print      source      versions

Comments ... #

Well I for one fully agree with TheAssHoleLawyer. I admit, I'm rather surprised that there is actually a conservative lawyer in this area.

posted by AmericanPie on Sep 18, 2007 at 12:59:37 pm     #

You might find this article, Health Care is Not a Right, very interesting...

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 18, 2007 at 01:22:13 pm     #

Hey Asshole:

Please don't expect us to believe that you would be content to bankrupt yourself if an elderly uninsured relative was in desperate need of healthcare. That just doesn't pass the straight face test. I find that the objectivist assholes that scream about government subsidized medical coverage are the same assholes that come into my office trying to figure out how to hide all their assets so that they can qualify for Medicaid benefits. Somehow they think that they have more of a right to government benefits, even though they can clearly afford it.

posted by Ace_Face on Sep 18, 2007 at 02:48:08 pm     #

You know, if anyone wants to return to the time when there was no government and you had to do everything yourself and there was absolutely no one to help you, well, there is the Candadian, Alaskan, and Siberian wildernesses as well as many other places in the world where either there is no one else to depend on or you don't dare trust anyone else.

What is wrong with the people working together to bring more affordable and dependable health care just as we work together to have publically funded schools, fire departments, law enforcement agencies...etc...I am sure none of your would want to return to the days before we had those things?

Also, as health costs increase, businesses are actually beginning to see that it makes sense to rationalize healthcare for our nation so that they can be more competitive.

Lastly, who says that health care for everyone has to cost more? If anything, it could cost less than the absolutely ridiculous prices we pay now. If we need more doctors, nurses and companies manufacturing drugs and equipment then by all means let's invest in them and maybe they will provide jobs for the people left out in the cold by all the manufacturing companies that moved over seas?

Just like public education, research, defense, public sewers, roads, public generation of electricity, and the internet, public inspired healthcare may be the best thing to happen to the American economy.

posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 18, 2007 at 02:59:42 pm     #

Ace:

Conent? No. Happy? No. But, willing to give up my principles of self reliance, small government, and family first to receive a social handout?.......A resounding NO.

Will I ever be working to keep my personally earned assets out of Uncle Sam's hands.....EVERY DAY!... In an effort to accept a social entitlement at the same time. NEVER.

The A-Hole.

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 18, 2007 at 03:02:31 pm     #

ilovetoledo:

Just so you know...The A-Hole was born and raised in Alaska.

Good, thoughtful response, but your examples of govt. provided services list some of the most woeful failures of our time: public education, Toledo roads, public utilities and services (trash tax), Toledo's aged and insufficient sewer system (flood of 2006).

Regarding health care you used a KEY WORD...rationalize, root word ration. Socialized medicine will lead to exactly that, rationing....just ask Canadians, French, and every other person who comes to America for health care about rationing.

The A-Hole.

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 18, 2007 at 03:07:30 pm     #

You must be an idealogue and hold up these things to some perfect and imagined standard and when you do that, of course they don't meet it. On the other hand, when you compare our country, our civilization, and our government and what it has done for its people and the world for the past 200+ years, then it looks pretty darn good. We have a great country and a great people and a great civilization and we can have a great health care system. Don't knock your country and its accomplishments, it is a great one and it can do better with health care.

You are indeed probably a chameleon pseudo libertarian, that is you probably do look for ways you can somehow benefit at others' expense but when it comes to making a contribution, then you cry foul and then cite independence and self-reliance. We already have too many people like you, all take and no give. By the way, your moniker is highly appropriate.

posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 18, 2007 at 03:20:04 pm     #

ilovetoledo:

I am in no was a pseudo libertarian...I am a proud, conflicted, pseudo republican struggling to temper my loudly asserted libertarian ideology, with my begrudgingly conceded acceptance of the necessity of some government control.

My standards are indeed high, for myself, my children, my elected officials, my country and my community. Do I expect perfection? No. Is a good aspiration.....YES.

You make my health care point largely for me. OUR country is great, our health care system is the best on the planet, we are neither in a "health care crisis" nor in need of the government to step in and break the system. Need a prime example of the quality health care the government can provide......check out the VA.

