Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 361 of 440 (612811)
04-19-2011 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by marc9000
04-17-2011 4:27 PM


With social security, medicare, Medicaid, often free emergency room service, not so well these days. It worked out better in past generations, before these programs existed.
But of course other countries have gone even further in this direction and aren't so fat. So I would be skeptical about any suggestion of a causal relationship.
Yes, because the U.S. is currently saddled with governmental burdens that other nations don’t even think about. Its multi-billion dollar legal system is one, and its obsession with a worship of the environment is another.
Other counties have legal systems and are more environmentally conscious than the US (and I don't see how environmentalism cn screw up healthcare, nor do you suggest it).
onald Trump (one of the few political wannabe’s who knows something about building) has been recently pointing out the differences in U.S. vs China’s abilities to build. China makes decisions overnight, the U.S. often has to wait years, or decades, for self-serving environmentalists to do their work.
Ah, so you've found something you like about communist dictatorships. Sure, they have a tyrannical despotic government, but at least that government can screw up the environment and screw the people who live in it.
Me, I think that that's one of the many downsides of communist dictatorships, but then I'm not a conservative and find less to admire in such regimes than you do.
Behold the image of your utopia:
And the people who try to stop that from happening here you describe as self-serving? Well, I suppose since they like water that isn't red and air that isn't opaque they might be actuated entirely by selfish motives --- but given that you and I share those same preferences, it must at least be admitted that, even if inadvertently, they've done the rest of us a few favors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by marc9000, posted 04-17-2011 4:27 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 8:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 362 of 440 (612883)
04-19-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Jon
04-17-2011 4:53 PM


Re: Minnesota Care
In my state, Minnesota Care is government-run health insurance providing for the poor. It is run and funded by the government. Premiums (if they exist) are low and dependent on income. Copays are low, and there are laws preventing service providers from refusing people who have not been able to pay their first copay.
The program is established enough that almost any doctor/hospital/etc. in the state will accept it for payment (were Minnesota Care the only insurer, everybody would accept it). Minnesota Care uses a special system that determines the actual cost of treatment (as opposed to the billed cost) and only pays the service providers for the actual cost (were it not for the greedy insurance companies, the actual cost and billed cost would be the same).
Overall it is an excellent program. If the U.S. could move to offering a universal program of such a sort to people, it would go a long way to helping the poor get access to necessary medical treatments. Again, it's not perfectfar from it, but it is certainly better than the do-nothing approach favored by the current Thuglican party and its deluded membership masses.
I think you'd find that a lot of Republicans favor state run programs. States have much more incentive to get things like this right, because there's a sort of "competition" with other states. The federal government has no such competition. The U.S. founders knew this too - they were much more restrictive on federal powers than they were on state powers.
I don't think you understand what the slippery slope fallacy is:
I understand what it is. I just don't agree with those who say;
quote:
each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn.
Why is that? If there is a suspicion that one loss of liberty can lead to another loss of liberty, the removal of the first liberty needs to be decided with that possibility in mind. It's happened too many times in the past. Remember "no smoking on airline flights of two hours or less"? Many people then suspected that it would lead to no smoking on all airline flights, but they probably couldn't forsee it leading to bans in all public places in entire cities. The slippery slope is very slippery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Jon, posted 04-17-2011 4:53 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Theodoric, posted 04-19-2011 8:51 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 369 by Jon, posted 04-19-2011 9:18 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 363 of 440 (612884)
04-19-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by crashfrog
04-17-2011 6:08 PM


