If You Doubt President Obama's Lack of Common Courtesy...

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Like I

I would like to give you a benefit of a doubt, and assume, you quoted me wrong by mistake, but it's really hard to do in this context.

Quote:

Leave your hyper-parsing and



intentional omissions

LOL

Quote:

Thanks for agreeing.

I did not do it for you. But you are welcome.

Quote:

This board is free. Which may be why you spend so much time trying to "win" it. It's MKL all over again.

Huh?
Everybody not agreeing with you is MKL? Let me remind you, that I was responding to YOUR post, that made a (incorrect, provocative and derogatory) reference to me. Who is trying to "win the board"?

Quote:

It's free already. WTF are you even talking about?

No, it's not.

Quote:

I can see taking on an argument point-by-point. But super-hyper-overparsing while picking-and-choosing what to keep and what to disregard lends no continuity and, frankly, exposes that there are parts that you cannot explain and therefore ignore.

Ah, I see now, why you are doing it. Thanks for explaining yourself.

Quote: Nareed

the preamble of the Constitution, and by that I take it you mean the frequently misunderstood "Welfare Clause," does not mandate or require any kind of welfare.

And to answer your question, I'd keep none of them.

Yes, "Welfare" means well-being, not necessarily entitlement programs. We all know that. But there it is: one purpose of this Union is to promote the general well-being. Helping Americans stay fed, clothed, educated, healthy, and working productively all promote the general Welfare, despite your objections to taxation and redistribution, because an America with fed, clothed, educated, healthy, and productive citizens is a stronger Union than an America with starving, naked, illiterate, sick, and idle citizens.

If the government can force people to enter into private contracts for health insurance, why not force them to buy U.S. bonds? Our debt problems would be over.

Quote: MathExtremist

Nobody is arguing that profit is not allowed in health care. The problem with health care is that there is no effective alternative. If you cannot access a restaurant, you can still access food stamps. If you cannot access private education, you can still access public education. If you cannot access private healthcare, and you do not fall into one of the existing socialized medical insurance programs, you have no access whatsoever.

Who cannot access private healthcare? If you want insurance, buy it. If you want an HMO, go that route. If you want neither, go naked and pay cash.

Quote:

In 2008 there were over 25 million Americans who either had no health coverage or had insufficient health coverage. Corporate profiteering should not be allowed to stand in the way of a healthy and productive American workforce. To suggest otherwise is to elevate the desires of a small number of corporate shareholders above the needs of the public as a whole. Such is not the purpose of government in a civilized society.

Now you say it again. Here is the deal, "corporate profiteering" is not standing in the way of everything. When *you* work for free let me know and I will hire you and pay you nothing. I doubt you will do this. Health providers should not be expected to, either. If you do not like what the insurance company charges, DON'T BUY INSURANCE. But do not go around stating that "the government should provide coverage and services at cost." (eg: "public option, single payer.)

It is not the government's place to try to run private insurers out of business. What after that? Government takes over grocery stores? Or car repair shops? Gas stations? Where is the line?

We made it 225 years without government run health care, no need to start now.

Quote: MathExtremist

Helping Americans stay fed, clothed, educated, healthy, and working productively all promote the general Welfare,

And the only way to do it is with government stealing from some people and giving to others? What are the american people in your view? Children and savages unable to provide for themselves?

BTW the Constitution does not grant any part of the government the power to redistribute wealth.

Quote: AZDuffman

Who cannot access private healthcare? If you want insurance, buy it. If you want an HMO, go that route. If you want neither, go naked and pay cash.

Imagine an unskilled worker, making, say 15 bucks per hour. That's about $11 after taxes. 22 thousand a year, about 1800 per month.
Heath insurance for the family would cost about $1300 or more. Suppose even, the spouse works too. That leaves about $2300 for the entire family's expenses for the whole month. $1000 for rent, another $1000 for utilities, auto expenses, insurance etc. That leaves $300 for food and clothing, and school supplies for the kids, and retirement, and education, and vacations, and school trips, and sports for the kids, etc, etc. Good luck with that.

Quote:

Health providers should not be expected to, either.

They aren't. ME (like myself) is talking about insurance companies making profits off the premiums, not health providers.
Yes, they are entitled to their profits to, they cannot be made to work for free. But the government can run an insurance operation that would not be profit oriented, that would allow to make premiums lower. If private insurers cannot compete with that, tough luck. If they can, by running more efficiently (it's not hard to be more efficient than government), and/or providing better services, that is great.

Quote:

If you do not like what the insurance company charges, DON'T BUY INSURANCE. But do not go around stating that "the government should provide coverage and services at cost." (eg: "public option, single payer.)

Why not?

Quote:

It is not the government's place to try to run private insurers out of business.

Of course not. That should not be the objective at all. The objective is providing affordable and accessible health care. If private insurers can do that, great, nobody is going to run them out of business. If they can't, too bad. It's not the government's fault that they can't though. The problem now is that they don't have any incentive to do that. Insurance plans are different, but comparable plans cost comparable amount in premiums everywhere. There is no real choice for the consumer. I advocate for the government to provide the choice, not to take it away.

Quote:

What after that? Government takes over grocery stores? Or car repair shops? Gas stations? Where is the line?

Slippery slope

Quote:

We made it 225 years without government run health care, no need to start now.

We made it previous 5000 years without health care at all. Why not settle there?

Quote: Nareed

And the only way to do it is with government stealing from some people and giving to others? What are the american people in your view? Children and savages unable to provide for themselves?

Quite the contrary, I believe Americans are (largely) generous and selfless, and willing to form a community when given the chance. The philosophy of helping out your neighbors is a big part of that community-building, and letting them starve to death or die of preventable diseases runs counter to that philosophy.

