Oregon Senate Candidate Steve Novick Answers Your Questions

Wow. More politicians (of all parties) need to be as open and thorough as Steve Novick is here. We selected 10 of the questions you submitted and sent them to him by email, and his responses... let's just say that if every candidate spoke out like Steve, we'd have a much clearer view of our choices and would be able to cast our votes a lot more rationally.

1) Slashdot's Hive's Net Neutrality View (Score:5, Interesting)
by eldavojohn (898314)

From your website [novickforsenate.org] on issues, you say:

-I would join many other U.S. senators, and the rest of what we might call Google Nation, in supporting "net neutrality." We need to prevent broadband providers from creating a two-tiered system of access to information, in which content providers with money would have an advantage over those without it, and Internet users would often find it harder to Google their way to the information they really need.-

Your net neutrality rhetoric rings true with this readership, for the most part. How exactly do you propose you would enforce this?

I mean, you say yourself that the companies with money are going to want this, how do you plan to fight the opposition? If your opponent Gordon Smith opposes net neutrality, you're going to face a lot more of that in the senate. Voting to ensure it in bills is one thing but what makes you unique to any other Senator trying to keep the net neutral? What are the best things we can do to help this? I tried explaining it to my friends and family but often find I've at best confused them.

Allow me to play the devil's advocate, argue against this point: - The government controls too much of our lives right now, why let them control the internet with a facade of "net neutrality?" It's just another form of restricting the market to evolve naturally, why would we want that?-

Novick:

Thanks for the question and for taking notice of my stand on the issue. Some of my friends questioned why it was part of the first series of issues statements we put up on our website, but it is an important issue to me and I know also to the tech community.

I think the Internet Freedom Preservation Act represents a great start in protecting net neutrality, establishing a national broadband policy that prioritizes open access to online content for all users and directing the FCC to enforce these provisions and take public input on these issues.

Of course, as we've seen with the current FCC appointees, we must closely monitor and provide Congressional oversight to prevent political appointees from hijacking federal policy to benefit corporate interests. As I pledged on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina last year, I will vote "no" on confirmations unless it has been demonstrated that the appointee is qualified for the position.

But I think your larger question is, how do we beat a powerful telecommunications industry, how do we win? The truth is that it will take more than having me as a reliable vote against the telecom industry on this issue. We all know how tough it is to take on rich and powerful special interests in Washington D.C. But that doesn't mean you don't try. Whether it is health care, global warming or net neutrality, we all know what we are up against if we really want to make changes. That's why I have been willing to talk frankly about these issues and what it will take to make the changes we need. Another slogan for the campaign has been, 'voters can handle the truth.'

On net neutrality, I think you are correct that framing this debate is part of the challenge. For instance, I think too many people forget that it is public investment that funded the research to build the internet. (And yes, Al Gore had a lot to do with that!) Just as with the airwaves, there is a direct public interest in the management of the internet. I think people will appreciate the dangers of letting for-profit companies decide what content is easily accessible to the public. I think we can forcefully make the point that we don't want the Internet to become like cable television, where monopolies determine who has access to what content, based on profits. The market should be allowed to evolve (as you argue in your devil's advocate point), but government regulation of that market to make sure that evolution also serves the public interest makes a lot of sense - particularly in a public communication medium.

I have pledged to be an outspoken advocate in the Senate, urging my colleagues to stand up for what is right. Just as with Democrats who are afraid to reform the capital gains tax for fear of losing hedge fund contributions, I would challenge those afraid to stand up to the telecommunications giants to take a risk and do what is right for the country. It seems me that we should be able to get at least as much good attention for doing what is right as we would have with the TV ads we could buy from all those campaign contributions. Heck, I'm just a candidate and look at all the national press I've been getting for just being willing to stand up and buck the conventional political wisdom!

2) Nucular... (Score:4, Interesting)
by Notquitecajun (1073646)

Are you in favor of nuclear energy, or are you afraid of it?

Novick:

We face an incredible challenge of shifting off of our dependence on fossil fuels and I've heard smart arguments from environmentalists on both sides of the nuclear power question. Some argue that the cancer of global warming may require radiation treatment. They point out that nuclear power supplies much of France's power and has done so without incident for years.

But I am skeptical that nuclear power can be counted on to address our long-term power needs. We still do not have a satisfactory answer to the waste disposal question and the Yucca Mountain depository appears riddled with problems. In addition, large scale use of nuclear power by the U.S. would likely lead the rest of the world to follow suit -- creating a global nuclear fuel reprocessing industry. I would be extremely nervous, in this age of terrorists willing to employ any means to serve their extremist goals, to encourage a global trade network for nuclear fuel that could be all too easily diverted to weapons production. One of my supporters, Denis Hayes, points out that if we increase our reliance on nuclear power, it's hard for us to object to all the other nations of the world developing nuclear power -- and then, he argues, it's too short a step from nuclear power to nuclear weapons.

Finally, of course there is nothing stopping the development of additional nuclear plants in America today. Conservative proposals to spend billions in assisting the construction of these plants or putting the federal government on the hook for insuring these plants seems a poor investment of our money that would be better served exploring renewable alternatives.

3) Universal Health Care (Score:5, Insightful)
by pudge (3605)

Steve, your state already tried, and aborted, an attempt at universal health care. Do you want federal universal health care because Oregon needs to take money from other states to make it work? Would you raise federal income taxes to make it work? How much?

Novick:

I would suggest that Oregon's attempt at universal health care never really got off the ground because major portions of it (such as a requirement that all employers contribute toward their employees' health care) were blocked by the Republican-controlled legislature. I think that experience underscores the need for us to address health care reform at a national level. The path our health care system is on, with its exploding costs and declining coverage, is clearly unsustainable. I think there are several comprehensive plans out there to ensure everyone has affordable health care, while tackling the rise in the cost of care. Here's a fuller explanation of what I think that will take and several measures we need to take to control costs.

Without significant policy changes, we face the specter of massive tax increases or benefit cuts in Medicare when baby boomers retire. That is why we must reform our healthcare system now, just as we must put the government as a whole on sound fiscal footing before it is too late and we are faced with unacceptable options.

4) Beer (Score:5, Interesting)
by esocid (946821)

What will you do to get more Oregon beer east of the Mississippi river?

But seriously, you state that The manipulation of scientific data and government reports by political appointees must end. And we must stop the revolving door that has put industry lobbyists in charge of protecting our natural resources. How would attempt to improve the reliability of the EPA's research and encourage transparency within its ranks as to thwart its recent politicization and "bullying" of its scientists who don't produce data to support a political agenda?

Novick:

Yes, we must stop the blatant East Coast bias that has trumpeted Sam Adams as the height of beers, while leaving numerous superior Oregon brews in relative obscurity!

In terms of environmental science, I have actually been surprised at the lengths to which the Bush Administration has gone to interfere with this process. I was in the environmental section of the U.S. Justice Department under Reagan and when Ed Meese was Attorney General (wiki link for those of you in grade school at the time). And the amazing thing is that the political appointees left us alone and let us do our jobs. From colleagues I had who are still at DOJ and the EPA, I know that this Administration has been truly unique in using political appointments to override the best advice of career staff.

So, the first step is to provide real confirmation reviews and oversight of those appointees -- not just the department heads but also their deputies. It is entirely reasonable to expect these people to be qualified in the area to which they are being appointed and demand that they not insert their agendas, or those of their former clients, into the process of governing.

In addition, we can take steps to ensure there is accountability when these abuses occur. We need real whistleblower protections for those who expose malfeasance, and we also need to end the disaster that the Freedom of Information process has become under this Administration. When citizens can't get their requests returned in a timely manner, it becomes too late to do anything about abuses by the time they are brought to light.

5) Internet's Effect on Campaign Finances (Score:4, Interesting)
by roadkill_cr (1155149)

Does the advent of the Internet mean that a politician can win elections without requiring as much financial support? Or is it simply another media out of the many already used (radio, television, etc.) that one must now campaign on, making campaigning more expensive than before?

Novick:

Unfortunately, no, the internet has not allowed us to transcend the conventional politics of the past. But it has done a lot to help reach voters cheaply and effectively with answers to their specific concerns and for supporters to connect and mobilize in ways that were not possible in the past.

I have frequently referred to my candidacy as the Paul Wellstone campaign on steroids. Wellstone didn't have the advantage of reaching hundreds of thousands voters directly like we've done through our email, online posts and ads posted on YouTube. We've also been able to draw major support from the netroots through ActBlue, making me the #3 Senate candidate on the site with over $350,000 raised.

But these strategies complement the previous methods of voter contact -- TV ads, mailers, door knocking and phone calling. The reality is that you got to do it all. But the ability of the internet to help coordinate and engage voters has been a huge boon to candidates like myself -- certainly outweighing the additional costs.

I do believe that in the future, the Internet will be a major factor in "post-big money politics." If a majority of voters are sufficiently engaged in and enthusiastic about politics to seek out candidates' positions, they can look to candidates' web sites, and 30-second ads will cease to be relevant. At present, many voters remain disengaged and cynical, unlikely to look up candidate web sites without prompting. I hope that in this campaign, our creative advertising will drive voters to our web site. In the years to come I hope that the next President, my colleagues and myself will offer voters the kind of principled, progressive leadership that will re-engage voters and render ads and money increasingly irrelevant.

6) Effect on Party Platform (Score:4, Informative)
by explosivejared (1186049)

You seem to be pretty frank about your policy on the war. How much effect do think you could have on the Democratic platform regarding Iraq? The party has equivocated (eg pulling funding) on whether or not it will go full force at ending the current deployment of troops and on just how it would plan to work with regional players. How do you think you can work to providing a consistent and working policy for Iraq? Your site says that you are amazed at the war can still be sold. What are you going to change about that?

Novick:

The war has been extremely challenging for our party, given many Democrats' failure to ask tough questions in the lead-up to the war, and their fear that they will be attacked for not supporting the troops if they stand strong on demanding an end to it. I have been critical of those failures during my campaign because I think voters are looking for someone who is willing to put principles before party.

This week, I joined in supporting Darcy Burner's plan to pull us out of Iraq quickly and responsibly, while working to repair the damage this war has done there and here at home. I think the objectives outlined in the plan will serve as a rallying point for progressives and others committed to ending this war and provide a strong counterpoint to the Bush/McCain plan to simply "stay the course."

I think that on the issue of Iraq -- as on almost any other issue -- our leaders, of both parties, need a solid dose of honesty. We can't promise that a swift withdrawal will turn Iraq into a land of milk and honey. We also simply can't afford to stay there forever, and should not pretend that an open-ended military commitment by the United States is bringing about the political reconciliation necessary to achieve true peace in that country. We need to schedule a withdrawal in the way most likely to facilitate a political solution, while admitting that there is no magic wand.

7) I'm a fan (Score:4, Interesting)
by djcapelis (587616)

I've been tracking your campaign for awhile, you seem like a really good candidate for the senate slot and a good fit for Oregon. Unfortunately I'm a Californian democrat... and I know that most Oregonians aren't terribly fond in Californians interfering with your state.

Is there a way I can support you without getting you in trouble with your constituents? I know even a donation opens you up to the story of "funded by San Francisco Democrats" which would probably play pretty poorly in some parts of Oregon... Should we just stay on the side-lines or is there something folks outside your state can do to help you get your message out?

And one more related question: In this increasingly interconnected world, how do you see interstate involvement in local campaigns as changing the United States as a whole? The DSCC seems to be a pretty critical source of extra-state funding for instance...