marc9000 writes:
Because in a new government health care system, there are no unchangeable, set-in-concrete guidelines that the government has to follow.
I don't see how that answers the question I asked you, but traditionally what you're talking about are called "laws."
Government bureaucracies go far beyond laws passed by congress to carry out their mission. As only one example, the EPA sets its pollution standards according to its own ‘expertise;, and levels fines and orders changes in manufacturing standards (or any traditional behavior) to see that its own standards are met. Any new government agency in charge of health care will make many decisions about how health care is administered that have nothing to do with laws.
marc9000 writes:
Yes. I think many people, often younger people in the U.S. without health insurance, do tend to think twice before doing something physically risky.
Also not what I asked. What I asked was, do insured people, in your view, act more recklessly? I'm asking you about a causative relationship between "owning insurance" and "reckless behavior."
And I answered it EXACTLY. I said yes, and I explained that uninsured people do have good reason to be more careful in some instances, so a comparable-in-every-way insured person could very well be more reckless.
Isn't getting insurance actually a really prudent thing to do?
In a free society, it should be up to an individual. It’s not prudent in every situation for every person for every type of insurance. Example, I live at a very high elevation, 600 miles or so from the ocean. I don’t think it would be prudent for me to spend my money on flood insurance.
marc9000 writes:
The problem is, the insurance industry isn’t 100% free markets anymore, not since government requires some types of insurance, or since some corruption is involved in the insurance business today.
You're right! What a hugely market-distorting, government free-ride these health insurance companies have been getting! Surely they would have gone out of business ages ago in a free market, right? It's long past time we got rid of these lumbering dinosaurs.
Not get rid of them, just un-do the problems that have crept into them over the last 50 or 60 years.
Only because medicine is getting more expensive. That's happening in private markets, too. Obviously, single-payer has to come with mechanisms to control the growth of health service expenditures.
Free markets can control the growth of health service expenditures. But the markets aren’t free when the government is commanding insurance companies to pay for certain things, like power chairs, prescription drugs, and other things that insurance companies weren’t required to pay for only a few decades ago. It’s the common problem, failed big government always results in cries for more big government to fix it.
For that matter - not going to single-payer, or going to whatever your free-market wet dream would be, also has to come with mechanisms to control the growth of health service expenditures.
That mechanism is, when no one, or not enough people, are buying the service! If few people are interested in paying to have a baboon heart transplanted into them, those in the medical community who are doing research on how to do that will have to find something else to do to make a living. Something people are willing to pay for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by crashfrog, posted 04-17-2011 6:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-19-2011 9:49 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 388 by crashfrog, posted 04-20-2011 10:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 364 of 440 (612887)
04-19-2011 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by ZenMonkey
04-17-2011 9:56 PM