I comprehend your position: everyone should be left to their own devices to stand or fall by themselves and should never expect or hope for any assistance from society, and any taxation that goes toward funding assistance for those who have been unlucky is equivalent to theft. I don't agree with it -- I think it's cruel and selfish -- but I understand it.

Quote: AZDuffman

Who cannot access private healthcare? If you want insurance, buy it. If you want an HMO, go that route. If you want neither, go naked and pay cash

If everyone who wanted insurance could qualify for it and pay for it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Present-day insurance policies allow insurers to exclude anyone they want, on the most tenuous of grounds, unless they're part of a group policy. Individuals cannot access those group policies without working for the corporations that offer them. The cost of recovery from a car accident, for example, is often in excess of $25,000. A corporate worker who gets in a car wreck would have his bills paid. An individual entrepreneur who failed to qualify for insurance (but who would willingly pay for it), having had the same wreck, would be forced into bankruptcy. Do you believe that's in the best interests of society?

Perhaps you would propose that someone in a car wreck without insurance should just be left to die; perhaps Nareed would propose the same. It's his own fault he's not covered, and society doesn't owe him anything. Is that right?

Quote: weaselman

Imagine an unskilled worker, making, say 15 bucks per hour. That's about $11 after taxes. 22 thousand a year, about 1800 per month.
Heath insurance for the family would cost about $1300 or more. Suppose even, the spouse works too. That leaves about $2300 for the entire family's expenses for the whole month. $1000 for rent, another $1000 for utilities, auto expenses, insurance etc. That leaves $300 for food and clothing, and school supplies for the kids, and retirement, and education, and vacations, and school trips, and sports for the kids, etc, etc. Good luck with that.

The worker in all likelyhood has some kind of health insurance plan where he or she works. Most full-time workers, skilled or unskilled, have some kind of plan at work.

BTW: if you choose vacations, sports for the kids, and other luxuries before you provide for your health care needs then don't expect me to help pay your health care bills.

Quote:

They aren't. ME (like myself) is talking about insurance companies making profits off the premiums, not health providers.
Yes, they are entitled to their profits to, they cannot be made to work for free. But the government can run an insurance operation that would not be profit oriented, that would allow to make premiums lower. If private insurers cannot compete with that, tough luck. If they can, by running more efficiently (it's not hard to be more efficient than government), and/or providing better services, that is great.

Of course not. That should not be the objective at all. The objective is providing affordable and accessible health care. If private insurers can do that, great, nobody is going to run them out of business. If they can't, too bad. It's not the government's fault that they can't though. The problem now is that they don't have any incentive to do that. Insurance plans are different, but comparable plans cost comparable amount in premiums everywhere. There is no real choice for the consumer. I advocate for the government to provide the choice, not to take it away.

It is not the government's job to "provide choice" or anything of the like. Everytime the governmnet tries to correct something in the market it goes bad. Life is not perfect, people need to learn to deal with that.

Quote:

We made it previous 5000 years without health care at all. Why not settle there?

There were not any doctors until 225 years ago? No health care at all? I find that kind of hard to believe. Doesn't the Hypocratic Oath date to the Greek Empire? So I guess there were doctors and health care, eh?

Quote: MathExtremist

Would you tolerate a middle-man who collected your property taxes, took a cut off the top, and then gave the rest to the government to hand out to the police and fire departments? If not, why is it tolerable when an insurance company does it with premiums?

That is a key basic philosophical distinction. The insurance companies are not giving the bulk of the money "to the government." Another important factor is that you, I or ---- can shift or cancel insurers when we want.

Quote: MathExtremist

I comprehend your position: everyone should be left to their own devices to stand or fall by themselves and should never expect or hope for any assistance from society, and any taxation that goes toward funding assistance for those who have been unlucky is equivalent to theft. I don't agree with it -- I think it's cruel and selfish -- but I understand it.

When did I say that?

I oppose using the government, but I have nothing against charities or any other voluntary means for helping people who temporarily need assistance.

I object to seeing other people as permanent basket cases who need to be taken care of. To be sure there are a few, the severely disabled for one, but the vast majority of people can and should take care of themselves.

The problem with government handouts is threefold:

1) To insure getting votes, or to attempt to do so, government requires more and more people to get handouts. This diminishes the recipients and turns them to the permanent charity cases I mentioned above. not that they can't provide for themselves, but that they no longer want to.

2) Government operates only by force or coercion. It doesn't ask you yo give up part of your wealth for "welfare." It takes the money under threat of statutory penalties, which may include both fines and prison.

3) Governments are highly unproductive and inefficient. Whatever government agencies are set up to distribute handouts invariably grow more complex, more inefficient, more bureaucratic, and overall become equal parts works programs for the politically connected and profligate spenders. A government agency that cuts costs gets its budget reduced. One that is irresponsible gets its budget raised. What do you expect from that arrangement?

So, yes, some people need help, usually for short periods of hard or bad times, and can manage on their own well enough the rest of their lives. I'm all for providing such help, voluntarily and efficiently. I am dead set against providing such help by coercion, inefficiently, mostly as a vote-buying mechanism which produces a permanent dependent class of adults who'd rather be reduced to being overgrown children.

If you cannot look beyond government as provider of all needs, you're part of the problem.

BTW I am selfish. Very much so.

Quote: MathExtremist

The government doesn't act as a for-profit middleman in taxation and revenue redistribution. There's overhead, sure, but they don't also take an extra 10% and say "we're just keeping this". An insurance company, on the other hand, does precisely that. It's that extra 10% (if the number is even close to that small) that represents a massively inefficient market. If it's a public good, it should not be exploited for profit by profit-driven companies.

That is an overly broad statement that can apply to a large number of fields and activities and that cannot stand the tests of time, common sense or the will of the public (a not-so-small consideration). And any company that strays far afield from the industry's parameters becomes a tempting target for any number of competitors.