As for making a contribution, I have served my community at every stage of my life and it remains a priority. Student government, military service, public service, and community pro-bono legal work currently.

It is dissapointing to see your response deteriorate into personal attacks instead of reasoned, respectful, debate.

The A-Hole.

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 18, 2007 at 04:00:54 pm     #

[whatever the quote block tag is]
On the other hand, when you compare our country, our civilization, and our government and what it has done for its people and the world for the past 200+ years, then it looks pretty darn good. We have a great country and a great people and a great civilization...
[/whatever the quote block tag is]

ilovetoledo, on this many could agree. But the problem that some people have is that they feel the country succeeded in being so great as a direct result of several core design goals - probably the most important being individual liberty. So, in effect, they feel that the great thing about this country is individual liberty. Because that is what makes it unique and, they feel, what has caused all the great outcomes.

That said, I hope we can also agree that for the last 150 or so years the predominent trend in policy and government activity has been the complete opposite of the orginal core design goals and have steadily eroded individual liberty.

I say that I hope we can agree because there shouldn't be anything controversial about that - it can be rationally observed by things like the change in size of the government, the shift to away from state power to federal power, the introduction of direct taxation, state controlled education, etc., etc.

Since you appearently support continued movement away from individual liberty, what exactly is it about the country that you think is so great? Do you think individual liberty is great? If so, why do you want to continually reduce it?

This is what confuses many people on my side of the fence. How the left can say they love the country on second and then, in the next, they are rotating it 180 degrees on its own axis. Completely illogical.

Now, if you said you thought that socialism is what makes this country great, that would totally clear things up. But no one on the left ever says that. In fact, socialism is often considered a bad word.

So do you like liberty or not?

posted by babbleman on Sep 18, 2007 at 04:42:25 pm     #

The one good news out of all of this is that Hillary isn't proposing a single payer system or a nationalized health service. Both would be detrimental in more ways than what she is proposing now.

With current laws and ethics guidelines on physicians and hospitals, when people don't have health insurance we all pay for their care. I think the solution to the problem of uninsured people has two options: One is to mandate coverage like Hillary has done here. The other option is to refuse to provide medical service to anyone without insurance or a downpayment of 10,20, or 30% up front.

For a long time I fell into the trap that the "poor" are the ones who don't have insurance. They are definitely a percentage of the population without insurance, but after seeing numerous people without health insurance in the hospital it has become clear to me that the majority of people without insurance have the means to buy health insurance. However, they don't for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is that they know they can still receive the EXACT SAME CARE as those people who paid into the system. This has to stop.

posted by HeyHey on Sep 18, 2007 at 05:35:21 pm     #

"How the left can say they love the country on second and then, in the next, they are rotating it 180 degrees on its own axis. Completely illogical."

Probably many people on the left would say, "Ditto!."

"So do you like liberty or not?"

Your distilling the whole question down to one wife-beating question is a good example of the simplicity many idealogues on the right, and perhaps on the left, erroneously attempt to achieve.

You could argue that genuine individual liberty has never really existed in America. For example, it was the Federalists, the antecedents to the Whigs and Republican parties, who passed the first alien and sedition acts to muzzle opposition. Many of the early founding fathers, ones whom you would identify as "conservatives" such as Henry Clay, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and John Quincy Adams believed the government should be harnessed to engage in a certain amount of social engineering, economic development, as well as the development of infrastructure by the government. Federalists and Whigs were big on harnessing the government for the development of the nation. You can look this up, it is elementary history. On the other hand, it was the antecedents to the modern Democratic party, for example Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, who believed in limited government because they believed in their hearts that government would be used by the rich as great engines for wealth re-distribution from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes. Even Abraham Lincoln, virtual founder of the modern Republican party probably did more to strengthen the development of the Federal government with respect to science, industry, and the law than any democrat before or since his time in office. By this I mean he put the Federal government squarely in the center of power with respect to the nation.

The result was that with the growth of industrialization, Jefferson's and Jackson's nightmares did indeed come true as big money and industry harnessed the economy and the American people for their own ends. Here I speak of the robber barons. Child labor, unsafe products, the boom-bust economy that led to unsafe work conditions, poverty, misery, ignorance, disease for millions of Americans. These were rampant and many a robber baron would just attribute these issues to a lack of personal initiative or a lack of self-sufficiency.

