What we may end up with is

[Foxfyre]

. . . sometimes ancient values get in the way of common sense public policy. In this particular instance we're discussing public health policy. I don't think that any of us are arguing that people should be denied access to health care – the argument is about the appropriate mechanism(s) to ensure that happens. However when someone advocates DIY surgery at home I'll concede.

It has been a tendency for one side of the discussion to point to failings in health care systems. The Daily Mail in the UK is a great source of stories about the horrors of the NHS. And the distal cause of most of these incidents? Underfunding.

Yes, that's it, underfunding. The mechanism is fine, the fuel to drive the mechanism is the problem behind these incidents. Sometimes someone will argue that a surgeon taking out the wrong lung is due to “socialised health care”. No it isn't, it's called incompetence and it occurs regardless of the provision mechanism.

You have pointed to failings in the Canadian system (actually it's not a national system, it's provincially based and that might he one of the problems). Some provincial governments are stubbornly opposed to a two-tier system. I dsiagree with that.

It's good policy to have a two-tier system where those with cash or those who can afford insurance can get preferential treatment. This is a good thing because it's the case that more people can afford to pay directly or via insurance than there are those who can't afford to do either. That's a sort of crude utilitarian view but there is a benefit in that it reduces the load on the public system which allows the public system to be used by those who can't afford the private system.

In Canada some of the provinces have outlawed a two-tier system, I think Ontario is one of them. That's short-sighted, even here in notoriously (well we think we are) egalitarian Australia we have a two-tier system – sometimes pragmatism beats principle.

I'm addressing the general expression of disagreement now, not your points specifically Foxfyre.

Much of the popular opposition to Obama's healthcare reforms has been based on the values that have been discussed. I'm afraid though it seems to me that those opponents have been blinded by mythology. Now they are not alone, we all love to think of ourselves, our societies, in positive terms, expressing the social values that we learned as children, but sometimes they have to be set aside and we have to take a good hard look at our society without the comforting mythologies. The US has a failed health care system when it's examined objectively. If you're wealthy or insured you're okay, if you're neither than you're not okay. But you should be. No-one in a civilised society should be denied health care simply because they can't afford to pay for it. That's the sentiment that underpins my position that a form of universal health care - hybrid models included - is necessary for any society. I keep making the point that the free market is fine for commodities but not for essentials such as health care but the ideology of the free market is strongly held in the US and that ideology is what drives opposition to the reforms. I'm arguing to dump the ideology, it doesn't make sense in terms of public health policy.

The vested interests have marshalled opposition to the reforms by playing on Americans' basic values. To me that's tantamount to propagandising of the worst type. I'm always a bit annoyed when, in a political discussion the Trots bang on about the "false consciousness of the working class". I agree with them that it does exist but I hate the bloody patronising attitude they evince about it. But at the risk of being accused of patronising the opposition in this discussion there is a false consciousness at work where the vested interests have disguised their real motives for opposing the reforms. Instead of admitting naked economic self-interest they have grabbed the flag to cover up those real motives and many Americans have been conned.

I tried to rep you for your comments here and kudos for a most competent argument. Alas, the game says I still have spread some rep, so I'll get back to you on that.

I don't think the American passion for individual liberties is based on ideology as much as it is based on what we believe to be an inate yearning of humankind for freedom. We were just the first country to embrace a government by the people, of the people, and for the people, and it has worked. And though circumstances change, climate changes, the boundaries defining nations change, culture changes, etc. the core principles those freedoms are based on remain constant.

Having said that, I think you would be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't think that access to healthcare should be available to everybody. I think you would be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't think a moral society takes care of the helpless and most unfortunate among us.

The argument comes into whether it is the people will assign that responsibility to themselves or whether they will make it a prerogative of government along with the powers to implement it.

We are already seeing the consequences of allowing government such power. We are witnessing the waste, the deception, the corruption, the graft, and the self-serving power and benefit grabs that are the result of a government with too much power. For instance, those staffers who wrote the clause requiring all other Americans to adhere to the rules and regulations mandated for the people exempted themselves from those rules and regulations and ensured themselves the cadillac plans enjoyed by the President and Congress.