Quote: weaselman

Imagine an unskilled worker, making, say 15 bucks per hour. That's about $11 after taxes. 22 thousand a year, about 1800 per month. Heath insurance for the family would cost about $1300 or more. Suppose even, the spouse works too. That leaves about $2300 for the entire family's expenses for the whole month. $1000 for rent, another $1000 for utilities, auto expenses, insurance etc. That leaves $300 for food and clothing, and school supplies for the kids, and retirement, and education, and vacations, and school trips, and sports for the kids, etc, etc. Good luck with that.

Medicaid.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Another important factor is that you, I or ---- can shift or cancel insurers when we want.

As I said before, if this were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Of course I can choose to go without insurance, but that would be irresponsible both for my family and for my society. I therefore choose to maintain health insurance -- but as an individual not employed by a corporation, I decidedly cannot shift insurers when I want. Insurers are free to deny me coverage. That's the problem.

Quote: MathExtremist

Insurers are free to deny me coverage.

States can establish assigned-risk pools, just as they have done with motorists.

Quote: Nareed

So, yes, some people need help, usually for short periods of hard or bad times, and can manage on their own well enough the rest of their lives. I'm all for providing such help, voluntarily and efficiently. I am dead set against providing such help by coercion, inefficiently, mostly as a vote-buying mechanism which produces a permanent dependent class of adults who'd rather be reduced to being overgrown children.

Doesn't "voluntary" mean if someone somewhere doesn't provide for someone who is fallen on hard times (or very hard times) they are reduced to begging?

If you live in a community, even if you live under the flattest of the flat taxes, resources are being redistributed unfairly, or as you say being stolen from some and given to others. No one gets an equal share of what they put in. Some get more, some get less.

It's just a matter of degree. We are all redistributionists.

Quote: rxwine

Doesn't "voluntary" mean if someone somewhere doesn't provide for someone who is fallen on hard times (or very hard times) they are reduced to begging?

Voluntarily means you set up charities and solicit donations, and if someone chooses not to donate he doesn't face any force or pressure to do so.

It's not perfect and you won't get to everyone. But right now with all the government welfare you still see panhandlers begging.

Quote:

It's just a matter of degree. We are all redistributionists.

I've never taken a penny of money that someone didn't want to give me. I don't ever intend to, either.

Quote: Nareed

I've never taken a penny of money that someone didn't want to give me. I don't ever intend to, either.

That's not what I mean. For instance, everyone who pays for Federal highway construction, uses the highways to various degrees. Some will hardly use a fraction of the tax money they paid into supporting it. Others are likely using far more than they contributed in wear and tear on the highway system.

You can't avoid redistribution of wealth. At least, under our current system. It's already there.

Quote: rxwine

That's not what I mean. For instance, everyone who pays for Federal highway construction, uses the highways to various degrees. Some will hardly use a fraction of the tax money they paid into supporting it. Others are likely using far more than they contributed in wear and tear on the highway system.

You can't avoid redistribution of wealth. At least, under our current system. It's already there.

Not at all a valid example. Highways are not "redistributed" to anybody. They are a public road for public use. "Redistribution" is where some pay taxes (the top 50% in the case of the USA) while the bottom %s are getting direct governmnet checks or near-direct subsidies (eg: food stamps.) In the USA this has led to more and more greed and selfishness on the part of the bottom 50% who think "the rich are not paying their fair share" when they themselves do not pay their own "fair share" as they are paying zero, often less than zero when you include refundable credits and their subsidies.

Quote: rxwine

That's not what I mean. For instance, everyone who pays for Federal highway construction, uses the highways to various degrees. Some will hardly use a fraction of the tax money they paid into supporting it. Others are likely using far more than they contributed in wear and tear on the highway system.

If you've never driven your car on a highway, or taken a bus, or someone else's car, you've still made use of them. A lot of merchandise moves through highways.

Likewise if you've never called the police, you've benefited from their presence in the city.

Now, this may not be evenly distributed among the population, but the fact that you may pay somewhat less doesn't mean I don't get the full benefit of certain government services.

But when you start taking from some in order to give to others, like welfare, that's different.

Quote: AZDuffman

The worker in all likelyhood has some kind of health insurance plan where he or she works. Most full-time workers, skilled or unskilled, have some kind of plan at work.

Are you saying that the 50 million people in the US who do not have insurance, don't have it because they chose to opt out of the plan their employer offers?

Quote:

BTW: if you choose vacations, sports for the kids, and other luxuries before you provide for your health care needs then don't expect me to help pay your health care bills.

It's not luxuries, it's the style of life. The kids, that don't do sports, or other activities, can forget about getting into the top collegesthe government made my bill lower by not profiting off of it.

Quote:

It is not the government's job to "provide choice" or anything of the like.

I guess not. Their job is the welfare of the people. I am just saying that in this case them doing their job would actually end up providing more choice to the consumer, contrary to what the opponents say about the choice being taken away.

Quote:

Everytime the governmnet tries to correct something in the market it goes bad.

Not every time. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.
For example, the government runs the local trains around here. Before they did, there was a private company operating them. It was way too expensive, the trains ran almost empty most of the time, and there were so few of them, it was not practical. Now the government is running them, and it works great.

Quote:

There were not any doctors until 225 years ago? No health care at all?

There was a time in human evolution when there were no doctors. Does not matter when.
My point was that the argument "it has been working before, however badly, so let's not try anything new" leads to stagnation and death.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Medicaid.

Nope. Are you kidding me? A family making 60 thousand a year qualifying for medicaid? Yeah, right.

So, you are not using police? Did you go to a public school? How about highways?

Quote: weaselman

So, you are not using police? Did you go to a public school? How about highways?

I pay taxes. When I use a highway I pay the toll. I did not go to public school. You can tell because I can read and write.

Quote: Nareed

I pay taxes. When I use a highway I pay the toll. I did not go to public school. You can tell because I can read and write.