Enter in the Reformers of the late 19th and early 20th Century. They saw and believed that many of the socio-economic ills of American society were not due to personal failings but were in fact structural in nature. Modest reforms in education, government regulation of labor, safety, and food and in other areas surprisingly had the effect of bettering the nation as a whole, but overall American business and the tycoons had their way with the American people. Things got better and America prospered but then the economic house of cards collapsed with the Great Depression. Fast and loose play with American wealth as well as a severely unequal distribution of this wealth tended to throw the economy out of balance much like a bunch of wet beach towels in a washing machine. The economy soared, stalled and crashed.

By the 1930s with extreme unemployment and a devasted work force, people no longer believed in the bromides that spoke of natural market forces fixing everything. (There never has been any such thing as a genuinely free economy in America but that is another matter.) People including many from the lower, middle and even business classes demanded government regulation to bring balance to economic forces in America. Hence, we have the New Deal. The modest policies of the New Deal along with a great infusion of development brought about by World War II had the effect of producing the greatest economic development America ever had. Since that time, and up untill perhaps the Reagan era, regulation and government involvement to shape the development of the economy for all had been accepted as common sense. For example, Eisenhower, a conservative Republican said the following, "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt, a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Of course, I could go on to talk about the undoing of all this with LBJ who pushed government initiative to the absurd and then there is both Reagan and Bush II who in the name of conservative principles built of the greatest deficits and most invasive government ever but that is another story.

My point is that the idea of a genuine free market, and personal individual liberty in America is greatly overstated. They are myths that conservatives erroneously draw on to support some sort of quasi-nostalgic view of society and government that never really existed. The truth is that wherever you have people, you will have government. The only question is to whose ends that government will be harnessed....will it be used to benefit the many or the few? That is the question that we have to face.

posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 18, 2007 at 05:55:16 pm     #

ilovetoledo, your perspective on several key points in history are clearly sales jobs for the left while posing as an astute history lesson. You also employ that whole hipocrisy charge thing where you point out those in right wing parties that have done left wing things - this one always kills me - if what they did is bad, then what are we arguing about?

I asked if you liked liberty or not because everything the modern left is about is a reduction of liberty. You said that the idea of liberty is a myth. I think that answers the question.

posted by babbleman on Sep 18, 2007 at 06:36:24 pm     #

But forget the whole liberty thing if that is too simplistic.

Let me ask you this. The size of all government in the country represents about 25% of our collective productivity and we have an average effective tax rate of over 50%. Are these numbers good? Do you want them higher or lower?

posted by babbleman on Sep 18, 2007 at 06:40:53 pm     #

The issue I have is about the lack of distinction between the federal and state governments. The federal government shouldn't be doing most of what it does - and the states should be doing more.

The states were supposed to be the laboratories of experimentation where people could try different ideas and concepts - and if they worked, other states could use/adapt such ideas.

If we still had such a structure, instead of such a strong central government with onerous laws, I can't help but wonder what types of 'health care' we'd have...

Further, people may have a hard time affording the insurance - but some studies show that people can pay for regular office visits and such. The concept of 'major medical' insurance is pretty much gone, but it was insurance in case of a major medical illness or need - and it was much more affordable that what we have today.

The problem that arose is that people learned they could put pressure on the federal government to accomplish what they couldn't accomplish at 'home'. And when people learn that they can take from the public trough, it's only a matter of time before you lose everything.

