and they have lower health care costs than America. WHY? We HAVE your beloved 'private sector' health care. It is an epic failure. EPIC!

Here is your lesson for the day. Try to absorb this into your sick little brain:

'Government' is not some 'other', it is We, the People.

"we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".
President Abraham Lincoln

Hey, Miss Congeniality...... Yeah You, we agree on pain and suffering, where we disagree is that more of it as not the solution. Not everyone get's to work for the Government, creating more dependency, while living a charmed life. The Rules and Regulations, you set up cross the line and cause the cost increases, unfunded costs, dumped on those that actually buy the services and products. It's real noble what you do with other peoples money to buy votes and support, but, that is the problem. Get it? Good. See, not all remedies are compatible with Federalism, some actually, tear it apart. We want to feed Self Reliance, not Dependency. Government is at least as much of the problem as Private Industry, not less. Government has the force of Law behind it, look at what it has done with that charge. Look at the IRS Laws. Simplify, first Rule. Too many Chief's, not enough Indians. We need Worker Bee's, not more Bosses.

Hey Einstein, does having private health insurance create dependency on cartels?

Government is not the solution to every problems, but neither is the private sector the solution to every problem. When it comes to health care, the rest of the industrialized world has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that government beats private hands down.

America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

 

[Intense]

AGAIN, your tiny little dogma driven mind can't decipher WHAT caused health care costs to skyrocket. It was NOT Medicare.

“Medicare was a comprehensive—and comprehensible—program, available throughout the country and with a core set of benefits.”

In other words, it delivers the opposite of what the private insurance industry has been providing. And it is doing so with a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicare’s cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare’s cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.

So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesn’t have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?

Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance “cooperative” that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate.

Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.

How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.

Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.

So celebrate the birthday of Medicare (and Social Security on Aug. 14) and reflect on their lessons for today: that we have a social contract to care for our fellow citizens and we can save money if we fulfill it with a national health program. Tell the debt commission, "No cuts to Medicare. Expand it to all of us."

Translation: Other Peoples

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You smash your car into a tree, WHO pays for the repairs?

Translation: Other Peoples

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You have a heart attack and are rushed to the hospital, WHO pays for the treatment?

Translation: Other Peoples

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

A tornado levels your house, WHO pays for rebuilding the house?

Translation: Other Peoples

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Social security and Medicare are social INSURANCE programs. Why don't you start with a basic course in civics and ask the teacher how the REAL world works.

But, ... But,.... Butt,........ it's not working, that's the point silly. Obama think is compounding the damage. Don't worry though, tens of Millions will fall before you before your Government Payroll check becomes insolvent.

 

[Bfgrn]

It certainly IS working. But let's see how honest you are...

WHAT have private insurance corporations done over the years due to the rising cost of health care?

 

[Intense]

Let me see.....What do you do when the cost of doing business rises? No wait, you don't run a business. I bet no matter what the Economy does, you get your 3% minimum raise every year, plus all the perks that are probably equal to your salary. Tell me why Cuomo is steering away from Pension Plans and into 401K's? If investment payoff's are evil in your eyes, how do you justify Pension's and all of the schemes that go with them? To answer your question, when the cost of doing business rises, it is only natural for the end cost of product or service to rise. I'm sure your Pension Fund Investment controllers would dump any holdings unable to generate return.

 

[Bfgrn]

But, ... But,.... Butt,........ it's not working, that's the point silly. Obama think is compounding the damage. Don't worry though, tens of Millions will fall before you before your Government Payroll check becomes insolvent.

It certainly IS working. But let's see how honest you are...

WHAT have private insurance corporations done over the years due to the rising cost of health care?

Let me see.....What do you do when the cost of doing business rises? No wait, you don't run a business. I bet no matter what the Economy does, you get your 3% minimum raise every year, plus all the perks that are probably equal to your salary. Tell me why Cuomo is steering away from Pension Plans and into 401K's? If investment payoff's are evil in your eyes, how do you justify Pension's and all of the schemes that go with them? To answer your question, when the cost of doing business rises, it is only natural for the end cost of product or service to rise. I'm sure your Pension Fund Investment controllers would dump any holdings unable to generate return.

SO.......when the cost rises, insurance corporations raise premiums. But, when the cost rises, the evil government dare not raise revenues.