I know you pay taxes. What I mean is how are you so completely sure you are not getting one penny more in benefits from the public sector than the amount of taxes you are paying? And why are you so proud of it? If you lose your job through no fault of your own, you won't be paying taxes then ... someday, you'll retire, and stop paying taxes forever... When that happens, you'll have to be using some money that somebody else has to pay, not quite voluntarily. There is just not very much to be proud about paying taxes, I am afraid.

Quote: weaselman

Are you saying that the 50 million people in the US who do not have insurance, don't have it because they chose to opt out of the plan their employer offers?

Lots of people opt out of their employer's plans. And I don't buy the "50 million" figure, either. It has been proven time and time again that is a false number, inflated among other things by people who are without insurance between jobs for a short period. Take out the senior population on Medicare and that 50MM number would leave 1 in 5 or more uninsured, which is no way the case.

Quote:

It's not luxuries, it's the style of life. The kids, that don't do sports, or other activities, can forget about getting into the top collegesthe government made my bill lower by not profiting off of it.

So they have to go to a state school or community college. Boo hoo hoo. And it is not for the goernment to "make your bill lower." Not the government's job to compete with private enterprise.

Quote:

I guess not. Their job is the welfare of the people. I am just saying that in this case them doing their job would actually end up providing more choice to the consumer, contrary to what the opponents say about the choice being taken away.

Again, doesn't matter as it is not the government's place. Anyways, Obamacare takes away choice as you cannot take a cheap, bare-bones plan or choose no insurance at all.

Quote:

For example, the government runs the local trains around here. Before they did, there was a private company operating them. It was way too expensive, the trains ran almost empty most of the time, and there were so few of them, it was not practical. Now the government is running them, and it works great.

Lemme guess, it works out great becuase the government is running a money-losing train? If the trains are too expensive and running empty the solution is let the private company go bankrupt and close the trains.

Quote:

There was a time in human evolution when there were no doctors. Does not matter when.
My point was that the argument "it has been working before, however badly, so let's not try anything new" leads to stagnation and death.

Trying something new is fine, socializing medicine is not. You said there was "no health care" using "health care" interchangaby with "health insurance" as many liberals do in the hopes people will think we have people dying outside the emergency room.

One thing I'll note on the government can't do anything idea. Government of any kind, even a very libertarian version won't work very well if the people don't beat their politicians regularly - er, vote, take action, observe what's going on.

No matter what you believe in, there's someone out there willing to take advantage of you if you stop paying attention long enough.

(or maybe it's 'cause I lived in Vegas too long)

Quote: weaselman

Nope. Are you kidding me? A family making 60 thousand a year qualifying for medicaid? Yeah, right.

This is either naked deflection or convenient memory lapse. The original posit was "Imagine an unskilled worker, making, say 15 bucks per hour. That's about $11 after taxes. 22 thousand a year." Continuity is required.

Quote: weaselman

Are you saying that the 50 million people in the US who do not have insurance, don't have it because they chose to opt out of the plan their employer offers?

Does that include or exclude the 35 million (or whatever this week's guessing game is) illegal immigrants?

Quote: weaselman

I know you pay taxes. What I mean is how are you so completely sure you are not getting one penny more in benefits from the public sector than the amount of taxes you are paying?

If you would read the thread you wouldn't need explanations repeated.

Quote:

And why are you so proud of it?

It's a lot better than begging for handouts. Not that you'd know anything about it.

Quote:

If you lose your job through no fault of your own, you won't be paying taxes then ... someday, you'll retire, and stop paying taxes forever... When that happens, you'll have to be using some money that somebody else has to pay, not quite voluntarily.

Shows what you don't know. As backwards as Mexico is, we no longer have a Ponzi scheme style retirement system. It's all individual accounts held in banks. When I retire I'll have use of my own money.

Quote: Nareed

If you've never driven your car on a highway, or taken a bus, or someone else's car, you've still made use of them. A lot of merchandise moves through highways.

Likewise if you've never called the police, you've benefited from their presence in the city.

Now, this may not be evenly distributed among the population, but the fact that you may pay somewhat less doesn't mean I don't get the full benefit of certain government services.

But when you start taking from some in order to give to others, like welfare, that's different.

Only by degree, not by principle. There is no meaningful difference in taxation and distribution to public highway projects as there is in taxation and distribution to food stamp programs. The classical libertarian argument is that we need neither. You already buy into the welfare side of the puzzle, but libertarian theory also says that security services are better provided by private companies than public police forces. If you don't subscribe to the latter notion (or the similar idea for highways, public transit, water, or other services), why do you inconsistently draw the line when it comes to more direct forms of assistance? Are you suggesting that a healthy and well-fed populace is somehow less of a benefit to society than are well-maintained highways or well-armed police officers?

The fact is that some of my taxes, right now, go to fund emergency medical services for those who cannot afford health insurance and therefore wait too long to seek treatment. When they do seek treatment, and cannot pay, someone's got to foot the bill. That's me and all of my taxpaying neighbors. Those same tax dollars would be more efficiently spent funding a universal health insurance plan that provides a basic level of coverage for those who cannot afford (or, in some cases, cannot qualify) for it through private insurers. If my taxes are already being redistributed to those in need of medical care, why not make it more efficient than it currently is?

It is the same argument for public education. Again, classical libertarian theory says do away with public schooling altogether. But we as a society have recognized that the costs of public education are smaller than the costs of an uneducated public and the negative effects stemming therefrom. Yet we deny that the costs of public health coverage is smaller than the costs of an underinsured public and the negative effects stemming therefrom. We are wrong.

This post has dwindled down the usual left vs right bull crap... nothing new here. Arguments have been posted on both sides and AZ /Nareed / EvenBob are locked into their position as much as I am locked into mine.