Novick:

I need all the help I can get from the netroots across the United States. At least half of my primary opponent's money is coming from out of state, so he is unlikely to attack me for my netroots support. I don't have the DSCC tapping big national donors on my behalf and we are accepting contributions from all states via ActBlue. I suppose some might argue I should only take money from Oregonians, but the reality is that campaigns cost money and I'll be proud to stand up in the Senate for progressive folks from across the country. (Paul Wellstone never sent back my checks for his Minnesota campaigns.) Ultimately, it is the voters of Oregon that will cast ballots in this election. But it is only through citizens from across the nation coming together to demand real change that we are going to achieve a new direction for our nation.

8) Building the team? (Score:5, Interesting)
by D3 (31029)

When you decided to get into politics and/or make this run, how did you build your team? How did you choose your advisers? Were they all people you already knew or just knew one or two and they made recommendations? Basically, how does one go from "I think I could be a good Senator" to having the political machinery to make a run at it?

Novick:

Building a campaign team is always an interesting and challenging process. My campaign manager, Jake, was actually an intern for me twelve years ago and we've stayed in touch over the years. We have worked well together and I knew he'd appreciate my style and give me a 110% effort. I'm also fortunate to have several smart political consultant friends who have served as advisers to the campaign and recommended folks who would be a good fit.

But some of it is truly random. For instance, a friend of mine was at a wedding in Wisconsin and wound up talking to the mother of Steve Eichenbaum, who was responsible for Russ Feingold's ads. The firm got in contact and we met with them at the airport in Chicago when I was flying out from the Yearly Kos conference. And the rest is history.

9) Medical Marijuana (Score:5, Interesting)
by phobos13013 (813040)

Where do you stand on the issue of medical marijuana in your state? For ten years, use of marijuana has and created [redorbit.com]a legal vacuum for the public interest versus the private use issue [nwsource.com]. Would you protect growers of medical marijuana in your state from federal prosecution when such situations occur? Do you support the free and open use of a chemical that has no known addictive qualities, no known adverse health effects and broad, diverse public support for its decriminalization?

Novick:

I don't think it is the business of the federal government to second guess Oregon's voters and doctors, who in 1998 approved the creation of a controlled medical marijuana program, 55-45 percent. Since then Oregon voters and legislators have proven more than capable of weighing the merits and challenges of the program, suggesting that if a real problem emerges with medical marijuana in Oregon, we'll be able to fix it ourselves. I resent the Bush Administration's "big brother" attitude on both this program and our physician-assisted suicide law. It indicates they believe voters here are too ignorant to make informed decisions on these tough medical questions. I firmly disagree and will fight in the Senate to make sure that Oregonians, and residents of all states, have the prerogative to make these decisions for ourselves.

I favor Oregon's sensible laws on the regulation of marijuana itself.

10) Not like other politicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)

In your television ads, you state that you are not like other politicians. How do your political actions differ from those normally held by politicians: namely, increasing budget sizes - whether for the war, healthcare, public schools, or other state-run programs -- through taxation or deficit spending; and advancing laws violating human rights - whether through increased regulation of the economy, privacy violations, taxation, etc.

Also, how do your political motivations differ from those that have become the norm in politics? Politicians, acting as the "supply", have increasingly manipulated the economy to service the demand of corrupt companies offering to fund their campaigns - such as by contrived monopolies or selective tax breaks. How do your influences differ from the standard fare?

Novick:

I'll answer the second question first: I'm more ambitious than many politicians. I don't want to just be a Senator. I want to be remembered as a great Senator, who helped reform the health care system, prevent global warming, rebuild a fairer economy and tax system. That's my motivation.

In response to your first question, my campaign has differed from most campaigns in that I have spoken bluntly and in detail about problems and solutions. I have not merely decried deficits; I have explained the composition of the Federal budget, acknowledged that there are no simple answers, and proposed specific measures -- like taxing income from buying and selling stock at the same rate as income from wages, and reducing spending on exotic weapons systems -- to restore fiscal responsibility. I have not merely said that we need to "fix" the health care system; I have proposed specific measures to control costs -- like limiting drug companies' tax deductions for direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs, and moving from a pay-by-the-procedure model to an evidence-based, "pay for a course of treatment" model, for doctor and hospital care.

I have not just denounced the Bush Administration for warrantless wiretapping; I have denounced Democrats who have enabled him. There are, of course, other politicians -- such as Oregon's own Peter DeFazio -- who routinely flout conventional wisdom and speak honestly and bluntly about the critical issues facing the country. I will be proud to join their ranks.

Comments

Real Intentions?

[eldavojohn]

How do you respond to allegations that you plan to switch to the Pirate Party after your hostile take over of the senate?

Re:Real Intentions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just like to take the opportunity to respond in a very positive manner that with the advice and support of my family and those who know the deep dark secrets of my past (no, not the bits about the alien hookers, that wasn't me...), and of course, we must think of the children first, who, after all, through years of dedication and devotion, along with great sacrifices and both the personal and belly-lint level, I would just have to say No Comment.

Your taste in "ladies of the evening?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it include Kristin "Billie" Davis...or "Kristen" Ashley Dupre?

Re:Your taste in "ladies of the evening?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably Kirstie "Cheers" Alley.

Re:Your taste in "ladies of the evening?"

[sm62704]

You guys have way too much money! Gees, that's more then Elliot Spitzer pays!

My friends only charge $20-$50 (more, of course, if you're stupid. One young lady that charges me $20 gets ten times that much from rich politicians here in Springfield).

My question:

[xtracto]

Do you use Dragon Naturally Speaking?

just curious...

Re:My question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you use Dragon Naturally Speaking?

I use Dragon Unnaturally Roaring.

Re:My question:

[xtracto]

TROLL, wow sorry

Mods should learn that he could also use (and indeed would be cool) one hand Dvorak keyboard distribution no?

sheesh

Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I would suggest that Oregon's attempt at universal health care never got off the ground because major portions of it were blocked by the Republican-controlled legislature.

Yes, because of the obvious problems in PAYING for it. That the legislature blocked it is a good thing: universal health care does no one any good if everyone is broke. The proposed system was literally incapable of sustaining itself.

I think that experience underscores the need for us to address health care reform at a national level. The path our health care system is on is clearly unsustainable, with exploding costs and declining coverage. I think there are several comprehensive plans out there to ensure everyone has affordable health care, while tackling the cost of care.

None I've seen. All of them only discussed more regulation, and direct cost controls, to control costs, which either wouldn't work, or would only work in the short term, increasing costs and decreasing care in the long term (which always happens when you remove competition).

Here's a fuller explanation of what I think that will take and several measures we need to take to control costs.

I see several problems. First, Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare. This will be a big hit to middle class and poor families. I agree with this in principle, but see no way around it harming others. The middle class especially is already subsidizing drugs to Canada and other countries; now they would be subsidizing drugs to Medicare recipients.

This does not actually reduce national costs, it just shifts them, from the taxpayer to the drug consumer, which seems to me to be the wrong direction that most Democrats who favor universal health care want to go.

I also absolutely disagree with federal school lunch standards. The federal government has no business of any kind in the local public schools. Period, end of story.

As to hospitals, similar story: the federal government should not be paying for this equipment, or restricting its purchase.

However, I ABSOLUTELY agree that we need to reform the drug patent system. Thanks for highlighting that. I don't believe government should be in the business of handing out monopolies JUST FOR THE SAKE of handing out monopolies. The Constitution is clear: the point of a patent is to encourage innovation. It is only worthwhile to the extent it does that, and patent terms should be tailored to provide the MINIMUM rights necessary to accomplish that goal.

Further, I agree that taxpayers should not be subsidizing drug companies' ads. Indeed, we should not be subsidizing drug companies at all, including money for research. This ties into the patent issue because we pay them to do research and then give them a patent, too! Any research we DO subsidize should be public domain.

Which brings me to farm subsidies: no, we should cut all of them. We do not need them. Yes, the cost of food may rise, but our taxes will be significantly less (assuming the government doesn't spend that money on something else ... ha!), and individual states can increase food aid to needy families if necessary.

But all this put together will only begin to address the cost problems. The real big problem (other than tort reform, which is not a big issue for some, but a huge issue for others) is the lack of competition and choice that allows all kinds of health care providers -- from drugs to machines to hospitals -- to jack up the cost of health care. It's very similar to the patent issue. That is what government should be working on: finding ways to introduce more competition.

Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer. And while you have some good ideas, it is only barely a start. Frankly, I think many people -- not sure if this inclu

Re:Universal Health Care

[sethawoolley]

Hey, Pudge,

http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=491414&cid=22785306

We discussed the cost issues in the corresponding question article and you never got around to explaining why it would cost more money other than to assert that it would cost more money despite other western nations having a better health standard of living and spending less money on health care all while having universal health coverage.

You tried to get the last word in that time, and you weren't able to. Now you've hijacked this discussion, again.

Please go back to work at Slashdot and stop trying to hijack his response for your market-fundy ideology devoid of facts, logic, and rationality.

And please, stay out of OSCON. We here in Portland don't want you here. Go work for Microsoft or Google, instead, where they would agree with your market-based and Enron-like non-solutions for everything.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Shakrai]

Indeed, we should not be subsidizing drug companies at all, including money for research

I've never understood why Conservatives are opposed to funding research. How many for-profit drug companies do you think would be willing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into things like a vaccine for AIDS with no prospects of recouping that money for decades (if ever)?

Furthermore, isn't funding scientific research (in any field, not just pharmaceuticals) usually a good thing for the economy in the long run? At the end of the day the MBAs and Lawyers aren't going to keep us competitive with China and India -- the scientists and engineers will. We didn't beat the Soviet Union by producing more steel or pumping more oil -- we beat them by changing the economic paradigm towards technology and that's directly attributable to policies (Governmental and Corporate -- recall the Bell Labs of old) that promoted research, science and math.

Any research we DO subsidize should be public domain.

Amen to that. If Government-funded research uncovers some new breakthrough in any field it should be released into the public domain -- some outfit will find a way to make money off it.

Frankly, I think many people -- not sure if this includes you -- ideologically believe we SHOULD have government-provided universal health care

For me, I ideologically believe that health care is a right of everyone and not a privilege for those that can afford it.

instead of addressing the actual problems of cost.

I don't see why one (addressing the problems of cost) precludes the other (making sure everyone has access to health care).

The Constitution is clear: the point of a patent is to encourage innovation. It is only worthwhile to the extent it does that, and patent terms should be tailored to provide the MINIMUM rights necessary to accomplish that goal.

I think many businesses are being extremely short-sighted by trying to game the patent/copyright system. When a company (or industry) comes to rely on patents and lawyers more than innovation then something is seriously wrong. It might work for awhile to protect the bottom line but at the end of the day we can't compete in the global economy unless we get back to our innovative roots. All to often it seems like that takes a back seat to next quarters results or the stock price. Doesn't anybody invest and plan for the long term anymore?

Re:Universal Health Care

[Lumpy]

Yes, because of the obvious problems in PAYING for it.

What problems?

Stop the war against the middle east and we will have enough money to pay for healthcare for every american and triple the budget for NASA and all science foundations.

Just because we choose to kill people instead of healing people does not mean we have problems paying for it.

Re:Universal Health Care

[chaotoroboto]

I also absolutely disagree with federal school lunch standards. The federal government has no business of any kind in the local public schools. Period, end of story. For the poorest Americans, school lunches are the only real meal they get. So they get five squares a week. We should make sure they don't count.

Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer. And while you have some good ideas, it is only barely a start. Frankly, I think many people -- not sure if this includes you -- ideologically believe we SHOULD have government-provided universal health care, and try to shoehorn reality into that ideology, instead of addressing the actual problems of cost. Then again, the most expensive healthcare in the world is also the country where the government doesn't pay for it. Government paid healthcare is not perfect, and it's not a panacea, but it certainly seems to do a better job than privately funded healthcare does, and does so for less money. Which I think means that it lowers the cost?

Re:Universal Health Care

[A beautiful mind]

I've never understood why Conservatives are opposed to funding research. How many for-profit drug companies do you think would be willing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into things like a vaccine for AIDS with no prospects of recouping that money for decades (if ever)?

While I don't agree with pudge on a lot of matters, I think he means something different than you do in this case. 90% of the base medical research is done by publicly funded government money in the USA, but the companies that add the superficial packaging and small scale research (completely covered by tax breaks by the way) get 100% of the profit and determine market price. I'd call that subsidizing the companies and I don't think being against subsidizing companies means someone is against publicly funded research.

Re:Universal Health Care

[CrimsonAvenger]

Stop the war against the middle east and we will have enough money to pay for healthcare for every american and triple the budget for NASA and all science foundations.

We could do that. Of course, the deficits that resulted from spending all that money on the war won't vanish just because we spend that money on health care. So your proposed solution is high deficits forever?

Note, however, that we've spent on the order of 1.5 trillion on the war in seven years. Which is only 200 billion per year. Which won't pay for healthcare for every American, since it amounts to only $670 per person - less than the cost of Health Insurance by a considerable margin, much less the actual cost of healthcare.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sheldon]

I see several problems. First, Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare. This will be a big hit to middle class and poor families. I agree with this in principle, but see no way around it harming others. The middle class especially is already subsidizing drugs to Canada and other countries; now they would be subsidizing drugs to Medicare recipients.

This doesn't make sense. I can see where one country negotiating prices raises prices for another country not negotiating prices.

But not negotiating prices isn't going to lower prices for anybody. It just makes you a stupid sucker.

Further, I agree that taxpayers should not be subsidizing drug companies' ads.

I still find it fascinating that drug prices started skyrocketing when we allowed drug companies to advertise.

Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer.

There doesn't seem to be any incentive to reduce cost. The hospitals aren't going to do it. The insurance companies won't. The doctor's won't. They're all motivated to increase revenues. Increasing revenues when you have a fixed market means increasing costs. And since it's coming out of people's pocket books and our politicians think increasing revenues is good for business, there is this general attitude of doing nothing.

At least if our healthcare system were funding by the taxpayers, there would be a political motivation to reduce costs.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sheldon]

I've never understood why Conservatives are opposed to funding research. How many for-profit drug companies do you think would be willing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into things like a vaccine for AIDS with no prospects of recouping that money for decades (if ever)?

Agreed. A government funded research project will result in a cure.

A private industry funded research project will result in a pill to treat the symptoms.

Just look at ulcers as an example. When that Australian doctor realized it was a bacteria causing ulcers and wanted to study the idea of giving antibiotics to cure it, he was attacked by the drug companies(and doctors!) who were making billions of dollars treating heartburn.

Re:Universal Health Care

[l-ascorbic]

I don't get why so many people in the US talk like universal healthcare is some far-out radical idea that could never work in practice. It works pretty well in almost every other rich country in the world (and several poorer ones).

Re:Universal Health Care

[geekoid]

Wow, so, so wrong.

This gem stands out the most:
"First, Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare. "
no it doesn't. Not at all, it is a guaranteed minimum. We get a discount in exchange with buying X amount.

Now doing it on a national level would be better because it would be cheaper drugs for all.

See you at OSCON, asshole.

You don't seem to understand this finance, don't seem to ahve any experience reviewing other countries mass drug purchase, and you certianly do not understand drug patents. No real surprise.

", we should not be subsidizing drug companies at all, including money for research. This ties into the patent issue because we pay them to do research and then give them a patent, too! Any research we DO subsidize should be public domain."

There are countries with that philosophy, and exactly zero of them have ever produced anything new.

"ideologically believe we SHOULD have government-provided universal health care, and try to shoehorn reality into that ideology, instead of addressing the actual problems of cost."

Actually, the government is the only entity that can do it, regardless off the reform.

"but our taxes will be significantly les"

What the fuck have you been smoking? significantly? really? ok, now a realize your just fucking stupid and spouting off things based on ideology and not any actual knowledge.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I've never understood why Conservatives are opposed to funding research. How many for-profit drug companies do you think would be willing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into things like a vaccine for AIDS with no prospects of recouping that money for decades (if ever)? BILLIONS of dollars have been donated to AIDS research. Government clearly is not needed.

Furthermore, isn't funding scientific research (in any field, not just pharmaceuticals) usually a good thing for the economy in the long run? I am the type of conservative who puts principles of small government and liberty ahead of principles of actively helping the economy. Not that I am conceding the point: on the contrary, I think our economy will be MUCH better off without government involvement. But even if it weren't: the ends don't justify the means. Obviously, you do not believe the means is bad; but I do.

Frankly, I think many people -- not sure if this includes you -- ideologically believe we SHOULD have government-provided universal health care For me, I ideologically believe that health care is a right of everyone It can't be, from my perspective. If it is your right, that means I have to provide it. This is not what the Constitution stands for.

instead of addressing the actual problems of cost. I don't see why one (addressing the problems of cost) precludes the other (making sure everyone has access to health care). Cost is THE most important factor, bar none, in making sure people do have access to health care. You cannot address the latter without addressing the former; instead, you'll just be shifting the burden to people you choose to deem "more able" to pay for it.

Novick had some decent ideas for addressing cost, but I don't think it goes NEARLY far enough to make a serious dent.

Re:Universal Health Care

[hurfy]

"Which won't pay for healthcare for every American, since it amounts to only $670 per person - less than the cost of Health Insurance by a considerable margin, much less the actual cost of healthcare"

Had to hit you on this....

You say that like the cost of healthcare is greater than insurance. If that were the case then insurance companies would lose money...they don't. If you add the money to Medicare/SSI and other current healthcare costs the pool of money to work with gets much bigger tho also.

Re:Universal Health Care

[ChromeAeonium]

Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer. So that a procedure that once cost 10x what a poor family could afford is now only 5x what they can afford? Unless you can really drop the cost, it doesn't make any difference to the lowest income brackets.

The real big problem is the lack of competition and choice that allows all kinds of health care providers -- from drugs to machines to hospitals -- to jack up the cost of health care. While that may work in theory, the problem with that idea is that it will very likely result in low and high quality care determined by wealth. Normal and inferior goods are fine for luxury items, but not for life.

Anyway, an economy is most productive when its labor force is taken care of. What helps the individual helps the whole, which in turn helps the individual.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Stop the war against the middle east and we will have enough money to pay for healthcare for every american and triple the budget for NASA and all science foundations. First, I reiterate the fact that federal spending on health care for Americans in general is unconstitutional.

Second, your estimate of costs is not true. Edwards estimated his plan was $120b for the first year. And that is a LOW estimate. Truly universal coverage will cost more per year than the war, and, of course, will surely last much longer.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I also absolutely disagree with federal school lunch standards. The federal government has no business of any kind in the local public schools. Period, end of story. For the poorest Americans, school lunches are the only real meal they get. So they get five squares a week. We should make sure they don't count. Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

I said the FEDERAL government has no business in the local public schools. Why do you think that I am therefore against school lunches? Since when is that a federal responsibility? Do you think state and local governments are incapable of doing this without federal involvement?

Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer. And while you have some good ideas, it is only barely a start. Frankly, I think many people -- not sure if this includes you -- ideologically believe we SHOULD have government-provided universal health care, and try to shoehorn reality into that ideology, instead of addressing the actual problems of cost. Then again, the most expensive healthcare in the world is also the country where the government doesn't pay for it. Yes, mostly because of government regulation of the health care, and health insurance, industries that decrease competition and therefore drive up costs.

We do not have a true private, free market, system now. We should.

Re:Universal Health Care

[trolltalk.com]

Just a few points:

1. Money spent on health care instead of war means healthier people, who are able to pay more in taxes since they can work longer, they're not off sick, etc - health care is an investment in people that pays dividends ...
2. Medical costs are the #1 reason for bankruptcy of people who HAVE health insurance. The co-pays, the deductibles, etc., break the bank. People who don't have to go bankrupt, quiot their jobs and end up on medicaid to get health care will continue to contribute rather than drain the system
3. A public medical system means an even playing field for all businesses. Look at the cost problems GM is having - GM is not a car manufacturer any more - it's a pension/medical benefits company that happens to make cars on the side.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

But not negotiating prices isn't going to lower prices for anybody. I never said that it would. I said negotiating prices CAN result in HIGHER prices. Not that not-doing it would result in lower prices.

Further, I agree that taxpayers should not be subsidizing drug companies' ads. I still find it fascinating that drug prices started skyrocketing when we allowed drug companies to advertise. You seem to think there is a link. What link is that?

Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer. There doesn't seem to be any incentive to reduce cost. Exactly, because government regulation essentially protects medical businesses. For example, here in WA, health insurance is so tightly regulated that most insurance companies end up being the same. So there's a distinct lack of competition, and therefore no incentive to lower costs.

If we had less regulation and more competition, and gave consumers more control and choice, we would see cost cutting. Necessarily.

Increasing revenues when you have a fixed market means increasing costs. Exactly: and why do we have a fixed market? Primarily, it is because of government regulation.

At least if our healthcare system were funding by the taxpayers, there would be a political motivation to reduce costs. That is entirely backward. When it is funded by the taxpayers there is LESS incentive to reduce costs, because you never pay for ANYTHING out of your pocket.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I don't get why so many people in the US talk like universal healthcare is some far-out radical idea Because it is unconstitutional theft.

Re:Universal Health Care

[trolltalk.com]

Go work for Microsoft or Google, instead, where they would agree with your market-based and Enron-like non-solutions for everything.

Bit of a cheap shot? While pudge and I disagree on a lot ^W ^W almost everything, it's all in good fun. "Go work for Microsoft" - that's LOW! ;-0

I mean, let's face it ... if pudge WERE to go work for Microsoft, he'd re-implement VistaME in perl ... which, come to think of it, all things considered, can't be any worse than it is now ...

(Yes, it's Friday and I'm feeling generous today. I'm trying to end one of the worst weeks in years on a positive note after having to put my dog down, 2 arguments with government lawyers who are trying to duck a court appearance next week to justify their errors to a judge, AND the latest attempt from my asshole landlord to scam me for $15k.)

Re:Universal Health Care

[maxume]

The American health care system can't be easily compared to other health care systems because it makes no pretense about maximizing outcomes per dollar.

Go ahead and criticize it for not attempting to maximize outcomes per dollar, but spending huge amounts of money on extraordinary care for people that are terminally ill doesn't directly make health care more expensive for other people(indirectly, it may make other health care less available, and thus more expensive, but not every doctor is going to be the best oncologist in the state, nor is every hospital the best, etc.).

If you are really worried about costs and not about the distribution of outcomes, you want more doctors, doctors with less training(yes really!) and a saner liability structure. If you are worried about the distribution of outcomes, go ahead and just say so, you are siding with at least half of the planet.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Wow, so, so wrong. False.

Now doing it on a national level would be better because it would be cheaper drugs for all. Um. Uh. No. Only for people who ARE IN THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. If you are not in Medicare, then you do not benefit from the lower prices that Medicare gets. If you are, you do.

See you at OSCON, asshole. Shrug. If you say so, dillweed.

You don't seem to understand this finance, don't seem to ahve any experience reviewing other countries mass drug purchase, and you certianly do not understand drug patents. Shrug. False on all counts.