Stop. Just stop right there.
NO ONE IS ASKING THE GOVERNMENT TO CREATE A PARADISE ON EARTH. Where do you even get that?
I get it from all these claims that people still get sick, can’t afford health care, get left out in the free market system, and therefore we need the government to take over. If the government can’t perfectly fix these problems, why make changes/give them control of the situation, in a country that really does have good cancer survival rates, and a higher-than-normal amount of technical medical equipment?
Is anyone here asking for cable TV and Tivo for everyone, 151 channels? Or free legal counsel for all? Or government laundry services to come to your house and wash your sheets for you? All-you-can-eat ice cream on Sunday?
Not YET. In the 1960’s, it would have been equally laughable for anyone to be asking for free medical care.
Remember the General Welfare clause in the Constitution? You could go all the way back and start arguing with Alexander Hamilton about it, but it's well established by now that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes at its discretion for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the people.
Rather than try to argue with Hamiltion, it makes much more sense to take note of what prominent founders actually had to say on the subject.
quote:
Jefferson; "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Madison; "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Today’s Democrat party obviously takes them in a literal and unlimited sense. Intent of the framers doesn’t concern today’s Democrat party, and the historically illiterate people who vote for them.
The concept of what that general welfare consists of has changed and expanded over time, and that's been for the good. For example, the Founders couldn't have foreseen the hell on earth that was the Chicago stockyards at the turn of the previous century, but do you want to argue that the Pure Food and Drug Act, that at least minimizes the amount of rat droppings in your Big Mac, is a bad thing? Do you want to get rid of the Fair Labor Standards Act so 12 year-olds can start putting in 80 hour work weeks again? I suspect that you just might, but I'd like to hear you say it.
Those should be state issues. The modernization of society shouldn't change the basics in how new issues should be handled.
In 1783 state of the art medicine in the western world was leech-craft and mustard plasters. Times have changed. Medicine can do a lot more, and health care has gotten more complicated and more expensive. No one is asking for free hair implants and boob jobs on demand.
No one? Have you ever heard a teenage girl in a shrill voice demand that her birth control pills be paid for by her HMO? I have. So you think there’s no chance that any type of cosmetic surgery will ever be publicly paid for in a government run health care system?
I'll say it again: Insurance companies do not ever provide health care. They are explicitly in the business of preventing people from getting health care.
They’re the same as any other business, they provide a product/service that their customers are willing to pay for. If they don’t honor their commitments, they don’t stay in business very long.
So the solution to insurance companies taking advantage of people (sorta like how hyenas "take advantage" of baby gazelles) is ... more economic freedom for insurance companies?
Current economic freedom that insurance companies have works. By about 2004/2005, prices started falling again. A thing called competition (free markets) caused that to happen.
But I would go so far as to say that most of the things that are screwed up with how government does things stem from how much it's beholden to the interests of corporate America. For the most part it works. For less than 50 cents you can send a letter from Alaska to Alabama. Try getting FedEx to do that.
And the post office consistently loses money, and requires additional public funding. If two or three companies were competing with each other for the mail transporting business, I’d bet a letter could be sent for still less than 50 cents, with no additional funding required. A lot of interstate mail transportation is currently done by private companies. It’s done that way because it’s cheaper, and more efficient.
Despite what you keep asserting, the fact is that a government sponsored single payer system would be obligated to provide affordable health care, in the same way that the fire department is obligated to put out fires and the Transportation Security Administration is obligated to strip you down to your underwear to make sure you don't have any tweezers before letting you on a plane. Wait, that last one wasn't so good. Anyway, government is far more answerable to the public than corporations, who are purely motivated by profit and are answerable only to the shareholders.
They’re answerable to the people they sell their products to — they have to compete with others for those peoples’ business. The government doesn’t have to worry about losing business to competition.
And again, the answer to unrestrained corporate greed is ... fewer restrictions? Do you wonder why people in other countries aren't as sue-happy as Americans are?
Probably because they don’t have ambulance chasing lawyers loading up their air waves with advertising. I remember when it was illegal for them to do it in the U.S. Yes, sometimes government can be good!
Law firms see a profit in suing insurance companies, insurance companies raise premiums on health-care providers, health care becomes more and more expensive and out of reach for the average citizen. Who makes out in the end? Law firms and insurance companies. Take private insurance out of the equation, and I suspect that that whirlpool of piranhas will calm down quite a bit.
Insurance companies do actually make out better when they’re sued more, because it frightens more people into buying their insurance. But it’s not their fault, it’s the fault of the legal system that allows law firms to do it.
What exactly has the EPA done to you, except try to hold down the amount of acid rain dissolving the forests, to not have quite so many open strip-mines, and to keep paper-mills from dumping quite so much toxic waste in the river?
During the Clinton administration, the EPA looked at the crystal clear blue skies over the Cincinnati area, and told us our air was actually very filthy, and commanded me and everyone else to line up like sheep and pay to have our vehicles tested in order to get our license registrations renewed. Never mind what the fourth amendment says about all encompassing searches.
Oh my, some companies could be making a lot more money if they just didn't have to control how much pollution they poured out into the environment. You apparently don't, but I believe that a few limits on profits is a small price to pay if it at least slows down the process of turning this country into a smoldering, treeless toxic dump.
Anyone who thinks the government is the only thing that can prevent a complete environmental meltdown has no belief whatsoever in U.S. foundings, or the concept of personal liberty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-17-2011 9:56 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Jon, posted 04-19-2011 11:12 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 376 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2011 3:37 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 395 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-21-2011 9:30 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 399 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2011 4:13 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9283
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 365 of 440 (612888)
04-19-2011 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by marc9000
04-19-2011 8:20 PM


Re: Minnesota Care
I think you'd find that a lot of Republicans favor state run programs.
The republicans are trying to shut these state programs down. They are working hard to shut down Minnesota Care and Badgercare here in Wisconsin. They want the poor and disabled to fend for themselves

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 8:20 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 9:03 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 378 by hooah212002, posted 04-20-2011 10:50 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 366 of 440 (612889)
04-19-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by New Cat's Eye
04-18-2011 3:34 PM