You see, this is why the conservative mind is so immature. There is not an ounce of business acumen on the right. Their ONLY solution is to cut, even if human beings are exterminated in the process. But conservatism doesn't have an ounce of human capital in their 'solution's either.

 

[Intense]

It certainly IS working. But let's see how honest you are...

WHAT have private insurance corporations done over the years due to the rising cost of health care?

Let me see.....What do you do when the cost of doing business rises? No wait, you don't run a business. I bet no matter what the Economy does, you get your 3% minimum raise every year, plus all the perks that are probably equal to your salary. Tell me why Cuomo is steering away from Pension Plans and into 401K's? If investment payoff's are evil in your eyes, how do you justify Pension's and all of the schemes that go with them? To answer your question, when the cost of doing business rises, it is only natural for the end cost of product or service to rise. I'm sure your Pension Fund Investment controllers would dump any holdings unable to generate return.

SO.......when the cost rises, insurance corporations raise premiums. But, when the cost rises, the evil government dare not raise revenues.

You see, this is why the conservative mind is so immature. There is not an ounce of business acumen on the right. Their ONLY solution is to cut, even if human beings are exterminated in the process. But conservatism doesn't have an ounce of human capital in their 'solution's either.

See, here is the thing, when Businesses raise the price tag on a product or service based on the direct relationship between added cost, keeping the profit margin constant, the percentage remains unchanged. When it raises the cost based on wanting a better cut, it too many times is traced back to it being a Government Sponsored Monopoly, where the Government, the Silent Partner is also being compensated, contrary to fair market value. Still, the purchase is generally voluntary, at least to some extent.
When Government raises revenue, increasing the percentage of tax it takes effecting the ratio, increasing it's share, while diminishing ours, it effects the balance of our relationship. Oppression is oppression, by any name. We the People, recognize both the need for Government, and what happens when it's limits are ignored. When you act beyond consent, there are complications. Some of them from conception, compound the crime. What we need is good Government. You do seem to be at war with the Private Sector. You have issues there. Me, personally, I am just trying to survive. We are all Human Beings first, regardless of where one's income comes from. Best not to forget that.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let me see.....What do you do when the cost of doing business rises? No wait, you don't run a business. I bet no matter what the Economy does, you get your 3% minimum raise every year, plus all the perks that are probably equal to your salary. Tell me why Cuomo is steering away from Pension Plans and into 401K's? If investment payoff's are evil in your eyes, how do you justify Pension's and all of the schemes that go with them? To answer your question, when the cost of doing business rises, it is only natural for the end cost of product or service to rise. I'm sure your Pension Fund Investment controllers would dump any holdings unable to generate return.

SO.......when the cost rises, insurance corporations raise premiums. But, when the cost rises, the evil government dare not raise revenues.

You see, this is why the conservative mind is so immature. There is not an ounce of business acumen on the right. Their ONLY solution is to cut, even if human beings are exterminated in the process. But conservatism doesn't have an ounce of human capital in their 'solution's either.

See, here is the thing, when Businesses raise the price tag on a product or service based on the direct relationship between added cost, keeping the profit margin constant, the percentage remains unchanged. When it raises the cost based on wanting a better cut, it too many times is traced back to it being a Government Sponsored Monopoly, where the Government, the Silent Partner is also being compensated, contrary to fair market value. Still, the purchase is generally voluntary, at least to some extent.
When Government raises revenue, increasing the percentage of tax it takes effecting the ratio, increasing it's share, while diminishing ours, it effects the balance of our relationship. Oppression is oppression, by any name. We the People, recognize both the need for Government, and what happens when it's limits are ignored. When you act beyond consent, there are complications. Some of them from conception, compound the crime. What we need is good Government. You do seem to be at war with the Private Sector. You have issues there. Me, personally, I am just trying to survive. We are all Human Beings first, regardless of where one's income comes from. Best not to forget that.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

Edmund Burke was praised by both conservatives and liberals in the 19th century. Since the 20th century, he has generally been viewed as the philosophical founder of modern Conservatism, as well as a representative of classical liberalism.

I am not at war with the private sector. It is the people on the right who are at war with government. They WORSHIP the wealthy and the private sector and believe wealth = virtue. And they also believe those same wealthy people in the private sector will be good actors in the marketplace if only government evaporates.

It is a huge falsehood. The financial collapse was caused by feeble government.