There are countries with that philosophy, and exactly zero of them have ever produced anything new. False.

ideologically believe we SHOULD have government-provided universal health care, and try to shoehorn reality into that ideology, instead of addressing the actual problems of cost. Actually, the government is the only entity that can do it, regardless off the reform. False.

but our taxes will be significantly less What the fuck have you been smoking? significantly? really? Um. Yes. Food subidies are about 2.5% of the federal budget. On an income of $75K, that is about $250. Feel free to call that insignficant, but I don't.

your just fucking stupid and spouting off things based on ideology and not any actual knowledge. Your moran!

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer. So that a procedure that once cost 10x what a poor family could afford is now only 5x what they can afford? Maybe. Or maybe it is exactly what a poor family can afford.

Unless you can really drop the cost That is the goal, yes.

it doesn't make any difference to the lowest income brackets. Why should we have universal health care just to make sure the people in the lowest income brackets can afford the most expensive treatments? Why not treat that as a unique problem, for the people who need help?

The real big problem is the lack of competition and choice that allows all kinds of health care providers -- from drugs to machines to hospitals -- to jack up the cost of health care. While that may work in theory, the problem with that idea is that it will very likely result in low and high quality care determined by wealth. Of course. How is this a problem? We have low and high quality food, housing, clothing, schooling, and everything else determined by wealth. I do not believe this is something for the government to "fix." I believe in liberty and private property, and I do not believe the government has any right whatsoever to try to make everyone have equal access to these things.

Anyway, an economy is most productive when its labor force is taken care of. What helps the individual helps the whole, which in turn helps the individual. I don't care. The government has no right to use force on the individual for his own good. By this same logic, government can force us to watch PBS and listen to NPR, because this helps the whole, which helps the individual. Also, get rid of all private schools and homeschooling, because this helps public schools, which helps the whole, which helps the individual.

This is not the government's job, ESPECIALLY not the federal government's job.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Shakrai]

I think our economy will be MUCH better off without government involvement

The historical record and recent events suggest otherwise.

I am the type of conservative who puts principles of small government and liberty ahead of principles of actively helping the economy

Liberty != watching your child/sibling/spouse/parent/self die from a treatable disease because of your unfavorable socio-economic standing.

If it is your right

And why is health care any less of a right then living without fear of violence (crime prevention/national defense is a role for Government that most Conservatives would agree with)? Is dying from a treatable disease because you can't afford treatment somehow better then being murdered during an armed robbery? Both should outrage us and serve as motivation to do better.

that means I have to provide it

No, that means society has to provide it. Unless you think that you've gained no benefit from society (are you good at chasing wildebeests on the plains of the Serengeti?) then I honestly can't understand the aversion to giving something back.

This is not what the Constitution stands for.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Re:Universal Health Care

[mlund]

For the poorest Americans, school lunches are the only real meal they get. So they get five squares a week. We should make sure they don't count. You fail to provide any sort of rational argument as to why this is a Federal matter. Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to make a compelling argument as to why this is a State matter either. Maybe, just maybe, you could argue that it is a matter left to Counties and Municipalities, but you'd still be hard-pressed to explain why it isn't the responsibility of individual School Districts, Schools, or even (heaven forbid) Parents.

Providing adequate nutrition to your children is one of the most fundamental obligations of parenthood. Failure to do so is evidence of someone being an unfit parent - not evidence that there is a need to rob law-abiding neighbors to subsidize unfit parents.

If you want to remove children from the home of parents who can't feed them to protect the individual rights of the child or if you want to argue that there is a Public Interest in providing education and training to struggling parents you might be able to make a case.

But just saying that you need to take tax-payer money and buy school lunches with it to sooth your conscience by having the Government perform your charity for you in abstentia isn't going to cut it.

Then again, the most expensive healthcare in the world is also the country where the government doesn't pay for it. Government paid healthcare is not perfect, and it's not a panacea, but it certainly seems to do a better job than privately funded healthcare does, and does so for less money. Which I think means that it lowers the cost? Rationing and price controls lower at-the-counter dollar costs. They also increase costs measured in human misery, deprivation of liberty, and economic damage. National Socialism is a parasite - an anti-growth, anti-liberty system that is self-destructive - sustaining itself by preying upon other nations and lowering the overall standard of living for the citizenry in the medium and long terms.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sm62704]

Yes, because of the obvious problems in PAYING for it.

I see the problem as paying the salaries and dividends of the people who work for and own stock in MY INSURANCE COMPANY. Take themout of the loop and my health care will be a lot less expensive.

The Europeans, Canadians, and the rest of the civilized world don't seem to have a problem with paying for it.

Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare

What if Medicare covered everyone, young and old, rich and poor? You do realise that Americans pay more for our drugs than citizens of any other country, don't you?

patent terms should be tailored to provide the MINIMUM rights necessary to accomplish that goal.

Twenty years isn't that long a time. I only wish copyrights were as short.

I couldn't agree more with you on subsidies (as well as about everything else in your post I didn't argue with). If the government subsidizes a drug, that drug should not have a patent. And we shouldn't subsidise farmers. I say that as a citizen of a farming state, too!

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

incorrect. If you have a healthcare plan with a HMO with 1 million employees you can get close to that price, increase it to the Us population and I bet we can get under your dollar mark.

The price of healthcare insurance goes down with the larger number you have on the plan.

Re:Universal Health Care

[hob42]

For me, I ideologically believe that health care is a right of everyone and not a privilege for those that can afford it.

I just can't understand this position. Yes, healthcare in the US needs to be changed, because our current system (which I am a part of) is broken. And yes, I'm in favor of some sort of universal healthcare as the best answer to the situation.

But I'll never claim that healthcare is a right. The basic concept of "rights" is that we have a right to think, say, do what we want, when it doesn't infringe on the same rights of others. I'll agree you have the "right" to eat, but you don't have the "right" to force me to serve you dinner. Similarly, I could agree you have the "right" to care for your own health as you see fit, but no "right" to force me to provide care to you.

Of course, that means it's probably unconstitutional, and similarly foodstamps or daycare assistance or student financial aid. Oh well, when have we ever let that stand in the way?

-Jupo

Re:Universal Health Care

[sm62704]

For the poorest Americans, school lunches are the only real meal they get.

Food is the one thing the poor don't lack in the US. There is the LINK program, formerly called "food stamps", and there are food pantries galore. I have a lot of poor friends; hell, four homeless people have their belonbgings stored in my basement right now. I have a decent job and do what I can to help my less fortunate friends, and they bring ME food!

OTOH, their health care is abysmal when they can get it at all. Most doctors won't even take medicaid because it doesn't pay enough. I have good insurance, but if I were indigent I would go blind in my left eye; I suffered a detached retina and will be undergoing a Vitrectomy, probably nnext week (I have an appointment with Dr. Odin Monday) and maybe on my birthday =(

Re:Universal Health Care

[nuttycom]

So, you assert rights can only be things that have 0 cost to provide?

What about liberty? According to all the conservative rhetoric I've heard around the war in recent years, it's supposedly all about preserving liberty, yet you and I have to pay through the nose for it. What makes this different from health care? What good is liberty if you're too sick to do anything with the liberty you have?

Remember that untreated illness often results in inability to work and hence poverty, which results in more untreated illness (say, for family members). A major point behind the notion of universal health care is that we can use it to stop that particular self-reinforcing cycle of poverty. I think it's pretty well established that the costs of poverty are borne by our society as a whole, and not just the impoverished, so even from a conservative viewpoint I can't see how this is a bad thing. Reduce poverty, and you can ultimately reduce all the bureaucratic machinery needed to deal with its effects.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sm62704]

There doesn't seem to be any incentive to reduce cost

That's the thing about health care - there's no way the free market can work. Right now I'm facing a vitrectomy because of a retinal detachment. I have two choices: get the procedure done, or go blind in my left eye.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Shakrai]

I'll agree you have the "right" to eat, but you don't have the "right" to force me to serve you dinner

It's not about forcing "you" to serve "me" dinner. It's about society as a whole taking care of it's less fortunate members. By doing so we provide a benefit for society as a whole. Taking the things that you specifically mentioned:

and similarly foodstamps or daycare assistance or student financial aid

Daycare assistance enables more people to be productive members of the workforce. That in turn helps us to remain competitive in the global economy. Ditto for student financial aid -- an educated workforce is the only way that we will remain competitive (Wal-Mart and McDonalds aren't gonna do it). Food stamps are more of a purely humanitarian matter -- though one could make the argument that they have a fringe benefit to society (a starving person faces the choice of breaking the law to feed themselves or dying).

Re:Universal Health Care

[soarkalm]

The Constitution when it mentions General Welfare in no way envisioned government funded health care. I don't think the concept of government health care even existed in that time. Further the Consitition is (IMO) supposed to a strict brake on the Federal Governments size and power. The Federal Governments roles are enumerated with all other reserved to the states or people respectively.

Re:Universal Health Care

[mlund]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

And if you read the document in any sort of historical or legal context, you'll find it very clear that the "general Welfare of the United States," refers to exactly that - the general welfare of the union of states - not the specific welfare of individual citizens and residents of those states. The fortunes of those people are provided for under the rights reserved in the 9th Amendment - rights reserved to the Individual Citizens and States.

Specifically, almost every instance of National Socialism implemented by the Federal Government (don't confuse it with the State or Local governments) has been back-doored into Constitutionality by means of the 10th Amendment by arguing that just about everything that goes on in the United States is a matter of Interstate Commerce - a terrible precedent set during FDR's failed attempts to Nationalize the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression. He took it so far as to attempt to add seats to the Supreme Court to overturn rulings against his obviously Unconstitutional abuses.

If you want someone to eat, give them good. If you want someone to prosper, give them education and familial support. If you want to build something great, collaborate with like-minded individuals. If you need government support for an initiative, try working at the Local or State level as appropriate. If your proposal is rejected by the democratic process then try, try again. Do not attempt to circumvent Democracy with abuses of Federalism or the Judiciary (also known as "slot machine" social control - eventually some jury or bureaucracy will pay out).

Re:Universal Health Care

[Some_Llama]

"that means I have to provide it

No, that means society has to provide it. Unless you think that you've gained no benefit from society (are you good at chasing wildebeests on the plains of the Serengeti?) then I honestly can't understand the aversion to giving something back."

this is one of the most poignant observations i have seen yet on the healthcare debate.. well said!!!

  (except for the wildebeests, everyone knows antelope meat has less fat/cholesterol).

Re:Universal Health Care

[soarkalm]

The Europeans, Canadians, and the rest of the civilized world don't seem to have a problem with paying for it.

No such thing as a free lunch. The are many a horror story of Canada and waiting lists. Europe has issues with a stagnant economy, high unemployment, and high taxes. Not all the grass on the other side of the fence is greener.

Re:Universal Health Care

[benwaggoner]

If pudge was to work for Microsoft, he'd get free health care and see how the European model works!

http://members.microsoft.com/careers/mslife/benefits/plan.mspx#healthbenefits

Re:Universal Health Care

[chaotoroboto]

Rationing and price controls lower at-the-counter dollar costs. They also increase costs measured in human misery, deprivation of liberty, and economic damage. National Socialism is a parasite - an anti-growth, anti-liberty system that is self-destructive - sustaining itself by preying upon other nations and lowering the overall standard of living for the citizenry in the medium and long terms. A sane healthcare system doesn't have to be socialist or nationalized. I don't know what the other options besides national/single payer or privatized healthcare are - those are the only two we can observe historically (I guess there are hybrids like the Quebecois and Dutch systems). However, the historical observation of the two most prominent styles of healthcare systems is: healthcare in the US (and other private countries) has a higher cost inflation than healthcare in countries with nationalized systems. At the same time, the US has a lower life expectancy and a higher rate of preventable deaths. How is paying more to die younger after a less capable life not an infringement on liberty? How is that not economic damage? How is that not human misery?