We are witnessing the authorization of 152 new bureaucracies and boards to implement the new plan and tens of thousands of new government jobs, all that will be paid for by the taxpayer even as more federalizing of non related items buried in the bill kill tens of thousands more private sector jobs.

And we are witnessing deception re the cost being fed to the unaware and gullible. It will be no time at all that we will be like Ontario with 85% of the national budget swallowed up by this growing monstrosity. As Thomas Sowell noted a couple of days ago, once the government has our medical records and the power to tell us what healthcare we or our loved ones will be allowed to have, who would dare oppose them and be at risk of retaliation?

It is not the concept of making healthcare affordable and accessible to Americans that is at issue at here.

It is the principle of individual freedom and the process that is at issue.

The process other places may be better.

The process here so far sucks big time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre, we are witnessing this because the private industry failed miserably to address the problem. Instead it was off galloping after obscene profit. The Dems saw the golden opportunity and took it.

Nothing the Pubs can do can rectify this reality. We are not going to repeal or replace. However, the Pubs and the Dems can reform.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre, we are witnessing this because the private industry failed miserably to address the problem. Instead it was off galloping after obscene profit. The Dems saw the golden opportunity and took it.

Nothing the Pubs can do can rectify this reality. We are not going to repeal or replace. However, the Pubs and the Dems can reform.

Private industry was doing just fine until government got involved in the first place. And the more government got invoved, the more it all went to hell in a hand basket. And just as throwing more money at problems that money has not solved in the past is likely to solve problems now, more government is not the answer to reforming healthcare in this country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Simply far right corporatist talking points, foxfyre. From tainted meat to bad drugs to terrible working conditions to whatever, industry has never policed itself properly in relationship to the consumers they serve. Business brought it on by itself, nothing else. Insurance companies could have changed the ways things were done anytime.

They did not do so, and nothing (absolutely nothing) can excuse the industry's abysmal failure to police itself.

 

[Foxfyre]

The function of government should be to secure our rights, Jake, and if that involves regulation to keep industry from violating our rights, then that regulation is a valid function of government.

The function of government is not to take the place of industry.

 

[Oddball]

Most real republicans would already know that.

That oughta tell you somenting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The function of government should be to secure our rights, Jake, and if that involves regulation to keep industry from violating our rights, then that regulation is a valid function of government.

The function of government is not to take the place of industry.

If industry is abusing its consumers and protecting our society (an health is a national treasure), then of course govt should step in.

Business brought this on. Nothing else. 'Cause if it were doing its job well, then none of this would have happened.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most real republicans would already know that.

That oughta tell you somenting.

Well there are a few RINOs who would make much better Democrats than Republicans, and a few imposters that I would dearly like to bounce right out of Washington. The only reason some of those folks are still Republican is because the Democrat Party has steered too far left even for them.

Why Jake pretends to be a Republican, I can only surmise that it is an attention-grabbing gimmick, because as bad as some of them are, I don't know ANY Republicans who are as pro-big government and anti-American as that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ff, much of the party had room for dissent and discussion before 1980, when the whacko wing went to work in wiggling its way into the mainstream of Republicanism. What an unmitigated disaster since then. And truly I don't care at all what you think about me and the GOP: you are irrelevant to that.

 

[jeffrockit]

jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?

Because the free market works when it is actually free and not govt mandated or govt interfered. Do you really have confidence in the govt to run your healthcare? Do you truly believe the politicians have your best interest in mind; I know you don't think the free market does but want to know your opinion on politicians taking control.

The free market is fine where it is appropriate. And where it is appropriate is where the twin laws of demand and supply can work to ensure that there is equilibrium. My contention is that the mechanism of demand and supply should not be used in the provision of health care because while health care has a cost, it shouldn't have a price. Having a price means that it must be purchased, if someone can't purchase it then they don't get it. And I don't think that should be the case.