We're supposed to be a Republic, but we act - more and more each day - like a democracy:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 18, 2007 at 07:21:52 pm     #

I think generally you fall into the trap that most righties and many lefties fall into that is of oversimplifcation. Rather than exerting the mental discipline and hard work required to discern the historical development and intricacies of our nation, its people, and its government, you paint it as you will with a large brush to suit you own imagination, totally ignoring the complexity and reality. Dilletantism is the best term to describe members of the right, or left for that matter, who ignore the past and the complexity of American civilzation and its interaction with the world. Like a fool who takes apart a sophisticated piece of of equipment such as a car disgarding pieces here and there as irrelevant nonsense, and cursing it because it still does not work, so the simple minded tinkerers and odd-job men of this country are set about to dismantle our great nation and its institution to the detriment of the people and themselves.

posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 18, 2007 at 07:52:44 pm     #

Ms. Thurber, I think we all agree that government has always been with us and always will be. America did nothing new in making a government, but the genius of our American government was in making it flexible enough to change and grow and to meet the needs of the future. There will always be a tension between different interests in a society with respect to government. The great thing about our nation and what Shelby Foote says is the thing that Americans are great at is compromise. That's really what we need more of today so that everyone has a voice, a say and an interest is recognized whether it be a pharmaceutical company, a CEO, a union member or a stay at home mom. That's what I think we need to recognize more than anachronistic catch phrases and bromides such as yours that have little rooting in fact.

posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 18, 2007 at 07:58:11 pm     #

Your attitude appears rather condescending, ilovetoledo. Further, in what was a respectful conversation with people having honest disagreements, you've now resorted to personal attacks, calling people simplistic, superficial and amateurish.

The warning about the dangers of the majority being able to vote themselves largesse from the public treasury is not an anachronistic catch phrase nor a bromide. Nor is it an oversimplification. Just take a look at the smoking ban. A majority of people voted to restrict the rights of others, including private businesses where you do not have to go. As a Republic, we're supposed to protect the rights of the minority. And if you really want oversimplification, look up that old joke about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

You say you believe everyone should have a voice, yet your disdainful comments indicate otherwise.

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 18, 2007 at 08:35:05 pm     #

Dear Asshole, I'm writing this to let you know that with "Free Market Bush" and his personal "cowardly turd licker", Alan Greenspan, placing his turncoat stamp of respectability on the wealth transfer to the fat cats, government spending is at an all time high, and health care has become unaffordable and out of reach for many Americans. So much for the free market theory. There. I think we need national health care now.

posted by Bbcmjeep43 on Sep 18, 2007 at 09:03:00 pm     #

It seems to be an issue of affordable health care. I think that's all anyone really wants. When they're sick or injured, they want competent affordable care to get them back to normal.

The means seem to be an issue.

The global market and "free trade" allegedly suppresses prices for nic nacs. Why not harness it for useful things like drugs (for those who don't "just say no?") and medical care? Why get a $50,000 surgery here when I can get the same for $5,000 elsewhere? Why not get the pills I want for pennies on the dollar? Why not let European/Japanese medicines be sold here?

There will be horror stories, of course, just like there are horror stories here now happening everyday.

Insurance isn't necessary. Affordable, effective, and readily available health care is. Sick workers don't produce. Dead consumers don't buy.

Maybe we can look at our food supply and see what was available to eat before the advent of marketing and compromised health authorities? I hear clean fruits, vegetables, and water have immeasurable health benefits.

posted by charlatan on Sep 19, 2007 at 01:09:29 am     #

I did not know that you were such sensitive souls, sorry for ruining your day. Also, I don't think that I have any monopoly on condescension here on this board. Clearly, your purposely ignorance regarding the historical truth about liberty, government and society as I have presented it and your continuance to spout trite and simplistic catch phrases show that you are probably in fact more condescending than I ever hope to be. This is not my thread, but I thought you wanted to have a serious discussion about health care, government and American society. Obviously I have interrupted a place where right wingers wanted to pat each other on the back and reinforce their courage in the face of their all to apparantly thread-bare and shabby accoutrements that they try to pawn off as cogent policy. Please excuse me and continue with your Republican love-fest and I shall not disturb it again.

posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 19, 2007 at 06:17:05 am     #

No, ilovetoledo, please, by all means continue. You speak volumes.

posted by babbleman on Sep 19, 2007 at 07:50:59 am     #

BbcmJeep:

Nice. Thanks for keeping the debate respectful, informed, and reasonable.

I agree, President Bush (yes President, not Mr., not George, not A-Hole, at least respect the office) has largely abandoned the Republican ideals I agree with. He promoted and signed the largest entitlement increase in history, and has side stepped, ignored, or cajoled on immigration and safe borders. But, I agree with much of what he has done, and overall I think history will prove him to be right on the war on terror and international security.