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I think our economy will be MUCH better off without government involvement The historical record and recent events suggest otherwise. I don't agree with either assertion. From now and way back even to the Depression, it was government involvement that helped CAUSE all of our problems. Whether it is government literally encouraging high-risk home loans in the last decade or so, or Hoover's progressive economic policies that rejected Coolidge's laissez-faire conservatism, we've never had serious economic problems where government involvement was NOT a part of the problem.

I am the type of conservative who puts principles of small government and liberty ahead of principles of actively helping the economy Liberty != watching your child/sibling/spouse/parent/self die from a treatable disease because of your unfavorable socio-economic standing. Correct, that is not liberty. It is an unrelated thing, so I am not sure why you bring it up at all.

And why is health care any less of a right then living without fear of violence Um. Because the former you control, the latter you rely on others for. If you mean without THREAT of violence, and not FEAR, well, no, that is not a right at all. However, the federal government is obligated to help protect us, because that is what we agreed to in the Constitution. We further agreed that the federal government would NOT be allowed to do things like health care.

Is dying from a treatable disease because you can't afford treatment somehow better then being murdered during an armed robbery? Both should outrage us and serve as motivation to do better. It is illogical to say "here is a problem" and conclude "therefore the government is the solution." Yes, I am motivated to fix our health care problems. But not through increased government control or regulation.

that means I have to provide it No, that means society has to provide it. That is a distinction without a difference.

Unless you think that you've gained no benefit from society (are you good at chasing wildebeests on the plains of the Serengeti?) then I honestly can't understand the aversion to giving something back. It's not about not wanting to give back. This is another illogical argument. It is about what the proper role of government is.

This is not what the Constitution stands for. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; Yes, and? Every student of the Constitution knows that "common defence and general welfare" is not a blanket grant of authority to do anything that falls within those two things. If that were the case, then the government could do anything it wanted to do for the common defense. We have a Tenth Amendment that clearly states that unless the Constitution grants a power to the federal government -- explicitly, or implicitly e.g. via the "necessary and proper" clause -- then the federal government MAY NOT DO IT. Universal health care is unconstitutional.

Re:Universal Health Care

[CrimsonAvenger]

You say that like the cost of healthcare is greater than insurance.

So, I take it your health insurance has no deductibles? And ALL medical procedures are covered? Wish I had a plan like that. Hell, wish I had health insurance at all - cancer will tend to kill that sort of thing real fast.

Realistically, though, your health insurance, like mine last time I had some, costs less than total medical costs. Because you're required to pay those deductibles and whatnot.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

It's not about forcing "you" to serve "me" dinner. It's about society as a whole taking care of it's less fortunate members. It is not their RIGHT to be taken care of.

By doing so we provide a benefit for society as a whole. Fine. Say it is a good thing. Say you want to do it. But don't call it a right. It isn't.

Daycare assistance enables more people to be productive members of the workforce. That in turn helps us to remain competitive in the global economy. Ditto for student financial aid -- an educated workforce is the only way that we will remain competitive (Wal-Mart and McDonalds aren't gonna do it). And those are not rights, either.

A right is something that must be provided to you, or cannot be taken from you, unless you give up that right somehow, or there is some sort of compelling state interest (such as suspending habeas corpus during times of invasion or rebellion). The right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process, the right against unwarranted search and seizure, the right to vote, and so on. All of these things either the government must provide to you (due process), or cannot be taken from you (free speech, arms), or both (depending on how you look at it).

Health care ... that obviously, in this context, is not something we are talking about people providing for themselves (although that too is, separately, an issue: choosing which drugs to administer, legal suicide, and so on). Here we are discussing something the government must provide TO you, if it is to be a right. And if the government provides it to you, that means I, and every other member of society, are therefore obligated to provide it, since we are the government.

So if you're going to invent a new right, that obligates us to provide something to every citizen, dammit, you better get us -- the whole of society -- to generally AGREE that it actually is a right. Because one thing you have no right to do is to obligate society to recognize a new right without the just consent of that society.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Squiggle]

I don't care. The government has no right to use force on the individual for his own good. By this same logic, government can force us to watch PBS and listen to NPR, because this helps the whole, which helps the individual. Also, get rid of all private schools and homeschooling, because this helps public schools, which helps the whole, which helps the individual.

This is not the government's job, ESPECIALLY not the federal government's job. No force involved, we are taking about free access. It can be the governments job to provide free access to PBS, NPR, public school and health care because that helps the whole. Free access to a minimum standard of living that allows people to focus on a meaningful participation in the society (instead of a focus on obtaining food, safety, shelter, education or health) should be the goal of democratic government that espouses liberty for all.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

So, you assert rights can only be things that have 0 cost to provide? No. Indeed, nothing I said even implied that.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

That's the thing about health care - there's no way the free market can work. That's self-evidently false, since the free market DID work in health care for many, many years. It's only in the last couple of decades that it has been failing, and that is largely because it has become LESS of a free market.

Re:Universal Health Care

[krazytekn0]

mod parent up +++ Why does no one understand this simple fact? insurance companies make a profit. That's what they do! The average american with health insurance WILL spend more on insurance than insurance EVER pays out on their health care.

Re:Universal Health Care

[CrimsonAvenger]

1. Does not follow, actually. A large fraction of those without health insurance do so because they are healthy and have no use for it.

And people living longer does bad things to Social Security.

2. I can't dispute this point, because I don't know enough about the current causes of bankruptcy. It's quite possible you're right.

That said, Medicare has deductibles, and uncovered expenses. Which is why people on Medicare still pay for additional health insurance.

3. Actually, no. It means that in the future, but it does not eliminate GM's current contractual obligations. So GM will STILL be a pension/medical benefits company that makes cars on the side. Until EVERYONE under the current contract dies.

Is this good for GM? Hell, yes. It leaves them in Purgatory for another half century, but lets them off the hook after that. Is it good for the American people? I'm less sanguine about that part of it. Sometimes I think yes, sometimes no. Just depends on how I'm feeling.

Note, by the way, that I have no intrinsic objection to national healthcare. I DO have an intrinsic objection to self-delusion. And the belief that the Iraq War money would fund health and happiness for all Americans is self-delusion. It isn't enough, even if we didn't mind the deficits associated with it.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Em Adespoton]

I think part of what needs to be done is to change the definition of "health care" -- currently the US operates on a system of "symptom suppression" combined with "disaster repair". I think that if a federal body was put in place to provide education and programs that helped individuals and communities care for their own health, combined with penalties for blatant health abuses (mostly at a corporate level where companies make a profit at the expense of their employee's/customer's health), the costs for treating symptoms and major issues would decrease astronomically.

Decent healthcare education, more easily accessible healthy (non-processed) foods (kill the corn, beef and soya subsidies), employer responsibility and a crackdown on misleading advertising would go a long way towards creating a healthier USA.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Yes, because of the obvious problems in PAYING for it. I see the problem as paying the salaries and dividends of the people who work for and own stock in MY INSURANCE COMPANY. Take themout of the loop and my health care will be a lot less expensive. Yes. I am not arguing in favor of the current system. The insurance companies of today are a HUGE part of the problem. But acknowledging this does not imply "the government should do it."

Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare What if Medicare covered everyone, young and old, rich and poor? That was not the point of what I said. Novick said he wanted MEDICARE, as it stands now, to negotiate lower drug prices. And I was just pointing out the fact that this very well could increase costs for everyone else.

We can't just dump everyone into Medicare, as the system can't handle it. It is not designed as a comprehensive, universal, system of care. So let's not talk about a hypothetical that won't happen.

patent terms should be tailored to provide the MINIMUM rights necessary to accomplish that goal. Twenty years isn't that long a time. I only wish copyrights were as short. Well, I disagree. Twenty years is a very long time, especially where those drugs' development was subsidized by our tax dollars. But even where not, the whole point of patent terms is to encourage development, and therefore, they should be narrowly tailored for that goal alone. And twenty years is just too long, most of the time.

Further, however, the government often EXTENDS those patent terms arbitrarily. Including when tax dollars paid for it!

I couldn't agree more with you on subsidies (as well as about everything else in your post I didn't argue with). If the government subsidizes a drug, that drug should not have a patent. And we shouldn't subsidise farmers. I say that as a citizen of a farming state, too! You'll never get elected, then. :-)

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

I said negotiating prices CAN result in HIGHER prices. Not that not-doing it would result in lower prices.

In practice, medicare-negotiated fees define the fees charged all other payers. ie: insurance companies will generally refuse to pay more than medicare for equivalent services, so if the provider wants to get paid, they take whatever medicare offers. Drug costs, like CD costs, are not in the production of the actual pill but in the nebulous research, development and failed projects that preceded the actual pill, so drug companies do have an enormous amount of flexibility in pricing without going broke, and making drugs cheaper for medicare patients will not force them to raise prices for others to maintain operations.

Re:Universal Health Care

[gizmonic]

Which brings me to farm subsidies: no, we should cut all of them. We do not need them. Yes, the cost of food may rise, but our taxes will be significantly less (assuming the government doesn't spend that money on something else ... ha!), and individual states can increase food aid to needy families if necessary. I don't like most subsidies, but the farm one, that one I reluctantly agree with. The simple fact of the matter is you do NOT want your food supply subject to the law of supply and demand. Why? You might pay a farmer to NOT grow beans this year, which seems silly on the surface. But, in so doing, you make sure that there are not so many beans available that it drives the cost down to the point that the year after that, no one decides to plant beans because the current return on investment is too low.

You say the cost would go up, but it's less about costs than pure availability. Having beans be $0.10 a can one year, then because no one grew them for $0.10, costing $100 a can the next, if you can find them at all, back to $0.10 because EVERYONE grew them looking for $100 a can, but hey, there's no corn or carrots or potatoes now, cause everyone grew beans, is that a good situation? I think the idea of having an ample supply of each product, at a reasonable cost, on a regular basis, is good reason enough to justify farm subsidies.

But, that's just me, and no, I am not a farmer. :)

Re:Universal Health Care

[sumdumass]

I agree with about everything you mention except the farm subsidies. The problem there, as I see it, is that we need to food source that can adjust for localized and regional failures. Suppose a 5 year drought wipes the mid wests corn production capacity in half, we can make up for it with reserve crops in other areas and while costs might rise, we aren't needing to import food from countries we used to export to.

I see the farm subsidies more as an national security issue in this sense. Sort of like having reserve military forces. We really need it to some degree. Not because we have enough, but because sometimes enough isn't enough when outside forces come into play.

Re:Universal Health Care

[tfoss]

Yes, because of the obvious problems in PAYING for it. That the legislature blocked it is a good thing: universal health care does no one any good if everyone is broke. The proposed system was literally incapable of sustaining itself Which is why such a system needs to be a national system.

All of them only discussed more regulation, and direct cost controls, to control costs, which either wouldn't work, or would only work in the short term, increasing costs and decreasing care in the long term (which always happens when you remove competition). Then isn't it odd that we spend more per capita than any other industrialized country, cover a far smaller proportion of the population, and get no better results in terms of health care delivered?

I also absolutely disagree with federal school lunch standards. The federal government has no business of any kind in the local public schools. Period, end of story. Making sure that all kids are able to get lunch, regardless of the current state of affairs/budgets in the local town/state does seem to be pretty awful meddling.