Do I have confidence in the government to run health care? Yes I do. Why? Because they run everything else pretty well. I know that will be anathema to those who fondly cling to the idea that government is bad or incompetent or to be feared but really there's no evidence for that, it's a form of mythology that must be dispensed with.

Politicians, like everyone else, have their own best interests in mind at any time. Why do you think so many of them are trying to bring down the Obama health reforms?

In response to what I bolded from your response first:
They don't run everything else pretty well. The post office is on the verge of collapse with billions of dollars of debt Post office ends 2008 with $2.8 billion debt - The Daily Breeze
the lines/waits for most govt agencies are extremely long and they are woefully inefficient (DMV, SS office and etc)
Social Security this year paid out more than it took in: The Associated Press: Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs.
Medicare in the beginning estimated the cost at 9 billion by the year 1990 but was actually at 67 billion. Health Care Reform Cost Estimates: What is the Track Record? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Name one govt agency that "runs pretty well" compared to a private entity doing the same. As an example UPS verses the PO.

If private businesses were run like this, they would be out of business but because the govt has a seemingly endless money supply (tax dollars), and do not have to make a profit to stay in business, their life span is limitless.

Your statement on politicians seems to only address the opposition to HC, while I stated that both sides are equally as power hungry. Do you disagree?

Last point is that if you mark everything that makes a profit as bad if it supplies something people need, where would you put the grocery business, electric companies, gas companies and etc. Should they be govt run also? You do realize that the profits for the health corps does not even rank in the top 50. They are around 3%. The govt mandates were a big factor in the high cost of HC, ie; why does a 60 year old woman have to have to purchase insurance with maternity coverage. Mandates by the govt!

The main problem with the HC legislation is that it does not address most of the problems that causes the high costs such as hospital charges, charges for tests, pharmaceuticals (the govt cut a sweetheart deal with them months ago) The White House deal with Big Pharma undermines democracy - Healthcare Reform | Obama Health Care Plan - Salon.com

 

[Diuretic]

. . . sometimes ancient values get in the way of common sense public policy. In this particular instance we're discussing public health policy. I don't think that any of us are arguing that people should be denied access to health care – the argument is about the appropriate mechanism(s) to ensure that happens. However when someone advocates DIY surgery at home I'll concede.

It has been a tendency for one side of the discussion to point to failings in health care systems. The Daily Mail in the UK is a great source of stories about the horrors of the NHS. And the distal cause of most of these incidents? Underfunding.

Yes, that's it, underfunding. The mechanism is fine, the fuel to drive the mechanism is the problem behind these incidents. Sometimes someone will argue that a surgeon taking out the wrong lung is due to “socialised health care”. No it isn't, it's called incompetence and it occurs regardless of the provision mechanism.

You have pointed to failings in the Canadian system (actually it's not a national system, it's provincially based and that might he one of the problems). Some provincial governments are stubbornly opposed to a two-tier system. I dsiagree with that.

It's good policy to have a two-tier system where those with cash or those who can afford insurance can get preferential treatment. This is a good thing because it's the case that more people can afford to pay directly or via insurance than there are those who can't afford to do either. That's a sort of crude utilitarian view but there is a benefit in that it reduces the load on the public system which allows the public system to be used by those who can't afford the private system.

In Canada some of the provinces have outlawed a two-tier system, I think Ontario is one of them. That's short-sighted, even here in notoriously (well we think we are) egalitarian Australia we have a two-tier system – sometimes pragmatism beats principle.

I'm addressing the general expression of disagreement now, not your points specifically Foxfyre.

Much of the popular opposition to Obama's healthcare reforms has been based on the values that have been discussed. I'm afraid though it seems to me that those opponents have been blinded by mythology. Now they are not alone, we all love to think of ourselves, our societies, in positive terms, expressing the social values that we learned as children, but sometimes they have to be set aside and we have to take a good hard look at our society without the comforting mythologies. The US has a failed health care system when it's examined objectively. If you're wealthy or insured you're okay, if you're neither than you're not okay. But you should be. No-one in a civilised society should be denied health care simply because they can't afford to pay for it. That's the sentiment that underpins my position that a form of universal health care - hybrid models included - is necessary for any society. I keep making the point that the free market is fine for commodities but not for essentials such as health care but the ideology of the free market is strongly held in the US and that ideology is what drives opposition to the reforms. I'm arguing to dump the ideology, it doesn't make sense in terms of public health policy.