Greenspan, well I have not read his book yet, he was fundamental to US economic trends in both good and bad times, and now is simply trying to make a name for himself.

The A-Hole.

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 19, 2007 at 12:51:25 pm     #

Maggie, I believe the quote about democracy you referenced refers to a direct democracy, not a representative democracy. And I think it's too simplistic to refer to the US as a republic, in and of itself. After all, the USSR was a republic too.

posted by Chris99 on Sep 19, 2007 at 01:44:57 pm     #

Dear Asshole, it was a pleasure to hear your kind compliments on my professionally worded mini-slam of our great President and his willing partners in the "War on Fair and Equitable taxation"! I personally believe he also botched the "War on Terror", and it never should have been called that to begin with. I also believe that vigorous argument is better than chicken soup for the soul! I'll say a shocking thing every now and then, just to stir the pot a little bit! I enjoyed the comments from ilovetoledo and do not believe there is anything out of line on this thread whatsoever. There may be a small amount of posturing and Shakespearean drama, yet no major topic spoilage that I can see.

posted by Bbcmjeep43 on Sep 19, 2007 at 02:01:06 pm     #

Please don't expect us ...

Who is 'us'? Would that be you and all of your personalities? Or do you imply that you are speaking on behalf of the independent voices of ToledoTalk? If so, get bent; YOU only represent YOU, and you're doing a piss-poor job of it.

...to believe that you would be content to bankrupt yourself if an elderly uninsured relative was in desperate need of healthcare. That just doesn't pass the straight face test.

Barring personal experience with TheAssHoleLawyer, you have NO BASIS to doubt the truthful nature of his words.

BUT THAT'S JUST LIKE A LIB ... upon encountering something that doesn't fit in your worldview, you declare it to be FALSE! Where's your OPEN MIND? Clearly, it is nestled between your buttcheeks.
******************************************

AssFace and ilovetoledo are poster-kids for the demographic being described by TheAssHoleLawyer. Neither one understands freedom or liberty. Neither wants to work for anything; both want to be GIVEN the benefits, and they expect OTHERS to pay the cost.
******************************************

There's a good reason why Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Jefferson understood that there would always be at least three types of people present in society.

1) Those who value freedom and will fight for it.
2) Those who like freedom but will not fight for it.
3) Those who see freedom as a problem that requires a remedy.

Jefferson was using polite words to say that group1 and group3 would bleed for the cause of freedom. Jefferson was too polite to refer to group2. They are the sheeple of the world. They are group3's enablers.
******************************************

Here's another tidbit. My money IS NOT your money. Take a moment and reflect on that.

If you don't have money for a car, or your mortgage payment, or a bag of chips, or to have your broken finger properly set, then that's too bad about you. I am NOT RESPONSIBLE for you. Judging from your words, YOU don't want to be responsible for yourself, either!
******************************************

When I pay taxes to build roads, it turns out that I get to drive on them. If I am taxed to pay for your health care costs, I only have a tax bill to show for it. That is unacceptable. I am already getting ripped off for the taxes associated with Medicare ,Medicaid, and Social Security.

Screw this shit.

posted by AirTrainer on Sep 19, 2007 at 03:30:38 pm     #

Here is a great example of a modern liberal absolutely and completely incapable of understanding the idea of individual self-interest or the very good argument that from a rational perspective, it is the only sustainable approach to morality and society.

Whether or not you like Ayn Rand, this contrast between her and Mike Wallace is telling - and it is the same thing we are seeing in this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-pHxlwFgOc

posted by babbleman on Sep 19, 2007 at 07:02:30 pm     #

Chris - I believe that you are correct about the quote...good point to make.

However, I'm not too sure about the other...I'm reminded of the quote from Franklin - paraphrased...what kind of government? A republic - if you can keep it...

If you use a broad definition of republic (a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country), even a monarchy can be a republic...

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 19, 2007 at 07:32:33 pm     #

Well done ilovetoledo!

posted by Chris99 on Sep 19, 2007 at 07:59:44 pm     #

babbleman - thanks for that link...what a fascinating interview!