But all this put together will only begin to address the cost problems. The real big problem (other than tort reform, which is not a big issue for some, but a huge issue for others) is the lack of competition and choice that allows all kinds of health care providers -- from drugs to machines to hospitals -- to jack up the cost of health care. It's very similar to the patent issue. That is what government should be working on: finding ways to introduce more competition. Here I have a different philosophy. I have a hard time figuring out how you can make free market solutions work in the health insurance system. An insurance company is profitable when they select for the healthiest people, and refuse the sickest. Beyond that, the more health care they can refuse to cover, the better for them. As a purchaser, you generally have very few options since health care is tied to your employer, so if you have any choice, it is generally between two or three options. Beyond that, as a layperson, you are not in a very good position to know what different kinds of health care are worth, and therefore important to have as covered options. There is a huge information discrepancy between you and the insurer, and that *greatly* benefits them. Additionally, for an insurance company whose involvement with you is of uncertain length, preventative care does not make economic sense. Why pay for something cheap now when you can kick it down the road and let some other insurance company cover it at 10x the cost a decade later?

A lot of the discussion depends on what you think the point of health insurance is. Is is to cover catastrophic illnesses/injuries for people? Is it to reduce the cost of routine preventative health care? Is it to use size to leverage down costs of drugs/treatments/devices? Is it to help people with expensive, chronic health issues that would be overly burdensome?

To me, we should be aiming to make health care a universally available thing, unrelated to your employer, current financial standing, or health. That means that insurance needs to be 1. community rated (insurance companies forced to cover everyone at a similar rate), 2. not provided by employers, 3. universally mandated (otherwise healthy people will opt-out until they get sick). While it might be possible to work these aspects into a private insurance system, that would be a awful tough shoehorn.

Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer. How do you propose we reduce health care cost?

And are you really arguing that providing universal coverage is something we should avoid? If so, why is that, and who should we not provide coverage to?

No offense, but your option of government-provided universal health care is already unacceptable to me. Why? I'm honestly curious what it is about the concept that you find unacceptable.

-Ted

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I don't care. The government has no right to use force on the individual for his own good. By this same logic, government can force us to watch PBS and listen to NPR, because this helps the whole, which helps the individual. Also, get rid of all private schools and homeschooling, because this helps public schools, which helps the whole, which helps the individual. This is not the government's job, ESPECIALLY not the federal government's job. No force involved, we are taking about free access. Well, no. First, I was talking about forcing ME to PAY for it. That absolutely is force. Second, the logic was "if it is good for society, it is good for the individual, so we can force society into it for the individual's own good," which absolutely does extend to the things I mentioned.

Third, the ultimate goal of most universal health care plans -- including Hillary's, I believe, given her previous plan and many statements about it, including her current plan's mandates -- absoultely IS force. It is about forcing everyone into the system, not merely providing access to everyone.

It can be the governments job to provide free access to PBS, NPR, public school and health care because that helps the whole. Not the federal government, no, it can't be, because the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits it.

Free access to a minimum standard of living that allows people to focus on a meaningful participation in the society (instead of a focus on obtaining food, safety, shelter, education or health) should be the goal of democratic government that espouses liberty for all. No, it should not. Those things have nothing to do with promoting either liberty or democracy. And to the extent it represents the democratic will of the people, it does so at the COST of the liberty of the minority that disagrees, which is why -- as per Federalist 10 -- we have a republic, and not a democracy.

Re:Universal Health Care

[hob42]

It's about society as a whole taking care of it's less fortunate members.

I absolutely agree. However, that has nothing to do with rights or privileges. The ability to get a shiny new goretex endograft or drug-coated stent for an aortic aneurysm is a priviliege, no matter how you look at it. It might be a privilege you pay for, or your insurance, or the government. But you don't gain the right to receive that new fancy technology just because someone invented it.

I've received foodstamps, daycare assistance, and financial aid in the past - that's why I picked them. My family now makes >$100k and I'm happy to pay my share of taxes back so that others have the same opportunities. I think they are, generally, good programs. And unconstitutional. *shrug*

-Jupo

Re:Universal Health Care

[sumdumass]

There is no such thing as free health care. Someone pays for it. Guess who, You either the consumer or tax payer. You pay for it when you pay taxes in Europe or you pay for it when you buy their products in the case of employer provided health care. He would be paying for it in reduced salary potential too. Now, imagine the money you would be making if the employer handed the cost of health care to you as part of your salary.

You, like many others confuse you not directly paying the bill as free. This simply isn't true- especially when you consider that the only savings effect there might be is sorely diminished when everyone is covered and starts using the services. Look at the automobile insurance industry when states started mandating insurance to drive cars. The rates tripled for the lowest point of entry into the insurance market and you got no increased coverage. In fact, in a lot of cases, the state minimum coverage was less then the plans being offered before the mandates so you got less coverage. There is no reason to believe any organized health care plans would be any different. The only advantage other countries have is that they made the switch years before when the costs were less and they could rely on the US for most of the medical innovation. We won't have that luxury and anyone expecting the same results is a fool.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sm62704]

The are many a horror story of Canada and waiting lists

My friend Amy had a bad tooth last August. She drives a taxi and has no insurance.

She was finally able to get it fixed in February. The Canadians got nothing on us!

Not all the grass on the other side of the fence is greener

They have lower health care costs per capita, lower infant mortality, and longer life spans. Sometimes the grass IS greener. You realize who's paying the billion dollar health insurance company profits, don't you? What, exactly, do those companies do for that money?

Re:Universal Health Care

[HUADPE]

For me, I ideologically believe that health care is a right of everyone and not a privilege for those that can afford it.

The problem with this is that healthcare, unlike speech, privacy, equal protection under law, and other civil rights has to be taken from someone. To get healthcare means to acquire the resources and time of at least one other human being. Do they have the right to not have that time or resources taken from them? If not how do you keep a right to healthcare? And if so, what incentive is there to get medical training, if it means that at any moment the government can conscript you and/or your stuff.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I said negotiating prices CAN result in HIGHER prices. Not that not-doing it would result in lower prices. In practice, medicare-negotiated fees define the fees charged all other payers. Not really.

ie: insurance companies will generally refuse to pay more than medicare for equivalent services, so if the provider wants to get paid, they take whatever medicare offers. Yes. But not everyone gets their drugs through insurance companies. I don't have to care because I have a copay for my drugs. I pay the same regardless. But many people do not get their drugs through insurance.

Drug costs, like CD costs, are not in the production of the actual pill but in the nebulous research, development and failed projects that preceded the actual pill, so drug companies do have an enormous amount of flexibility in pricing without going broke Yes, and they also want to recoup those costs, so when you have artificial price controls like this, then you will see them trying to recoup those costs in other ways.

Of course, what is most likely is that a company with exclusive rights to a drug will not lower their cost to Medicare in any significant way if it means they will also see insurance companies mandating the same price.

Re:Universal Health Care

[trolltalk.com]

Being from Kanuckistan (Canada), I pretty much disagree with pudge on everything, as a matter of principle. Still, as long as he doesn't abuse his position as an editor to mod-bomb opposing points of view to oblivion, it's better to have these "discussions" out in the open, where we're forced to not only express our side, but to defend it by force of logic.

It's funny how everyone criticizes Canada for being socialist, but it's the US who is currently engaged in "privatizing profits, socializing losses" by bailing out banks and Wall Street. I'm sure it would be the same for health care - if a large HMO were about to go bust, they'd get a bail-out package, but the average taxpayer can piss up a rope for all the good it will do.

It's the same thing with the current tilt toward fascism in the US. How much longer before "your papers, please" becomes the norm for everything, as if that will somehow offset the damage done by a foreign policy that is making the US the #1 threat to world security?

the world is changing. In terms of purchasing power parity, China's economy is now #2 after the US - and we'll probably see them surpass the US within a few years in terms of PPP, and in absolute terms before 2050. Of course, if the recession is as severe as some are predicting, or there's a massive swing away from the greenback, the US decline will be much quicker.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

The simple fact of the matter is you do NOT want your food supply subject to the law of supply and demand. False. I absolutely do.

Having beans be $0.10 a can one year, then because no one grew them for $0.10, costing $100 a can the next, if you can find them at all, back to $0.10 because EVERYONE grew them looking for $100 a can, but hey, there's no corn or carrots or potatoes now, cause everyone grew beans, is that a good situation? Absolutely. This creates a market opportunity for a company to come in and provide the produce people want that others are not flexible enough to provide.

I think the idea of having an ample supply of each product, at a reasonable cost, on a regular basis, is good reason enough to justify farm subsidies. I think the idea of having a respectable government, free from false and malicious attacks, is a good enough reason to justify limits on the press.

Oh wait. First Amendment getting in the way? Well, the Tenth Amendment gets in the way of farm subsidies. :-)

Re:Universal Health Care

[Red Flayer]

I don't agree with either assertion. From now and way back even to the Depression, it was government involvement that helped CAUSE all of our problems.

Please study economic history before invoking the Great Depression in discussing whether government caused problems. Lack of regulation was a major factor in causing the great depression.

I hate to nitpick item-by-item, but there's a lot of confusion in your post that I think you should research some of your assumptions more completely.

Whether it is government literally encouraging high-risk home loans in the last decade or so

You mean, encouraging high-risk home loans by deregulating the banking industry and reducing oversight of the consumer lending industry? It is reduced government that has led us to the current mess.

Hoover's progressive economic policies that rejected Coolidge's laissez-faire conservatism

Please. Hoover inherited a wobbling economy largely due to the policies of his laissez-faire predecessors who allowed rampant banking and finance abuses that served to profit only the financiers. Hoover's problem was that he did too little, too late to make the kind of impact necessary to stave off depression.

I understand the concept of strict Constitutionalism, and I know we'll never agree on a lot of things. My feeling is that the Constitution is held as sacred by so many people, when it is clear to me that a strict interpretation of the Constitution has failed, because we have failed to change the Constitution with the times. The world is remarkably different than it was 220 years ago, and some of the political theories that were new and popular at the time don't fit in with today's world. Due to advances in communication, etc, there are economies of scale unrealizable 30 years ago, let alone 220 years ago. If you want to literally follow the words written 220 years ago, you should think about what they envisioned as an ideal society, and whether that notion of an ideal society really fits in with what is desired now, and if it is even attainable. C

Re:Universal Health Care

[cleatsupkeep]

Well Billions of Dollars can cure AIDS (South Park) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonsil_Trouble

Upon investigating his house, they find that Johnson sleeps regularly with huge piles of cash, which after further investigation prove to have the ability to stave off HIV. Laboratory scientists experiment with a concentrated dose of "about $180,000 shot directly into the bloodstream" on the boys, which cures their AIDS.

Re:Universal Health Care

[cens0r]

Farm subsidies aren't necessarily a bad thing. The problem we have in the US is that we are subsidizing the wrong crops. If you are growing corn, wheat, and soy you get a fat check. Anything else, not so much. We'd be better off if we payed our farmers to grow a variety of crops so that everyone would have access to cheap local produce. Instead we subsidize corn, wheat, and soy and make processed foods cheaper than fruits and vegetables.

Re:Universal Health Care

[mlund]

However, the historical observation of the two most prominent styles of healthcare systems is: healthcare in the US (and other private countries) has a higher cost inflation than healthcare in countries with nationalized systems. At the same time, the US has a lower life expectancy and a higher rate of preventable deaths. You'll be hard-pressed to find honest statistical analysis that justifies your position, I'm afraid.