The vested interests have marshalled opposition to the reforms by playing on Americans' basic values. To me that's tantamount to propagandising of the worst type. I'm always a bit annoyed when, in a political discussion the Trots bang on about the "false consciousness of the working class". I agree with them that it does exist but I hate the bloody patronising attitude they evince about it. But at the risk of being accused of patronising the opposition in this discussion there is a false consciousness at work where the vested interests have disguised their real motives for opposing the reforms. Instead of admitting naked economic self-interest they have grabbed the flag to cover up those real motives and many Americans have been conned.

I tried to rep you for your comments here and kudos for a most competent argument. Alas, the game says I still have spread some rep, so I'll get back to you on that.

I don't think the American passion for individual liberties is based on ideology as much as it is based on what we believe to be an inate yearning of humankind for freedom. We were just the first country to embrace a government by the people, of the people, and for the people, and it has worked. And though circumstances change, climate changes, the boundaries defining nations change, culture changes, etc. the core principles those freedoms are based on remain constant.

Having said that, I think you would be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't think that access to healthcare should be available to everybody. I think you would be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't think a moral society takes care of the helpless and most unfortunate among us.

The argument comes into whether it is the people will assign that responsibility to themselves or whether they will make it a prerogative of government along with the powers to implement it.

We are already seeing the consequences of allowing government such power. We are witnessing the waste, the deception, the corruption, the graft, and the self-serving power and benefit grabs that are the result of a government with too much power. For instance, those staffers who wrote the clause requiring all other Americans to adhere to the rules and regulations mandated for the people exempted themselves from those rules and regulations and ensured themselves the cadillac plans enjoyed by the President and Congress.

We are witnessing the authorization of 152 new bureaucracies and boards to implement the new plan and tens of thousands of new government jobs, all that will be paid for by the taxpayer even as more federalizing of non related items buried in the bill kill tens of thousands more private sector jobs.

And we are witnessing deception re the cost being fed to the unaware and gullible. It will be no time at all that we will be like Ontario with 85% of the national budget swallowed up by this growing monstrosity. As Thomas Sowell noted a couple of days ago, once the government has our medical records and the power to tell us what healthcare we or our loved ones will be allowed to have, who would dare oppose them and be at risk of retaliation?

It is not the concept of making healthcare affordable and accessible to Americans that is at issue at here.

It is the principle of individual freedom and the process that is at issue.

The process other places may be better.

The process here so far sucks big time.

Agreed on your point about the US and its spirit of freed. And that allows me to re-think my position. Having done so then it seems to me that the concept of “freedom” is being used as a propaganda weapon against a perfectly reasonable public policy that doesn't in fact deny freedom, in fact it guarantees freedom, freedom from fear of financial destruction due to ill health.

Having said that, I think you would be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't think that access to healthcare should be available to everybody. I think you would be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't think a moral society takes care of the helpless and most unfortunate among us.

Point taken.

The argument comes into whether it is the people will assign that responsibility to themselves or whether they will make it a prerogative of government along with the powers to implement it.

And this goes to the apparently troubled relationship between the people and government. In your previous comment you said, We were just the first country to embrace a government by the people, of the people, and for the people, and it has worked. Is it now broken?

We are already seeing the consequences of allowing government such power. We are witnessing the waste, the deception, the corruption, the graft, and the self-serving power and benefit grabs that are the result of a government with too much power. For instance, those staffers who wrote the clause requiring all other Americans to adhere to the rules and regulations mandated for the people exempted themselves from those rules and regulations and ensured themselves the cadillac plans enjoyed by the President and Congress.

That's not the fault of “government”, it's a problem with the body politic.