What is the line? I think that we should simply abolish medicaid and make that private too and force old people to use up their savings and social security to buy health care insurance. I think we should do the same with newborns and infants too. Pay as you go medicine, absolutely. It would be a great way to decrease the surface population. In fact, social security too. Get rid of food stamps, unemployment programs, roads, sheriffs, FBIs, armies, navies and everything else. Nobody pays any tax and there's no government. Why not? Then it will just be like the wild wild west of the 1890s... yee haw!!!

Quote: boymimbo

I think we should do the same with newborns and infants too. Pay as you go medicine, absolutely. It would be a great way to decrease the surface population. In fact, social security too. Get rid of food stamps, unemployment programs, roads, sheriffs, FBIs, armies, navies and everything else. Nobody pays any tax and there's no government. Why not? Then it will just be like the wild wild west of the 1890s... yee haw!!!

How would a newborn pay for their own health insurance? I guess you do not accept that is the responsibility of the parents?

What do roads, sheriffs, armies, and the navy have to do with health insurance?

Oh, I see, you realize you are losing the discussion so are changing the subject! Don't forget to call myself, EvenBob, and even Nareed (who sadly will not see this post) nazis, KKK members, and general racists before the end of the day.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766
*******************************

I know we must take care of our people and provide a safety net (one that acts more like a "trampoline" to help people spring up rather than a "net" to catch them). It just seems that the more we expand what is GIVEN to the poor, the more of them there are. I've been poor and it is something I'd rather never be again. When we were poor, we didn't have the amenities of life like air conditioning (in Florida), big screen tvs, and lots of electronic toys. Other people (richer ones) had more thing and we kids knew things had to change for us to get those things.

Everyone is CREATED equal but that does not mean that everyone stays equal. Some defeat the restraints of poverty and do marvelous things; others decide it is better to collect the government money than to lift a finger to work. We create programs that give more money for more kids and benefit fatherless families more than ones with fathers. Teenage pregnancy is not a stigma anymore, it is a status symbol--I know of school nurses that post the pictures of all the pretty little future welfare recipients!! Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD!!

My wife works in clinic where they treat poor folks who pay nothing for health care. They are more demanding of free services and less thankful than people in pay places she has worked in.

Again...we must take care of our people...but we can't do it in ways that dampen the drive to continually do better than the generation before. It won't always work, just like a football game plan doesn't always work, but it at least attempts to keep us from having more people on the wagon than pulling the wagon. If everything is free, why work for anything? People who work and pay should have better health care options...and we should promote more people working than sitting idle.

Our economy can get better; we're just not doing things to make it so. This is why I wrote the original post--I feel the President used the date of the speech as a political tool as opposed to genuine concern for the economy. His speech MAY be about the economy; the date chosen was purely political. I also think the venue is not the proper one--he is trying to use that to his political advantage. It's easier than actually having a good plan!!

Quote: MathExtremist

Only by degree, not by principle. There is no meaningful difference in taxation and distribution to public highway projects as there is in taxation and distribution to food stamp programs.

Yes there is. Neither should be a government activity, but at least highways are necessary for millions of people in any country. Ideally these should also be privately owned, with exceptions for military needs and remote areas which would otherwise be cut off.

Quote:

You already buy into the welfare side of the puzzle, but libertarian theory also says that security services are better provided by private companies than public police forces.

That's incredibly stupid. There has to be one, and only one, agent capable of using force to keep the peace. if you divide the power among different agents, you are asking for chaos and anarchy. It's very simple to prove, too, particularly when force becomes necessary in civil matters like foreclosure or repossession.

This doesn't mean we also need public schools, food stamps, welfare payments, unemployment insurance, social security or medicaid, dispensed by force through the government.

Quote:

Those same tax dollars would be more efficiently spent funding a universal health insurance plan that provides a basic level of coverage for those who cannot afford (or, in some cases, cannot qualify) for it through private insurers. If my taxes are already being redistributed to those in need of medical care, why not make it more efficient than it currently is?

1) Any program set up to help the "poor" invariably becomes some form of middle class handout to buy votes. Politicians will expand the programs to expand their powers.

2) If you want efficiency you need to remove government. No government is efficient. it's on their nature not to be.

Quote:

But we as a society have recognized that the costs of public education are smaller than the costs of an uneducated public and the negative effects stemming therefrom.

Your mistake lies in the false assumption that without public schooling millions would go without an education.Some would, sure, but many more are today when the purpose of public schools is to serve the needs of the teachers unions, rather than educating the children. Further, without the money taken to pay for public schools, there would be plenty around for paying tuition at private institutions, which would be cheaper due to their abundance.

Many years ago a group of businessmen in Monterrey, Mexico, set up a university to train engineers and administrators they found lacking. Over time that university expanded to provide high school education, and sprouted branches all over the country. It is elite, in a way, and extremely high quality. very expensive, too, but fully 1/4 of students pay no tuition at all, and nearly half receive some support for tuition.

That's one model, but not the only one. My elementary school was set up by the Jewish community, among other similar schools. There are similar schools set up by various communities, notably the Irish, Japanese and Spaniard communities. There are otehrs set up by regional communities. The point is to let them flourish rather than fence them in with bureaucracies that provide "jobs" for teachers and mediocre educations, at best, for students.

Quote: Nareed

1) Any program set up to help the "poor" invariably becomes some form of middle class handout to buy votes. Politicians will expand the programs to expand their powers.

So only large corporations will get to buy votes and politicians will still expand their powers.

I see. (Mr. Burns rubs hands together here)

Quote: AZDuffman

Lots of people opt out of their employer's plans.

Those that already have insurance (e.g., through spouse's plan) do, not people, who just like being uninsured.

Quote:

And I don't buy the "50 million" figure, either. It has been proven time and time again that is a false number, inflated among other things by people who are without insurance between jobs for a short period.