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 19, 2007 at 08:03:16 pm     #

Yea, she breaks down pretty good. Here is where she applies it to politics:

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wsr768hdk4

Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5poUSQ4L8pY

posted by babbleman on Sep 19, 2007 at 09:19:41 pm     #

GuestZero, is that you?

I find it hilarious that right after I am chided for doubting AssHole when I have no personal experience with him, AirTrainer says:

"AssFace and ilovetoledo are poster-kids for the demographic being described by TheAssHoleLawyer. Neither one understands freedom or liberty. Neither wants to work for anything; both want to be GIVEN the benefits, and they expect OTHERS to pay the cost."

I would have you know that while AFL dispatches his missives from the desk of a large downtown law firm, I am solo, paying payroll taxes, self employment taxes, etc. In I other words, I walk the walk while AFL just talks the talk.

posted by Ace_Face on Sep 20, 2007 at 08:28:37 am     #

I would have you know that while AFL dispatches his missives from the desk of a large downtown law firm, I am solo, paying payroll taxes, self employment taxes, etc. In I other words, I walk the walk while AFL just talks the talk.

And yet you still found time to call a complete stranger a liar. Well done!
*********************************************

No one has ever confused me with GuestZero before; thanks for the chuckle. Generally, the only issue that we agree upon is the Second Amendment.

I don't think I've seen GZ's signature around here for a while, though I've been absent myself. I expect GZ is out and about trying to locate Osama bin Chomsky.

posted by AirTrainer on Sep 20, 2007 at 09:50:42 am     #

"And yet you still found time to call a complete stranger a liar. Well done!"

Takes no longer than calling a complete stranger irresponsible and and unable to understand freedom and liberty. My point was that as you decried name calling, you engaged in exactly the same behavior.

posted by Ace_Face on Sep 20, 2007 at 10:28:20 am     #

Ayn Rand? Seriously. She and her "Randroid" following have a pretty dismal view of human nature.

Nathaniel Brandon, a former follower of Rand's objectivism, wrote The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement.
http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html
#
# The hazards
# Confusing reason with "the reasonable"
# Encouraging repression
# Encouraging moralizing
# Conflating sacrifice and benevolence
# Overemphasizing the role of philosophical premises
# Encouraging dogmatism

Rand's book on ethics is entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness"

posted by charlatan on Sep 20, 2007 at 09:39:22 pm     #

Here's another tidbit. My money IS NOT your money.

What money? Last I heard, you're as broke as I am.

Hitlery's plan for national health care is frightening. Consider that Hitlery wants to force everyone to buy health insurance. Now, the last time I checked, insurance companies do not make money by paying claims. The insurance company makes their money the old fashioned way - they steal it legally.

If national health care is going to succeed, the very first thing to do is get rid of the insurance company. Let the providers bill the government on terms of net 30, and let the government pay the provider. Nice and simple, see? While we're at it, let the government cover medical malpractice as well.

That is, if we really want the government to cover all medical costs.

As an alternative, we could allow all medical costs to be 100% tax deductable and let people handle their own medical costs, similar to a 401K or something.

posted by madjack on Sep 20, 2007 at 10:48:57 pm     #

You know you're doing well blogging when people start suspecting you're behind other nicknames.

Maddie's on the right track with the Hitlery thing. Being enslaved to a corporate sector is the goal of all these prevailing "health care reformers". Blackwell was spouting the same nonsense. This is so, since Blackwell, Hitlery and most other pols are controlled by the corporate sectors who fund their campaigns. The insurance industry has much greater representation in the US Congress and in individual legislatures.

Forcing people to pay insurance companies is about as big an elitist affront to our liberty as anything. If the government wants to tax everyone to provide a service, then why not do it directly?

At any rate, exporting the Massachusetts model (where everyone in the state must be covered) is only going to decimate Ohio. Just imagine the $10/hr employees being FORCED to pay $100 more a month (at least) for insurance they can't afford at the moment. It'll come right out of their paychecks, which is the preferred method of stealing money in America. Ohio's retail sector will almost literally COLLAPSE, as too much "disposable" income will be forced into the pockets of insurance companies. (Of course, we voted in that smoking ban, so it's not like we give a fuck about retail businesses anyway.)