We are witnessing the authorization of 152 new bureaucracies and boards to implement the new plan and tens of thousands of new government jobs, all that will be paid for by the taxpayer even as more federalizing of non related items buried in the bill kill tens of thousands more private sector jobs.

I must admit I still can't believe you put up with the legislature being able to corrupt bills.

And we are witnessing deception re the cost being fed to the unaware and gullible. It will be no time at all that we will be like Ontario with 85% of the national budget swallowed up by this growing monstrosity. As Thomas Sowell noted a couple of days ago, once the government has our medical records and the power to tell us what healthcare we or our loved ones will be allowed to have, who would dare oppose them and be at risk of retaliation?

Is that going to happen? If it is then something is wrong with it and it needs to be corrected. But is it any different to insurance companies doing the same?

It is not the concept of making healthcare affordable and accessible to Americans that is at issue at here.

It is the principle of individual freedom and the process that is at issue.

The process other places may be better.

The process here so far sucks big time.

The process can be fixed but to be fixed first it has to be accepted in principle. If the rejection is simply on the grounds of “individual freedom” being violated then that takes me back to my first point about propaganda.

If it can be proven that "freedom" in fact isn't being violated by this policy, will that reduce the opposition? Or is that emotional appeal going to be used by the vested interests to oppose what is really a fairly moderate public policy? It would be a bit sad if that were the case.

 

[Diuretic]

Because the free market works when it is actually free and not govt mandated or govt interfered. Do you really have confidence in the govt to run your healthcare? Do you truly believe the politicians have your best interest in mind; I know you don't think the free market does but want to know your opinion on politicians taking control.

The free market is fine where it is appropriate. And where it is appropriate is where the twin laws of demand and supply can work to ensure that there is equilibrium. My contention is that the mechanism of demand and supply should not be used in the provision of health care because while health care has a cost, it shouldn't have a price. Having a price means that it must be purchased, if someone can't purchase it then they don't get it. And I don't think that should be the case.

Do I have confidence in the government to run health care? Yes I do. Why? Because they run everything else pretty well. I know that will be anathema to those who fondly cling to the idea that government is bad or incompetent or to be feared but really there's no evidence for that, it's a form of mythology that must be dispensed with.

Politicians, like everyone else, have their own best interests in mind at any time. Why do you think so many of them are trying to bring down the Obama health reforms?

In response to what I bolded from your response first:
They don't run everything else pretty well. The post office is on the verge of collapse with billions of dollars of debt Post office ends 2008 with $2.8 billion debt - The Daily Breeze
the lines/waits for most govt agencies are extremely long and they are woefully inefficient (DMV, SS office and etc)
Social Security this year paid out more than it took in: The Associated Press: Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs.
Medicare in the beginning estimated the cost at 9 billion by the year 1990 but was actually at 67 billion. Health Care Reform Cost Estimates: What is the Track Record? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Name one govt agency that "runs pretty well" compared to a private entity doing the same. As an example UPS verses the PO.

If private businesses were run like this, they would be out of business but because the govt has a seemingly endless money supply (tax dollars), and do not have to make a profit to stay in business, their life span is limitless.

Your statement on politicians seems to only address the opposition to HC, while I stated that both sides are equally as power hungry. Do you disagree?

Last point is that if you mark everything that makes a profit as bad if it supplies something people need, where would you put the grocery business, electric companies, gas companies and etc. Should they be govt run also? You do realize that the profits for the health corps does not even rank in the top 50. They are around 3%. The govt mandates were a big factor in the high cost of HC, ie; why does a 60 year old woman have to have to purchase insurance with maternity coverage. Mandates by the govt!

The main problem with the HC legislation is that it does not address most of the problems that causes the high costs such as hospital charges, charges for tests, pharmaceuticals (the govt cut a sweetheart deal with them months ago) The White House deal with Big Pharma undermines democracy - Healthcare Reform | Obama Health Care Plan - Salon.com

In response to what I bolded from your response first:
They don't run everything else pretty well. The post office is on the verge of collapse with billions of dollars of debt Post office ends 2008 with $2.8 billion debt - The Daily Breeze
the lines/waits for most govt agencies are extremely long and they are woefully inefficient (DMV, SS office and etc)

Do you have a lot of private competitors up against your federal postal service?