There are some points people usually overlook when trying to make this argument:

1.) One of the leading causes of cost-inflation in health care is Liability. Lawyers carry away insane amounts of funds otherwise allocated to health care in the United States. They engage in frivolous tort claims for profit under a "throw enough stuff at the wall and something will stick" approach to business. This increases the cost of liability insurance for hospitals and doctors. They also take an approach of suing for inadequate services. If a person dies without receiving the most expensive, bleeding-edge drugs, tests, and procedures some lawyer, somewhere will come looking for a pay-day. This means US hospitals and doctors incur much higher costs for capital expenditures and patients are not really free to request more affordable drugs, treatments, or procedures.

2.) Culture is a private decision that has a lot to do with health

- Some cultures eat traditional foods that are much better for long-term health than Americans do. We eat diets based on agricultural and industrial caloric needs but we work sedentary service-based jobs. That's a health hazard - but it is also a personal decision. The State can't fix that without violating personal liberty, yet that's EXACTLY what some nations with National Socialist Health care have gravitated towards doing to control costs.

3.) The USA is a Union of States

- National Health Care is an anathema to our Federal system. There is no reason Massachusetts needs to have the same health care as Texas. Competition between states is integral to preserving the Public Interest. Of course, the Federal Tax Incentives for Employer Health Insurance runs afoul of this basic principle.

4.) Subsidies and Rationing obscure statistics

- Ever tried to get an MRI in Canada in the last 3 years? Want to get a tooth pulled in the U.K.? Meanwhile, you have countries that put forth the illusion of "free" or "cheap" health care. When doesn't come out of your pocket at the counter comes out of someone's pocket when the tax man comes to call. In most cases, it comes from the U.S. tax-payer (even if you happen to be getting your drugs from Canada).

- Oh, we're also providing health care for roughly 1-in-10 persons born in Mexico at the moment.

- We're also one of the leading donors (mostly in private funds) purchasing health care services for people suffering in Africa and Asia.

- On top of that, if someone wants to spend their personal fortune trying to buy another week of hospice life at the end of an incurable illness, they are welcome to do so in the USA. Someone will take your money. Extraordinary life-extension treatments contribute to our health care spending to the tune of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per incident without increasing our quality of care in any meaningful way.

How is paying more to die younger after a less capable life not an infringement on liberty? How is that not economic damage? How is that not human misery? Socialism fails to grasp something basic about Liberty - it includes the freedom to make bad choices and suffer their consequences.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sumdumass]

The problem with American health care right now, or one of the problems at least, is that insurance companies are dropping risks and people with preexisting condition to make that profit. Sure they are making a profit by "not" covering people who "need" to be covered.

Profit is hardly proof that the government could do it cheaper while covering the people who aren't covered. And you will also notice that people with insurance or coverage, goto the doctor more then people without. So figure that expense into it some more.

Re:Universal Health Care

[knisa]

So what motivation does any member of society have to become less "disadvantaged"? I'd say a free ride for life without work gives you an advantage. If I don't work, or under-work I get:

Subsidized housing - http://www.seattlehousing.org/Housing/programs/section8/hcvpten.html
Free food - http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/
Free healthcare (via UHC when it passes or just going to the ER for every sniffle)
Free entertainment - http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

Guess what? By allowing people to freeload on the system they have ZERO motivation to make themselves better. They'll just continue to vote for people who will continue to feed them government cheese (the ones promoting more welfare and giving more of our money away).

Only by saying "if you don't work, you don't eat" will people make themselves better. When they get tired of shoveling dung for three squares and a roof over their heads they'll educate themselves to find better, more fulfilling jobs.

If someone is truly unable to work and has nobody to take care of them, that is one thing. Otherwise, get their lazy butts off the couch and have them fill potholes or build infrastructure for the benefit of the society you're so willing to rob to give them a free ride.

Re:Universal Health Care

[nuttycom]

It can't be, from my perspective. If it is your right, that means I have to provide it. This is not what the Constitution stands for.

If there is a cost to provide a standard amount of liberty (for of course, we don't have total freedom) which must be borne equally by members of society, how does that differ from a cost to provide a standard amount of care? How do you interpret the statement that we have a right to life?

Re:Universal Health Care

[trolltalk.com]

... yeah, but can you imagine pudge and Miguel di Icaza (the *real* Microsoft fanboi) in the same room?

Actually, we could probably sell tickets ...

Re:Universal Health Care

[sumdumass]

I don't think you understand the point at all. The constitution is the only thing that gives the federal government power. Universal health isn't in the constitution and isn't a position the federal government should be in. It has no powers granted to it to cover that position. It is left to the states to incorporate and implement. And seeing how the constitution guarantees a republic form of government in every state, you can get your support there and implement it constitutionally in each and every state according to their state's constitutional limits.

And look at the constitution, not the rhetoric. It isn't as important when a person says something unless the only document giving power to the government supports it. Again, look at the constitution. If we magically ignore the constitution, then someone will magically ignore your right to free speech, you right to a speedy trial, protections on search and seizures and so on. We don't want that, even if it appears to be happening today.

Re:Universal Health Care

[NeutronCowboy]

You said earlier:
"First, Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare."
Now you say:
"I said negotiating prices CAN result in HIGHER prices. "

Make up your mind.
I've followed your (unfortunately highly rated) comments, and you've managed to offer no support for any of your claims, made blanket statements that are not rooted in logic or reality and generally have made an ass of yourself. Not to mention that you pretty much took over the conversation.

Here's one item that your free-market approach to health care completely overlooks: free-market forces force (heh) corporations to serve healthy patients rather than sick patients, as profits are maximized (hell, even only possible) when healthy people pay for coverage that they don't need. The entire purpose of the health care system is to spread costs that are too high to bear for a single person to the rest of the population that, as an aggregate, can bear that cost.

In short, it is impossible for the free-market system to provide affordable health-care to individuals. A free market system can only provide individually affordable health-care to a group of people. Only government regulation can prevent corporations from selecting exclusively healthy groups of people.

So what you're essentially advocating with your free-market crap is that healthy people are left alone, but only the wealthiest should be able to take advantage of modern medecine. Everyone else ought to be forced to apply band-aids to a shotgun wound.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Which is why such a system needs to be a national system.

No. It shows how such a thing doesn't scale.

Then isn't it odd that we spend more per capita than any other industrialized country, cover a far smaller proportion of the population, and get no better results in terms of health care delivered?

Yes, which is why we need to REDUCE regulation and cost controls so we can spend less to provide more.

Making sure that all kids are able to get lunch, regardless of the current state of affairs/budgets in the local town/state does seem to be pretty awful meddling.

I think the fact that anyone thinks so poorly of the state legislatures that they believe those legislatures incapable of handling school lunches on their own is pretty damned awful, myself. It's one of the worst kinds of meddling. It's insidious. It seems so nice and good -- hey, who doesn't agree kids should eat healthy lunches? -- but it inherently assumes what is obviously false: the states need, or want, federal assistance. There has never once been a state incapable of defining standards, or providing the lunches. Ever.

It's nanny-statism at its worse, precisely BECAUSE it seems like such an obvious thing, because if it is so obvious, then why does the federal government need to be involved? And the answer is because people WANT the federal government involved, for the sake of CONTROL.

I reiterate: this is pretty damned awful.

Here I have a different philosophy. I have a hard time figuring out how you can make free market solutions work in the health insurance system.

I do not care about the health insurance system. The goal should be fixing the health care system. Health insurance should follow the discussion, not lead it. And the answer is essentially: reduce government regulation, increase competition and choice, reduce costs. When costs lower, people DO NOT NEED to care much about insurance except for expensive or catastrophic care, and if an uninsured person cannot pay for expensive or catastrophic treatment, then we have charities to handle this. If states want to try to cover expensive care for the needy, maybe we can discuss that, but there's no need for a whole universal/comprehensive system just to solve the one problem of relatively rare high-end procedures for poor people, if we reduce other costs across the board.

As a purchaser, you generally have very few options since health care is tied to your employer

Exactly. Which is why we should deregulate to allow more options.

as a layperson, you are not in a very good position to know what different kinds of health care are worth, and therefore important to have as covered options

Exactly. We should focus on providing more options and choices and information to the consumers.

To me, we should be aiming to make health care a universally available thing, unrelated to your employer, current financial standing, or health

To me, this is an utterly terrible thing.

That means that insurance needs to be 1. community rated (insurance companies forced to cover everyone at a similar rate)

Meaning that health care costs will remain high, and we will have fewer insurance options, which means insurance will cost even more.

2. not provided by employers

Well, not essentially FORCED to be provided by employers.

3. universally mandated

Absolutely not. This is evil, with a capital E. Never before in our country have we ever forced anyone to pay any money just for being alive. This would be a first. It is hard to imagine a greater affront to liberty than what amounts to a tax on being alive.

(otherwise healthy people will opt-out until they get sick)

The affront to liberty caused by mandates is much more important than this logistical problem with your health care plan, that I disl

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

It can't be, from my perspective. If it is your right, that means I have to provide it. This is not what the Constitution stands for. If there is a cost to provide a standard amount of liberty There isn't. We HAVE liberty. It is not provided, it is only taken away (sometimes justly -- for example, I have the right to swing my fist, but your right to not have me punch your nose supercedes -- and sometimes, unjustly).

How do you interpret the statement that we have a right to life? That no one has a right to take my life. NOT, absoutely not, that anyone has an obligation to keep me alive (except for my parents, during my very early years, when I am not yet a fully responsible adult).

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I LOVED that episode. :-)

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance is not to pay for health care. Does your home owner's insurance pay for you to replace your roof when it wear's out? Insurance doesn't protect you, it protects your assets. Health insurance would work correctly if it had a high deductable but covered you for health care cost *liabilities* that threaten your assets (as opposed to your life.) To round out the equation, you place requirements on the consumer that if they don't comply with the policy for using preventative health care their rates go up because they are a worse risk (obviously.) That way it is a stick that gets cost conscious people into the doctor for routine checkups and not an over-priced carrot that pays whatever absurd sum the doctor's office charges for 15 min of his time. If you are poor you don't need insurance because you don't have assets to protect, if you are poor you need *charity* and that can only come from government in the form of an entitlement. Regardless of whether there is a national health care plan in the US one day, I will be buying my care on the private market, just like the "rich" people in England do today, and you can bet that if you are "rich" you will too, because the quality of care in England and the rest of western Europe on the public plan SUCKS. People are healthier in Europe because they have a healthier food supply, not because they have better health care. We pay the same for the health care we consume per capita, but we consume twice as much in the states, so we pay twice as much. That is because we are twice as unhealthy and it is the unhealthy food supply that causes that problem.

Re:Universal Health Care

[knisa]

What about the waiting lines for the NHS in the UK? How long do you have to wait to get a "non life-threatening" procedure done?

Who decides when a patient is terminal? Here in the US at least a patient can go to any doctor they want to, whip out the checkbook, and have them try anything they can think of to save the patient. Does that mean the rich would get better health care? Sure. Is it wrong? No.

(This said as a lower-middle class person with three dependents working two jobs just to keep a roof over our heads.)

Re:Universal Health Care

[bagsc]

I see several problems. First, Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare. This will be a big hit to middle class and poor families. I agree with this in principle, but see no way around it harming others.

Not true. Profit maximizing is already done with each of these markets separately (big differences in demand elasticity). Big Pharma knows they can't make more money by raising prices on the poor, because the poor will take their chances with aspirin instead. Medicare/Medicaid negotiating prices will just reduce the supply of new drugs.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I don't agree with either assertion. From now and way back even to the Depression, it was government involvement that helped CAUSE all of our problems. Please study economic history before invoking the Great Depression in discussing whether government caused problems. You first.