For the short period? What kind of period do you consider "short"? And why do you think it is ok? I mean, yeah, it is better than not ever getting insured at all, but not having insurance is terrible, even for "a short period", especially if you have a family.
Anyway, the number of people who were uninsured for some period or time between 2007 and 2008 is estimated as 86.7 million.

Quote:

Take out the senior population on Medicare and that 50MM number would leave 1 in 5 or more uninsured, which is no way the case.

"No way the case" is of course a great argument :)
If you start taking people out, (why stop at medicare, let's take out those on medicaid too, also, HMOs, perhaps?). At some point, we could get end up at 1 in 2 or even 1 to 1 ratio. :)

Anyway, I do not how reliable the 50M number is. I just pulled it off the Cencus website. If you have better sources (beyond your "no way the case" hunch), let's see them. Besides, the number is just an illustration. I was simply telling you that not all people get insured through their employer, and that's the problem, because there is no way they can buy private insurance for themselves.

Quote:

So they have to go to a state school or community college. Boo hoo hoo.

Yes, they have to. And it is a big deal. You will never know what kind of a great scientist or technologist is lost to society because of it.

Quote:

And it is not for the goernment to "make your bill lower." Not the government's job to compete with private enterprise.

You keep repeating it, but it's just words. First of all, it is not true. Look here for some examples.
Also, even if it was true, or you thought it was, what's the point in repeating it over and over? Ok, maybe it's "not the government job" now, but if we realize it would be good for everyone, and especially for the country as a whole to make it such, would it not make sense to make it the government job then? Let's talk about the merits of the idea, not technical details of its implementation.

Quote:

Anyways, Obamacare takes away choice as you cannot take a cheap, bare-bones plan or choose no insurance at all.

I am not advocating for Obamacare. I think, it's a terrible idea.
However, some choices are good to be taken away. For example, the choice to use cocaine or the choice to jump from the roof of a high rise building. Staying uninsured is a terrible choice, and I have no problem with that particular one being taken away. Unlike socialized medicine, this one really does end up with some other tax payer having to pay your bill at some point. This s the same kind of choice as a choice to go and rob someone else's house, because nobody is home, and the door is unlocked.

Quote:

Lemme guess, it works out great becuase the government is running a money-losing train? If the trains are too expensive and running empty the solution is let the private company go bankrupt and close the trains.

Let it go bankrupt - yes. Close the trains? Why? They are great transportation. They are convenient, they reduce traffic problems, they makes people be more effective at work. For a private company, none of that is a consideration. If it can't make profit, it is not interested. Government has a different objective. I don't think the operation is actually losing money currently (I might be wrong about that), it's definitely not making much profit. But it makes people's lives better, lets them be happier and more efficient members of society, and that is EXACTLY the government's job.

Quote:

Trying something new is fine, socializing medicine is not.

Maybe it is maybe it isn't. But the fact that we did not have it for the last 225 years is no indication of that.

Quote:

You said there was "no health care" using "health care" interchangaby with "health insurance" as many liberals do in the hopes people will think we have people dying outside the emergency room.

First, I did not use it interchangeably. When I said there was no health care, I meant there was no health care at some time in human history. There were shamans and that were promising you you'd get better if you eat the eye of a frog or something. And they, like you, were telling everybody "we've been doing this for thousands years, why bother to listen to these new guys - Avicenna, Hippocrates ...."
And second, people literally are dying outside of the ER, not in thousands, of course, but they are, and precisely for the reason of being uninsured. I personally knew to people that died that way.

Quote: boymimbo

This post has dwindled down the usual left vs right bull crap...

I am not on the right. The right is as bad as the left when it comes to curtailing liberty, they just choose different aspects.

Broadly speaking the left wants to own your money and your labor, while the right wants to own your body and your conscience. But that's too broad. In some cases the left wants to control the way you think, while the right is as capable of misappropriating funds to buy votes when they see the need.

I'm very sorry to inform both sides that I own my body and conscience, as well as my labor and wealth. And if you don't like it, that's your problem.

But that's just for starters. There are a great many more problems on both sides, too. Sometimes determining the lesser evil is not easy.

Quote: SanchoPanza

This is either naked deflection or convenient memory lapse. The original posit was "Imagine an unskilled worker, making, say 15 bucks per hour. That's about $11 after taxes. 22 thousand a year." Continuity is required.

What is your problem with it?
15 bucks an hour is 30K a year. Two workers in the family is 60K per year family income, way above the Medicaid threshold.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Does that include or exclude the 35 million (or whatever this week's guessing game is) illegal immigrants?

This is Census data. I wold guess it excludes the illegals, but you never know nowadays :)
Anyway, I did not mean that number as a statement of fact. The point was simply that lots of people do not get health insurance through their employers. Some can only work part time (many employers - Wal Mart notably - simply won't hire you full time, for that exact reason. You can work 40 hours/week, or even 60, but they'll still call it part time, and no insurance for you), some are self employed, some just work for a crappy employer, or for a one, to small to afford the health benefits.

Quote: rxwine

So only large corporations will get to buy votes and politicians will still expand their powers.

Not if you also stop handing out money, favors, tax breaks and so on to corporations. "Welfare" programs for business are as bad as those directed at voters.

Quote: Nareed

...
<skip personal insults and self-righteous blabbering>
...

Shows what you don't know. As backwards as Mexico is, we no longer have a Ponzi scheme style retirement system. It's all individual accounts held in banks. When I retire I'll have use of my own money.

I meant, when you retire, you will still be using the roads, and the police force, and firefighter protection, and (possibly) government-run health care providers, and lots of other stuff, paid for by taxes ... but you will not be paying any taxes then. What a shame!

Oh, and what will you do if the bank that holds your account goes bankrupt? I assume you have something like FDIC setup in in Mexico? If so, who do you think pays for that?