DMV is state right? Easy fixed, why queue when you can do things online? It used to be like that here too, hell of a pain in the arse, now I register my car online and can do just about anything except renew my driver's licence online (bastards like taking crappy photos of my ugly mug – well serves them right)

Social Security this year paid out more than it took in: The Associated Press: Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs.
Medicare in the beginning estimated the cost at 9 billion by the year 1990 but was actually at 67 billion. Health Care Reform Cost Estimates: What is the Track Record? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Name one govt agency that "runs pretty well" compared to a private entity doing the same. As an example UPS verses the PO.

How about I address UPS v PO first? How is the PO funded? Fixed budget? Or is it permitted to get out there and compete against UPS without any restrictions whatsoever? How about this – remove the PO and watch what happens to prices of retail postal services. Do you think that perhaps the PO even existing in the first place means its competitors are somewhat inhibited from going for broke in terms of pricing?


If private businesses were run like this, they would be out of business but because the govt has a seemingly endless money supply (tax dollars), and do not have to make a profit to stay in business, their life span is limitless.

Some of the problems your government departments have are caused by under-funding. They are under-funded because politicians are reluctant to raise taxes. Unlike a government department which is funded from tax which is set by politicians who are elected, companies can issue stocks and raise capital in various means while taking advantage of the ability to invest money elsewhere to get returns which can then be put back into the business. Government departments can't do this so they suffer in terms of efficiency due to chronic under-funding. However no doubt you will be happy to know that the Defense Department is not so stricken. And while the private sector is trying to muscle in on the DD's work I don't think the private ones will ever be able to do what the military forces do.


Your statement on politicians seems to only address the opposition to HC, while I stated that both sides are equally as power hungry. Do you disagree?

The motivations of political parties and politicians themselves are myriad.

Last point is that if you mark everything that makes a profit as bad if it supplies something people need, where would you put the grocery business, electric companies, gas companies and etc. Should they be govt run also? You do realize that the profits for the health corps does not even rank in the top 50. They are around 3%. The govt mandates were a big factor in the high cost of HC, ie; why does a 60 year old woman have to have to purchase insurance with maternity coverage. Mandates by the govt!

Let me give you a personal story, if I may. Back in the early 1980s I went on a campervan trip around Europe. Big adventure. Some of the places I visited were the then Czechoslovakia (Stalinist), Hungary (market socialist) and Yugoslavia (Titoist). Czechoslovakia was like being in a Cold War movie with the script written by Le Carre; Hungary was much more relaxed and had more of a consumer society; Yugoslavia was somewhere in between. But in Yugoslavia I got trapped in the aftermath of a dispute the fed government was having with its oil suppliers and everyone was on ration cards for fuel. I crossed from Macedonia (south of Skopje) into northern Greece (near Thessaloniki) and the first thing I saw as I crossed at night in Greece was a bloody big Mobil sign.

I have no problems with businesses making a profit, trust me.


The main problem with the HC legislation is that it does not address most of the problems that causes the high costs such as hospital charges, charges for tests, pharmaceuticals (the govt cut a sweetheart deal with them months ago) The White House deal with Big Pharma undermines democracy - Healthcare Reform | Obama Health Care Plan – Salon.com

Point taken but maybe this is the best they can do. Perhaps if the opposition wasn't befuddling the issues with propaganda then Americans could be permitted to see the issues a little more clearly and could work for a better system than exists now or is currently on offer. That's my beef, the bullshit bluster is working and it's hurting you. You're damn right that cosying up between big corporations and government is anti-democratic, it happens in my country too and I'm not too bloody happy about it.

 

[saveliberty]

jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?

Because the free market works when it is actually free and not govt mandated or govt interfered. Do you really have confidence in the govt to run your healthcare? Do you truly believe the politicians have your best interest in mind; I know you don't think the free market does but want to know your opinion on politicians taking control.