Well I appreciate seeing fresh opinions here so thanks for sharing.
Thanks. But fresh? Fresh for what, EvC forums, or the scientific community? My style of conservatism/tradition isn’t all that fresh in many places, it’s pretty common. I suspect that the scientific community is largely in favor of government health care. Much more so than the general population. Why? — because it gets them closer to be able to play god.
I'm a middle class property owner who's on the right side of the political spectrum, but I'm not sure I should call myself a Republican.
I don’t think it’s important for anyone (who's not somehow involved in political party operations) to identify with a political party, as if that party dictates how they think. My opinions are based on what I know about U.S. and world history, how it shows past human reaction to certain situations. I look at U.S. foundings, quotes of its founders like Madison, and see how they square with the realities of current events, and history. Madison wasn’t necessarily a Republican, but of course he was nothing like today’s Democrats.
There's a lot that I disagree with you on, but some of it did make sense. I have a lot of catching up here before I can meaningfully reply... and by the time I get done, it'll prolly be closed
I don’t know, so far admin has let us play all we want in this thread [furiously knocking on wood] - I hope it stays that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2011 3:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-19-2011 10:18 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 377 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2011 10:18 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 367 of 440 (612891)
04-19-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2011 12:36 AM


Ah, so you've found something you like about communist dictatorships. Sure, they have a tyrannical despotic government, but at least that government can screw up the environment and screw the people who live in it.
Me, I think that that's one of the many downsides of communist dictatorships, but then I'm not a conservative and find less to admire in such regimes than you do.
If a communist government does something (does not do something) that the U.S. did/did not do 50 years ago, I'm not going to condemn them for it. It's almost like they learned something from the U.S, back when the U.S. was more of a free country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2011 12:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2011 11:53 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 368 of 440 (612892)
04-19-2011 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Theodoric
04-19-2011 8:51 PM


Re: Minnesota Care
The republicans are trying to shut these state programs down. They are working hard to shut down Minnesota Care and Badgercare here in Wisconsin. They want the poor and disabled to fend for themselves
State Republicans, or federal? Chances are I'd disagree with them, but I'd have to see the details of the debate. That's how I would form my opinion, not only by a blind support of Republicans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Theodoric, posted 04-19-2011 8:51 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-19-2011 10:31 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 369 of 440 (612896)
04-19-2011 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by marc9000
04-19-2011 8:20 PM


Re: Minnesota Care
I think you'd find that a lot of Republicans favor state run programs. States have much more incentive to get things like this right, because there's a sort of "competition" with other states.
Okay, let's assume that's true (it's not, by the way; Thuglicans are against welfare programs of any kind no matter what level of government they work at). Would you support a measure by the Federal government that required all states to implement a state-run health care system? For example, the Federal government could give all the states an amount of money determined to be necessary for funding such health care. The states would then have to provide health care of a minimum standard to all of their citizens using the extra money along with some state-raised money. Depending on how efficient of a system the states could implement, they would be able to keep any extra Federal money left over after providing the minimum care for all of their citizens.
Would you support a 'competitive' state-run program like this?
The U.S. founders knew this too - they were much more restrictive on federal powers than they were on state powers.
Say what? How many first world nations are there? How many of them are surpassing the U.S. in every area other than gross domestic stupidity?
If the U.S. doesn't realize that it needs to compete, then that's a serious problem that needs to be addressed; but as with all your objections, that is still no reason to oppose universal health care for the poor and needy.
Remember "no smoking on airline flights of two hours or less"? Many people then suspected that it would lead to no smoking on all airline flights, but they probably couldn't forsee it leading to bans in all public places in entire cities.
The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy. If there is reason to believe that the chain of events follows from the first cause, then it is not the slippery slope fallacy. If there was good reason to believe that smoking would eventually be banned in all public places, then stating as much would have been in no way an instance of the slippery slope fallacy.
If there is a suspicion that one loss of liberty can lead to another loss of liberty, the removal of the first liberty needs to be decided with that possibility in mind.
The suspicion's been investigated; it has even been tested for in other countries. It turns out that this suspicion is just that: a suspicion. So, now that that unreasonable fear is out of the way, let's start providing some damn health care.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : grammar

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 8:20 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3947
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 370 of 440 (612898)
04-19-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by marc9000
04-19-2011 8:30 PM


Bloated government insurance program
Isn't getting insurance actually a really prudent thing to do?
In a free society, it should be up to an individual. It’s not prudent in every situation for every person for every type of insurance. Example, I live at a very high elevation, 600 miles or so from the ocean. I don’t think it would be prudent for me to spend my money on flood insurance.
I would like to get rid of that mighty bloated U.S. insurance program called the Department of Defense. I live in northern Minnesota, and I don't fear an attack from Canada or anyone else.
If anyone, anywhere else, feels the need for a Department of Defense type insurance policy, let them buy it themselves.
Moose
Bob Dylan - "When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose" *