Quote: weaselman

I meant, when you retire, you will still be using the roads, and the police force, and firefighter protection, and (possibly) government-run health care providers, and lots of other stuff, paid for by taxes ... but you will not be paying any taxes then.

Again, shows what you don't know. Interests generated in a bank account pay income taxes. Everything I buy carries a sales tax. Not to mention fees for services, hidden taxes in gas and electricity. Trust me, I'll be paying taxes well past my death.

Quote:

Oh, and what will you do if the bank that holds your account goes bankrupt?

The same thing, perhaps, that you'll do when the government goes bankrupt. The only difference is that I don't know whether the bank will or won't go broke, while I know the government will unless it stops spending more than it takes in, which few governments ever do. Besides, do you think I have all my money in one bank? I'm well diversified, like any sensible person should be.

Quote: Nareed

Again, shows what you don't know. Interests generated in a bank account pay income taxes. Everything I buy carries a sales tax. Not to mention fees for services, hidden taxes in gas and electricity. Trust me, I'll be paying taxes well past my death.

Everybody pays sales tax. Even the tourists or illegals. What the hell is it that makes you be so proud about it. Don't you have anything more worthy to be proud about?
Yeah, I did not know that you have to pay taxes from retirement money, but doesn't matter.
You will still be paying (somewhat) less than other people - those who are still employed, won't you? That means, they will have to carry your weight, just like today you are (arguably) carrying theirs.

Quote:

The same thing, perhaps, that you'll do when the government goes bankrupt. The only difference is that I don't know whether the bank will or won't go broke, while I know the government will unless it stops spending more than it takes in, which few governments ever do.

The bank will too "unless" it runs its business sensibly.
My experience shows that banks go bankrupt a lot more often than governments do.

But that was not really the question. Are you banks (an equivalent of) FDIC-insured institutions or are they not?

Quote: weaselman

For the short period? What kind of period do you consider "short"? And why do you think it is ok? I mean, yeah, it is better than not ever getting insured at all, but not having insurance is terrible, even for "a short period", especially if you have a family.

For the short period means less than a year. And I have news, it is perfectly possible to survive and survive well without health insurance for a shorter period of time like that. People need to quit being crybabies. So you don't have health insurance between jobs for a few months, buy into COBRA if you want it so bad.

Quote:

Yes, they have to. And it is a big deal. You will never know what kind of a great scientist or technologist is lost to society because of it.

So, you cannot become a great scientist without going to the Ivy League School? History would prove it is not a requirement. Sorry, not everyone gets to go to Harvard or MIT. Life is unfair, deal with it.

Quote:

You keep repeating it, but it's just words. First of all, it is not true. Look here for some examples.

Kind of funny how your example is filled with financial sinkholes (Fannie, Freddie) and liberal propoganda machines (PBS.) Most of them are not the government's job, either.

Quote:

Also, even if it was true, or you thought it was, what's the point in repeating it over and over? Ok, maybe it's "not the government job" now, but if we realize it would be good for everyone, and especially for the country as a whole to make it such, would it not make sense to make it the government job then? Let's talk about the merits of the idea, not technical details of its implementation.

It would not be good for everybody, or even most people. There are no merits to socialism.

Quote:

However, some choices are good to be taken away. For example, the choice to use cocaine or the choice to jump from the roof of a high rise building. Staying uninsured is a terrible choice, and I have no problem with that particular one being taken away. Unlike socialized medicine, this one really does end up with some other tax payer having to pay your bill at some point. This s the same kind of choice as a choice to go and rob someone else's house, because nobody is home, and the door is unlocked.

Same kind of choice as stealing from someone else's house? No, it is the choice to pay as you go. How about we take away the "choice" not to go to churchevery sunday? Sure, just mandate you go to a "state-approved" service. Because if you do not go to church your soul will go to hell. If you have no fear of going to hell, you are more likely to break laws, and that costs all of society. So should we take away that "choice?"

Quote:

Let it go bankrupt - yes. Close the trains? Why? They are great transportation. They are convenient, they reduce traffic problems, they makes people be more effective at work. For a private company, none of that is a consideration. If it can't make profit, it is not interested. Government has a different objective. I don't think the operation is actually losing money currently (I might be wrong about that), it's definitely not making much profit. But it makes people's lives better, lets them be happier and more efficient members of society, and that is EXACTLY the government's job.

The Concorde was great transportation, but it didn't make money. Lots of things are "great." But they are only "great" to the people who are freeloading off the rest of society providing them. Yes, if they are unprofitable, CLOSE THE GD TRAINS! We should do that with most of AMTRAK. It is not government's jobs to "make people's lives better and be happier." No idea where you get that.

Quote:

And second, people literally are dying outside of the ER, not in thousands, of course, but they are, and precisely for the reason of being uninsured. I personally knew to people that died that way.

Wait a minute, first you use the argument, "if they are uninsured they will go to the E/R and cost us all money." Now it is, "They actually are dying outside the E/R because they don't have insurance." Well, which is it?

Quote: AZDuffman

For the short period means less than a year.

The number of people who were uninsured for some period between 2007 and 2009 is estimated as 86.7 million.

Quote:

And I have news, it is perfectly possible to survive and survive well without health insurance for a shorter period of time like that.

Of course. But we are not talking about surviving. We are talking about well-being.

Quote:

So, you cannot become a great scientist without going to the Ivy League School?

Maybe you can, maybe you can't. The point is we'll never know, what we lost by depriving people of an oportunity.

Quote:

History would prove it is not a requirement. Sorry, not everyone gets to go to Harvard or MIT. Life is unfair, deal with it.

Yes, we have to deal with it. But when it is in our power to make it more fair, it's a shame to pass on the opportunity.

Quote:

Kind of funny how your example is filled with financial sinkholes (Fannie, Freddie) and liberal propoganda machines (PBS.) Most of them are not the government's job, either.