The free market is fine where it is appropriate. And where it is appropriate is where the twin laws of demand and supply can work to ensure that there is equilibrium. My contention is that the mechanism of demand and supply should not be used in the provision of health care because while health care has a cost, it shouldn't have a price. Having a price means that it must be purchased, if someone can't purchase it then they don't get it. And I don't think that should be the case.

Do I have confidence in the government to run health care? Yes I do. Why? Because they run everything else pretty well. I know that will be anathema to those who fondly cling to the idea that government is bad or incompetent or to be feared but really there's no evidence for that, it's a form of mythology that must be dispensed with.

Politicians, like everyone else, have their own best interests in mind at any time. Why do you think so many of them are trying to bring down the Obama health reforms?

Government runs everything else pretty well? Just what are your standards? You might want to consider how the following agencies are run:

USPS
Amtrak
VA
Medicare (annual fraud totals)
FEMA
Immigration
Dept. of Education

 

[Diuretic]

Because the free market works when it is actually free and not govt mandated or govt interfered. Do you really have confidence in the govt to run your healthcare? Do you truly believe the politicians have your best interest in mind; I know you don't think the free market does but want to know your opinion on politicians taking control.

The free market is fine where it is appropriate. And where it is appropriate is where the twin laws of demand and supply can work to ensure that there is equilibrium. My contention is that the mechanism of demand and supply should not be used in the provision of health care because while health care has a cost, it shouldn't have a price. Having a price means that it must be purchased, if someone can't purchase it then they don't get it. And I don't think that should be the case.

Do I have confidence in the government to run health care? Yes I do. Why? Because they run everything else pretty well. I know that will be anathema to those who fondly cling to the idea that government is bad or incompetent or to be feared but really there's no evidence for that, it's a form of mythology that must be dispensed with.

Politicians, like everyone else, have their own best interests in mind at any time. Why do you think so many of them are trying to bring down the Obama health reforms?

Government runs everything else pretty well? Just what are your standards? You might want to consider how the following agencies are run:

USPS
Amtrak
VA
Medicare (annual fraud totals)
FEMA
Immigration
Dept. of Education

As opposed to:

Enron
Worldcom
Lehman Brothers
Arthur Andersen

...................

Need I go on?

The GFC wasn't started by governments.

And have you seen anyone run a war as well as the Defense Department?

Blackwater or XYZ or whatever they call themselves nowadays wouldn't hold a bloody candle to DD.

Horses for courses.

 

[Foxfyre]

The free market is fine where it is appropriate. And where it is appropriate is where the twin laws of demand and supply can work to ensure that there is equilibrium. My contention is that the mechanism of demand and supply should not be used in the provision of health care because while health care has a cost, it shouldn't have a price. Having a price means that it must be purchased, if someone can't purchase it then they don't get it. And I don't think that should be the case.

Do I have confidence in the government to run health care? Yes I do. Why? Because they run everything else pretty well. I know that will be anathema to those who fondly cling to the idea that government is bad or incompetent or to be feared but really there's no evidence for that, it's a form of mythology that must be dispensed with.

Politicians, like everyone else, have their own best interests in mind at any time. Why do you think so many of them are trying to bring down the Obama health reforms?

Government runs everything else pretty well? Just what are your standards? You might want to consider how the following agencies are run:

USPS
Amtrak
VA
Medicare (annual fraud totals)
FEMA
Immigration
Dept. of Education

As opposed to:

Enron
Worldcom
Lehman Brothers
Arthur Andersen

...................

Need I go on?

The GFC wasn't started by governments.

And have you seen anyone run a war as well as the Defense Department?

Blackwater or XYZ or whatever they call themselves nowadays wouldn't hold a bloody candle to DD.

Horses for courses.

Enron et al was a signal that there needed to be stricter regulation of how companies treated and secured their employees' retirement funds. That falls under the banner of government securing our rights. The best solution for that situation, however, is for the employee and only the employee having possession and control of his own retirement account. Freedom. Liberty. If that had been the case, then there would have been no problem, other than temporary unemployment, for the employees when a company folded.