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 8:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Coyote, posted 04-19-2011 9:52 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2193 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 371 of 440 (612899)
04-19-2011 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Minnemooseus
04-19-2011 9:49 PM


Re: Bloated government insurance program
Defense is one of the few things actually mentioned in the Constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-19-2011 9:49 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Jaderis, posted 04-22-2011 4:28 AM Coyote has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4597 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 372 of 440 (612900)
04-19-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by marc9000
04-19-2011 8:53 PM


marc9000 writes:
Thanks. But fresh? Fresh for what, EvC forums, or the scientific community? My style of conservatism/tradition isn’t all that fresh in many places, it’s pretty common. I suspect that the scientific community is largely in favor of government health care. Much more so than the general population. Why? — because it gets them closer to be able to play god.
Of course, it could also be that people in the scientific community are better critical thinkers than the general population, better able to evaluate evidence, assess current trends, make informed estimates of future consequences, and propose reasonable courses of action.
I'm just saying.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 8:53 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4597 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 373 of 440 (612902)
04-19-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by marc9000
04-19-2011 9:03 PM


Re: Minnesota Care
marc9000 writes:
The republicans are trying to shut these state programs down. They are working hard to shut down Minnesota Care and Badgercare here in Wisconsin. They want the poor and disabled to fend for themselves
State Republicans, or federal? Chances are I'd disagree with them, but I'd have to see the details of the debate. That's how I would form my opinion, not only by a blind support of Republicans.
So you're saying that if it's a state program, then you'd object to federal officials trying to shut it down? That would be a consistent states rights position, anyway. I suspect, however, that this is a case of state legislative action.
State legislatures are notorious breeding grounds for nut-job legislation, primarily coming from conservatives. Witness Arizona's Republican-dominated state legislature, which when given the choice would much rather ignore their budget crisis and instead spend their time passing laws about 10 Commandments monuments and requiring Presidential candidates to provide long form birth certificates in order to get on the ballot.
Conservatives should actually favor a federally managed heath-care program. If nothing else, it would give them a golden opportunity to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade by making abortion a non-covered procedure.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 9:03 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Jaderis, posted 04-22-2011 5:37 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 374 of 440 (612906)
04-19-2011 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by marc9000
04-19-2011 8:46 PM