What's key for Ohio is that there may be enough people under poverty that they can be effectively bribed into accepting the Hitlery/MA plan. Poor folks under such a plan simply get free health care, and when I say "free", I fucking well mean FREE, since they don't pay into the system at all.

posted by GuestZero on Sep 20, 2007 at 11:18:41 pm     #

don't get your panties in a bunch. universal health care is a way to garnish votes for D voters as banning gay marriage is for R voters. nothing ever happens. such things are tougher sells than more lucrative ventures like wars.

the present system functions well within the context of a high margin business. the healthy generally get health insurance they don't use, the sporadically sick are given a limited amount of health care until it becomes cost-prohibitive. and the working poor, systematically unemployed, and terminally sick are unable to afford or denied coverage.

you think the people milking this cash cow are going to let it go without a fight.

posted by charlatan on Sep 21, 2007 at 12:55:13 am     #

charlatan, whether one considers Rand's view of humanity dim or not is irrelevalant in that it implies an ethical judgment. From a perspective of rational system design, the issue is which engine is more effective at producing sustainability - that of individual self-interest, or that of centrally controlled collectivism? A collection of I's or a single We?

As you point out, Rand, like Adam Smith conclude, for a wide variety of reasons - both theoretical and observed, that a collection of I's is the only system design that is sustainable and, throughout history, the one that has produced the most prosperity, technology and advances in civilization.

Now, when one puts this through any number of ethical filters, they may conclude that self-interest is bad (or, in your case "dim"). So let's say that it is. What should we do about it?

One solution is to resort to building a collection of I's into a We to fight the selfishness of the I's. But what makes you think that if the atomic building block of the We is self-interested, that the molecule will not be? Why would the heads of any organization, government or otherwise, suddenly become not self-interested? If you don't like self-interest, why in the world would you set out to design a system that concentrates its power exponentially?

Here is another great thinker of our time addressing this exact issue with another great liberal of our time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

But the concentration of self-interest is the natural state of a group of people. Zoom out and look at all of human history. Societies always gravitate to the We and always with negative effects. In all of human history, there have only been a handful of times, all very short, in which a group has erected barriers to the We and allowed the I's to exist. And it has only been in those times that mankind was prosperous and advanced technologically.

As I said in my first post on this thread, this observation shouldn't even be in question. The most basic rational tests on historical data will provide this conclusion. The debate should not be I vs We. It should be how can We be controlled and I be exploited. But its not. The debate is I vs. We. And arguing for the exploitation of We in the face of 200,000 years of evidence, is literally the definition of insanity.

Here is the same great thinker on that subject - see 17:50 to 20:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE

posted by babbleman on Sep 21, 2007 at 09:22:36 am     #

What money? Last I heard, you're as broke as I am.

You know the money I'm talking about. It's the cash that allows us to have outlandish habits like eating, bathing, and sleeping indoors. I really don't want Hitlery (or anyone else) taking that TOO.
**************************************************************************

BabbleMan : The videos of the interviews with Rand and Friedman are really good. Thanks for posting those.

I thought it was hilarious to see Mike Wallace:
1)Posing with a cigarette.
2)Invoking God
3)Saying the words, "...I am my brother's keeper."
**************************************************************************

My point was that as you decried name calling, you engaged in exactly the same behavior.

Sorry, pookie, you don't get to play victim today; the passive-aggressive routine of the left is worn threadbare. As Will Smith's character in MIB says to the giant cockroach, "If you don't start no trouble, there won't BE no trouble."

Here's an opportunity to prove me wrong. Do you oppose Hillary's proposal, or do you support it?

And while we're at it, where's that socialist that goes by the name of ilovetoledo? Hey honey, I'm wearing my WIFEBEATER t-shirt today. It's a shame our union (the WBU) says we have to change.

posted by AirTrainer on Sep 21, 2007 at 02:46:06 pm     #

home • about • help • contact

© 2003-2008 Toledo Talk

current date: 22-Nov-2008 12:19 A.M.

old version of Toledo Talk