There will always be bad people however and there are already laws in place applying serious consequences to those who use their business to cheat or deceive people. The answer to that is strict enforcement of the law and not the government taking over the business.

Our government has Constitutional authority and responsibility to provide for the common defense so that is a legitimate function of government. And also in the interest of promoting the general welfare and common defense, it is also a Constitutional obligation of the federal government to keep communications open to all the people, so government operation of the post office is also a valid function even though private mail and package delivery services are generally far more efficient and less costly.

The bottom line is that a big, intrusive, all powerful, unwieldly, bloated, and inefficent bureaucratic government is not going to run much of anything as economically or effectively as can be done by he private sector, and there are very few programs run by the federal government that do not erode the freedoms, opportunities, options, and choices available to the people not even mentioning their pocketbooks.

That is why conservatives don't want the government doing much of anything that can be done more efficiently and effectively in the private sector. And that would include healthcare.

 

[saveliberty]

The free market is fine where it is appropriate. And where it is appropriate is where the twin laws of demand and supply can work to ensure that there is equilibrium. My contention is that the mechanism of demand and supply should not be used in the provision of health care because while health care has a cost, it shouldn't have a price. Having a price means that it must be purchased, if someone can't purchase it then they don't get it. And I don't think that should be the case.

Do I have confidence in the government to run health care? Yes I do. Why? Because they run everything else pretty well. I know that will be anathema to those who fondly cling to the idea that government is bad or incompetent or to be feared but really there's no evidence for that, it's a form of mythology that must be dispensed with.

Politicians, like everyone else, have their own best interests in mind at any time. Why do you think so many of them are trying to bring down the Obama health reforms?

Government runs everything else pretty well? Just what are your standards? You might want to consider how the following agencies are run:

USPS
Amtrak
VA
Medicare (annual fraud totals)
FEMA
Immigration
Dept. of Education

As opposed to:

Enron
Worldcom
Lehman Brothers
Arthur Andersen

...................

Need I go on?

The GFC wasn't started by governments.

And have you seen anyone run a war as well as the Defense Department?

Blackwater or XYZ or whatever they call themselves nowadays wouldn't hold a bloody candle to DD.

Horses for courses.

I claim the debate point as you totally abandoned your defense of government agencies.

 

[Foxfyre]

I claim the debate point as you totally abandoned your defense of government agencies.

And the judge would give you the point too, as throwing in a list of corporations within that context was at best non sequitur; at worst blatant red herring AND straw man.

 

[jdavij2003]

Yet another useful idiot.

When the fee/tax/fine is well below the costs for the insurance --and the Stalinist goombahs designing this scam damn well know it will be-- then all that will be in the real risk pool will be the highest risks.

The whole thing is designed to fail on purpose.

The point you are making is intriguing. Could you elaborate?

 

[jdavij2003]

Wah, wahhhhh............

It will work. And it will be amended until we have a true universal health care system, more than likely now, in my lifetime.

How can you be sure that "It will work"? And why are you okay with our government signing a bill that is in no way perfect into law? This law is the equivalent of putting a bandage on a severed artery.

 

[saveliberty]

Yet another useful idiot.

When the fee/tax/fine is well below the costs for the insurance --and the Stalinist goombahs designing this scam damn well know it will be-- then all that will be in the real risk pool will be the highest risks.

The whole thing is designed to fail on purpose.

The point you are making is intriguing. Could you elaborate?

For me, it means the socialist crowd plans on health care reform failing, so they can move to universal health care. They will point to too many people opting to pay the fine instead of getting coverage.

Why would someone choose not to have coverage? A young male with no known health problems may find paying a $750 fine preferable to paying $2,000/year for a policy. He is probably a pretty low risk. A 55 year old obese male smoker with high blood pressure and borderline blood sugar issues might see a policy as attractive at $2,500/yr, since he would have had to pay $750 anyways.