I'll Call your Bluff... and Raze your Argument
During the Clinton administration, the EPA looked at the crystal clear blue skies over the Cincinnati area, and told us our air was actually very filthy, and commanded me and everyone else to line up like sheep and pay to have our vehicles tested in order to get our license registrations renewed. Never mind what the fourth amendment says about all encompassing searches.
Sorry, but keeping the air clean is part of providing for the general welfare. If you wanna crank around some old tin can that spews poison out into the atmosphere, then the government has every Constitutional right to make sure that the poison your tin can spews is within some and such limit so as to ensure reasonable air quality.
If the government can’t perfectly fix these problems, why make changes/give them control of the situation, in a country that really does have good cancer survival rates, and a higher-than-normal amount of technical medical equipment?
Oh just stop. Nothing is perfect; if you want perfect, shoot yourself in the neck and hope Jesus shows up to bring you to the pearly gates.
If you want reasonable and decent, and the best we can do, then the government is a shit lot better of a bet than the insurance companies.
But, of course, you want nothing: no health insurance, no environmentnothing! And that is why you will continue to use the 'but if it can't be perfect, then we should oppose it' excuse, despite the fact that that is no reasonable excuse for anything, never has, and never will be. Do you let yourself starve because the food you eat can't be of the most perfect nutritional value? Because it cannot have the most perfect taste? Because it cannot be in the most perfect proportion? Because it cannot be served at the most perfect time of day? Of course you don't, because when it's something you need, 'not perfect' is never an excuse for 'not'.
So, do you really want 'perfect or nothing'?
Rather than try to argue with Hamiltion, it makes much more sense to take note of what prominent founders actually had to say on the subject.
Fuck the founders; they don't matter. Fuck them; they're dead.
Intent of the framers doesn’t concern today’s Democrat party, and the historically illiterate people who vote for them.
It shouldn't concern anyone; the thoughts of the founders and the framers are about as relevant today as the thoughts of the men scratching their asses as they swept the floor after the Constitutional Convention cleared out: They don't fucking matter.
Have you ever heard a teenage girl in a shrill voice demand that her birth control pills be paid for by her HMO? I have. So you think there’s no chance that any type of cosmetic surgery will ever be publicly paid for in a government run health care system?
Who cares? Who cares if some dude gets a boob job on the government health care budget? This is not, and never will be, an acceptable reason to oppose universal health care for the poor and needy.
If they don’t honor their commitments, they don’t stay in business very long.
Bullshit. I doubt you'll be able to show how that's even relevant. Where large numbers of people are stuck with private insurance, I doubt you'll find that there's a better alternative to the insurance companies that would allow people to actually pick how their health care is paid for. And guess what? In places where there are better alternatives (Minnesota Care anyone?), the people who can get those alternatives, get those alternatives because they know that private insurance sucks total monkey testicles. People who choose private insurance do so because they have no other choice; people who have another choice don't pick private insurance.
The only reason the insurance companies are still in business is because they are bullies and prevent better systems from being created. If Suzy starts selling tastier lemonade for half the cost of Johnny's lemonade, Johnny gets his goons and they go smash up Suzy's stand.
Current economic freedom that insurance companies have works.
Nope; it doesn't. And you haven't shown how it does.
By about 2004/2005, prices started falling again.
Prices still too high; health care standards still ridiculously low.
A thing called competition (free markets) caused that to happen.
No one cares about competition; no one cares about free markets. People want to be healthy; people have the right to be healthy; the Constitution gives the government the authority and responsibility to ensure that people are healthy. Competition has nothing to do with it; free markets have nothing to do with it. Despite the fact that providing universal health care would have nothing but positive economic ramifications, it isn't an economic decision: it's a moral one.
And the post office consistently loses money, and requires additional public funding.
Who cares? The government isn't a company; it's goal is not to make a profit.
I’d bet a letter could be sent for still less than 50 cents, with no additional funding required.
If that were true, such companies would already exist and would be competing with the U.S. post office for letter-sending business; such companies don't exist; 50 doesn't cover the cost of mailing a letter from Alaska to Alabama. If that is the price you want to pay, then you need a government-funded mail system to provide it.
They’re answerable to the people they sell their products to — they have to compete with others for those peoples’ business.
Utter bullshit.
Anyone who thinks the government is the only thing that can prevent a complete environmental meltdown has no belief whatsoever in U.S. foundings, or the concept of personal liberty.
No one thinks that 'the government is the only thing that can prevent a complete environmental meltdown'. The industries have the power to do that; it's just that the government is the only one that can make sure they do it.
Besides, if your industries are so damn good to the environment, then the EPA regulations shouldn't matter: those industries should already be following those regulations if not much stricter ones. But they don't. Why do you suppose that is?
Oh, and to keep this within the topic of the thread, how do the 'fuck you if you can't afford it' policies you keep advocating help the Middle Class? Do they offer any reasonable advantage over the alternatives? Any advantage whatsoever?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : clarity

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 8:46 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by marc9000, posted 04-20-2011 8:06 PM Jon has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 375 of 440 (612908)
04-19-2011 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by marc9000
04-19-2011 8:58 PM


If a communist government does something (does not do something) that the U.S. did/did not do 50 years ago, I'm not going to condemn them for it. It's almost like they learned something from the U.S, back when the U.S. was more of a free country.
Ah, so this is what freedom looks like.
Yeah, that's what the huddled masses were yearning to breathe.
The Chinese government, not noted for its trenchant self criticism, admits that Chinese air pollution kills, annually, 50,000 newborn babies alone.
Now, call me old-fashioned, but as far as I'm concerned my freedom to swing my fist ends just in front of your nose.
You seem to have a broader interpretation of freedom, which encompasses the freedom to poison people so long as you're making a profit from it. Perhaps you could find some quotation from the Founding Fathers to that effect; or perhaps not.
Until the blessed day comes when polluters have the freedom to put whatever they like into the air you breathe and the water you drink, the option is still open to you to take individual action in the cause of liberty by contacting your nearest polluter and volunteering to drink their toxic waste for them. Let us know how you get on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 8:58 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by marc9000, posted 04-20-2011 8:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024