What's funny about it? You said it was not a government job to run companies, I showed you wrong. Some of those companies are "bad", sure. That's exactly the point. The government running all kinds of stupid, useless enterprises, makes the argument that "it's not their job" to run something that would actually be useful sound really silly.

Quote:

It would not be good for everybody, or even most people. There are no merits to socialism.

Yes, it would.
It's not socialism, it's just one government run operation, much more useful that lots others it is running anyways.

Quote:

Same kind of choice as stealing from someone else's house? No, it is the choice to pay as you go.

What happens if you get really sick, and can't pay for it? When you need to cough up hundreds of thousands of dollars every week, AND cannot work, who is going to pay for that?

Quote:

How about we take away the "choice" not to go to churchevery sunday?

Slippery slope again?

Quote:

The Concorde was great transportation, but it didn't make money.

Yes. So? Some stuff can be made to work, some cannot. Just don't say that nothing can.

Quote:

Yes, if they are unprofitable, CLOSE THE GD TRAINS! We should do that with most of AMTRAK. It is not government's jobs to "make people's lives better and be happier." No idea where you get that.

It just isn't starting to sound more convincing the more times you repeat it. You think it's not the government's job. I think, it is THE ONLY government's job. You are not making any arguments to support your point, just keep repeating it.

Quote:

Wait a minute, first you use the argument, "if they are uninsured they will go to the E/R and cost us all money." Now it is, "They actually are dying outside the E/R because they don't have insurance." Well, which is it?

It's kinda both. Not everyone is dying, obviously, most do get saved, and paid for by our money. Others die, but only after some money is spent. One guy I knew had appendicitis attack, and spent hours in ambulance driving from one hospital to another that refused to take him. Eventually, they found one that agreed, but it was too late. He died, but the money was still spent on that ambulance driving around, and on that last hospital trying desperately to save him.
Another lady had extreme dementia, and should have been hospitalized but could not because nobody could pay for it, so she stayed at home. She kept wondering off and getting lost, and police would find her on the street, and call an ambulance (bill), that would take her into a hospital (another bill), where she would get assessed and examined all over (bill, bill, bill), and one day she got lost, and got hit by a car. She died, but only after a few hundred thousand bucks was spent on "heroic measures" to save her, which could all have been avoided if only her family could afford hiring someone to care for her.

Quote: AZDuffman

you realize you are losing the discussion

I could not have imagined a more concise statement of the problem with today's political discourse.

Quote: weaselman

The number of people who were uninsured for some period between 2007 and 2009 is estimated as 86.7 million.

How long is "for some period." Again, if it is less than a year where is the big deal? Buy COBRA if you like when you leave a job. Otherwise suck it up and go without insurance a few months. When you consider all people have to go thru to survive in this world, a few months with no insurance is far down on the list.

Quote:

Of course. But we are not talking about surviving. We are talking about well-being.

Where is "well-being" a right? It's not. You need to get to well-being on your own.

Quote:

Maybe you can, maybe you can't. The point is we'll never know, what we lost by depriving people of an oportunity.

The opportunity is still there no matter where you go to school. Now you are saying people have a "right" to go to the best school?

Quote:

What's funny about it? You said it was not a government job to run companies, I showed you wrong. Some of those companies are "bad", sure. That's exactly the point. The government running all kinds of stupid, useless enterprises, makes the argument that "it's not their job" to run something that would actually be useful sound really silly.

What is "funny" is that you point to government-runb corporations as an example of why the government "can" run a health-insurance socialist company. Then most of the examples you give are of very badly run government corporations. Then you say I sound "silly" for saying it is not the government's job to run such things. You seem to imply, "it will be different this time." Like the guy who cheats on his wife and gets her to take him back saying, "this time will be different, honey, I PORMISE!" And the silly woman takes him back. Since you like it so much I will say it again, "IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO RUN COMPANIES THAT COMPETE WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR!" Doing so is called socialism.

Quote:

It's not socialism, it's just one government run operation, much more useful that lots others it is running anyways.

Uh, government-run operation is the very definition of socialism.

Quote:

What happens if you get really sick, and can't pay for it? When you need to cough up hundreds of thousands of dollars every week, AND cannot work, who is going to pay for that?

If I am smart I have my HSA and carasthropic plan to cover it, but Obama and liberals don't like me having that choice. If I was not smart then I die. In the long run we all die, of course. It is just that under socialized medicine as you advocate the government gets to decide on when you might die based on the cost of the care you need.

The problem here is too many people want to trade "freedom" for "free health care."

According to the US declaration if independence, and the constitution, which I believe use the declaration as a basis for, the government (the union of the people) is there for the safety, well being AND happiness of the people.

Hence, it would seem a valid argument that the US governments job IS the happiness and well being of the citizens of the United States of America.

Now, just have to agree what is covered by those terms and you are set.

:)

Quote: thecesspit

According to the US declaration if independence, and the constitution, which I believe use the declaration as a basis for, the government (the union of the people) is there for the safety, well being AND happiness of the people.

That's really, really, really (and I mean really) wrong. The Declaration lists only the three most important rigths: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Note Jefferson was very careful to say "the pursuit of happiness" rather than "happiness." you don't have a right to be happy per se, but raterh a right to find your own way of being happy.

Quote:

Hence, it would seem a valid argument that the US governments job IS the happiness and well being of the citizens of the United States of America.

Hence it's clearly not. The job of the government, as stated in the Declaration, is to secure man's rights. That's trhe reason governments are instituted. What this means is the government exists to protect your rights. To that end we delegate to government the right to sue force. This means the government can,a nd should, maintain the police, the courts, the penal system and the armed forces. To provide the conditions under which you're free, you can live your life, you can seek your joy, etc (there are many more unalienable rights).

It does not mean "I'll take from Peter, make Paul's life difficult, in order to make Mary happy."