Lack of regulation was a major factor in causing the great depression. Yes, FDR did a good job convincing people of this. That doesn't make it true.

You mean, encouraging high-risk home loans by deregulating the banking industry and reducing oversight of the consumer lending industry? No, I do not. I mean, government giving out ratings to lenders based on how many high-risk loans they gave out. I mean, explicitly allowing subprime loans, not merely "deregulating" or "reducing oversight."

It is reduced government that has led us to the current mess. False.

I understand the concept of strict Constitutionalism Semantic point: I am not a strict constructionist. No one is, that I've ever heard of. A strict constructionist believes that the intent of the words is most important. But almost no one actually follows that. Textualism is what most conservatives adhere to, and what textualism says is that it is the common understanding -- at the time -- of what the actual words mean, that is most important. Most of the time the distinction is unimportant, because most of the time, the expressed intent IS what the words say. But not always.

I am a textualist, or originalist, not a strict constructionist.

My feeling is that the Constitution is held as sacred by so many people, when it is clear to me that a strict interpretation of the Constitution has failed, because we have failed to change the Constitution with the times That is ENTIRELY beside the point of how to interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution has failed, fine, change it. If we've failed to change it, fine, change it.

The world is remarkably different than it was 220 years ago, and some of the political theories that were new and popular at the time don't fit in with today's world. Due to advances in communication, etc, there are economies of scale unrealizable 30 years ago, let alone 220 years ago. If you want to literally follow the words written 220 years ago, you should think about what they envisioned as an ideal society, and whether that notion of an ideal society really fits in with what is desired now, and if it is even attainable. My interpretation philosophy literally has no serious problems whatsoever, because if there's something you don't like, you can always change it.

Your philosophy -- which sounds much like the one expressed by Justice Breyer in his book "Active Liberty" -- is deeply flawed. It literally destroys the whole concept of self-governance. We decide what the law is, as a people, and then judges come in and flush it down the toilet. And worse, it does not respect ANY rights. The Declaration of Independence says we have certain unalienable rights. Some of these were codified in the Constitution. Your philosophy denies that these rights even exist: the only standard for a law is whether that law promotes your idea of an "ideal society." But there is only one definition of an "ideal society" that matters: the one the people have agreed on (and are fully capable of amending).

And here's the rub: if you want to ignore the Constitution without officially amending it, you are facially subverting your own argument. "What is desired now" is, necessarily, what the people want. But the people have not seen fit to give anyone the power to ignore the Constitution without amending it. The government exists to secure our rights, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed; your philosophy claims that the government exists not to secure our rights, but to force upon us some society that YOU desire, regardless of what we desire or whether we've given consent.

Re:Universal Health Care

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Err... I think you need to re-read his comments again. There is no contradiction.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

You said earlier:
"First, Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare."
Now you say:
"I said negotiating prices CAN result in HIGHER prices. "

Make up your mind. Um. Those are not in disagreement. Running causes weight loss. That doesn't mean I will lose weight every time I run.

you've managed to offer no support for any of your claims False.

made blanket statements that are not rooted in logic or reality Also false.

and generally have made an ass of yourself Yes, by bothering to respond to people like you. I hope you didn't make any actual points in the rest of your post, because I never got that far. *plonk*

Re:Universal Health Care

[sm62704]

acknowledging this does not imply "the government should do it."

Then who should?

Twenty years is a very long time, especially where those drugs' development was subsidized by our tax dollars

Well, if it's subsidized by tax dollars I think it shoud be in the public domain. Why should I get a patent on something you paid for?

Further, however, the government often EXTENDS those patent terms arbitrarily

Well, I agree they shouldn't.

You'll never get elected, then. :-)

Phew, I was worried!

Re:Universal Health Care

[QuantumRiff]

So, 50% of the people that use my local hospital in Oregon do not pay their medical bills. That means, for the hospital to be able to pay doctors, bills, etc, I have to pay twice as much for my bills. (and you wondered why asprin cost $9). So, if we have mandatory medical care, first off, there will be no more people skipping their bills, which will drop my hospital bill in half (other parts of the state might have different "deadbeat rates").

Emergency rooms have to take everyone that comes in. Many people in my part of Oregon don't have insurance, and can't afford a doctor, so they wait until a problem becomes critical; or sometimes simple things like a cough and people go to the emergency room, when its not an emergency. By them having insurance, first, they can catch the problem earlier, saving huge amounts of time and money, and having a much better chance of getting it fixed. Secondly, the hospitals don't have to keep as many staff at the emergency room decreasing costs, and can respond much quicker, since it will be actual emergencies..

Re:Universal Health Care

[Shakrai]

We further agreed that the federal government would NOT be allowed to do things like health care

Why is it that Conservatives are only too happy to adopt a minimalist reading of the Constitution when talking about health care (or education, or job training, blah, blah, blah) but not when discussing the War on Drugs, the erosion of our Civil Liberties or the ceding of power to the Executive Branch? What clause in the Constitution gives the Feds the power to outlaw pot (at least prohibition was done correctly, via the amendment process)? Where does it say that Congress can pass treaties without 2/3rds of the Senate (NAFTA)? Where does it say that the President should have a line-item veto (not an actual power yet but one often advocated for by Conservatives)?

I'm not saying that you personally support any of those things but perhaps you could explain to me why your Conservative friends do and how they rationalize them.

If you want to have a debate about the merits of going back to a minimalist interpretation of the Constitution, then fine. Tell the pro-lifers in the Republican Party that New York and California can legalize abortion just as easily as Texas and South Carolina can outlaw it (that's my reading of the 10th amendment). Tell them that Oregon's assisted suicide law is no business of the Federal Government. Tell the interventionist crowd that the Founding Fathers were leery of a large standing army and opposed to foreign entanglements. Tell the Rural Conservatives that those of us in the Blue States would like our Federal tax dollars back (most urban blue states pay out more than they take in). Tell the Law and Order crowd that the Feds have no business telling the states what the drinking age and/or BAC limit should be. Tell the Bush supporters that the Constitution says a state can allocate it's electoral votes however it wants and SCOTUS had no business overruling a Florida court's decision on state election law.

If you are a true Conservative then I suspect you'd agree with me on most of those points. I'd love to have an honest debate about the merits of a true Conservative platform vs a Liberal one. Unfortunately it seems that the Republican Party has been taken over by the religious right and big business, while the Democratic Party is too spineless to actually stand for anything. Would you join me in making a toast to the parties of old and the intellectual giants on both sides of the Conservative/Liberal debate?

Re:Universal Health Care

[Squiggle]

No force involved, we are taking about free access. Well, no. First, I was talking about forcing ME to PAY for it. That absolutely is force. Agreed. However, in a democracy, we would have come to a willing consensus to provide free healthcare, so you were not forced into the decision, it was decided democratically. Obviously, the state's role is to enforce the consensual decisions. I also agree that plans that eliminate choice beyond public healthcare are obviously flawed. There are fundamental differences between legislation detailing minimum levels of access and that which mandates particular solutions. May != Must.

Free access to a minimum standard of living that allows people to focus on a meaningful participation in the society (instead of a focus on obtaining food, safety, shelter, education or health) should be the goal of democratic government that espouses liberty for all. No, it should not. Those things have nothing to do with promoting either liberty or democracy. And to the extent it represents the democratic will of the people, it does so at the COST of the liberty of the minority that disagrees, which is why -- as per Federalist 10 -- we have a republic, and not a democracy. Meaningful participation in the society improves democracy and liberty because there is limited individual time and attention (the less spent on survival the better). The "cost" of liberty of the minority is an acceptable cost because the decisions are achieved consensually without force (i.e. how important is the cost to liberty in the time it takes to achieve consensus? Anything within reasonable limits is an acceptable cost, and the governmental system determines acceptable bounds... what constitutes a consensus/majority for example). The US republic system determines the bounds of acceptable costs, by accepting and participating in the system you agree to and modify the costs you are "forced" to pay.

Whether or not Congress has the power to provide for the "general welfare" through taxes, etc or healthcare remains the providence of the states is part of the systems decision about acceptable costs. To decide that universal healthcare is wrong because of the system of decision-making forbids it is putting the cart before the horse. If the US could add and then repeal the Eighteenth Amendment universal healthcare is possible, but I'm no expert.

Re:Universal Health Care

[nuttycom]

This is interesting, and is definitely making me think about the tension between individual rights and social responsibilities.

What do you consider our responsibilities to one another to be? Surely there must be some; mutual reliance or support is why social groups exist in the first place. Or has the notion of the social group broken down entirely at this point?

Game theory shows that neither groups of individuals where all are entirely selfish nor those where everyone acts in entirely altruistic ways are stable. The question at hand is whether universal health care would lie to the "excessive" side on the spectrum of mutual altruism. Stability in either case is disrupted by individuals that abuse the system, but universal health care frankly seems to me to be something that would be relatively hard for an individual to abuse. With the exception of hypochondriacs and prescription drug addicts (which such a system could be engineered to cope with), how would one abuse the system? The proportion of the population that actually *wants* to be sick is pretty vanishingly small, I'd think.

Re:Universal Health Care

[NeutronCowboy]

Wow. One statement that is neither related to your quotes nor even true, and two blanket statements of "False". Nice going. Not to mention replying to comments without reading everything. Why am I supposed to take you seriously?

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about forcing "you" to serve "me" dinner. It's about society as a whole taking care of it's less fortunate members. By doing so we provide a benefit for society as a whole. Taking the things that you specifically mentioned:

No, we don't. We allow idiots and people with bad genetics to reproduce, pass on their defects, and limit the evolutionary progress of the human race.

It may be the right thing to do to take care of those who are "less fortunate", but it does not help society as a whole. It helps you feel good and relieves you of your guilt over having good genetics and a drive for success.

Re:Universal Health Care

[NeutronCowboy]

It's not that they are contradictory. One is a lot stronger than the other. One says that if A then B, while the other says A could lead to B.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Strange Ranger]

Somebody mod this up please.
Shakrai calls for the kind of good conservatism that has gone almost extinct in the last century.
The Republican party has ruined the word "conservative". Now it's nothing but a dirty word full of fear and greed and self-righteous moral claptrap.
Yes I will join you in making a toast.

Obama in 08!

Re:Universal Health Care

[nuttycom]

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the American public could choose to amend the Constitution to allow the federal government to institute universal health care. The process for doing so is well formalized, and doesn't in any way involve "magically ignoring" the Constitution as it presently exists.

The world changes; our government (and its powers and responsibilities) needs to change accordingly. At present, it's my opinion that the benefits of adopting universal health care would outweigh the costs. That being said, I don't necessarily have anything against handling the issues on a state-by-state basis except for a concern that having a patchwork of different approaches across the nation will result in duplicated effort and the resultant inefficiency and waste.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sheldon]

I never said that it would. I said negotiating prices CAN result in HIGHER prices. Not that not-doing it would result in lower prices.

You should learn the difference between probable and possible.

You seem to think there is a link. What link is that?

More than a coincidence.

Exactly, because government regulation essentially protects medical businesses. For example, here in WA, health insurance is so tightly regulated that most insurance companies end up being the same. So there's a distinct lack of competition, and therefore no incentive to lower costs.

LOL! I suppose they could let people die more often, otherwise how are they going to reduce costs?

If we had less regulation and more competition, and gave consumers more control and choice, we would see cost cutting. Necessarily.

And a tax cut! You forgot the tax cut!

Exactly: and why do we have a fixed market? Primarily, it is because of government regulation.

I was thinking more that there are only so many people who live in a given area. I suppose insurance companies could go global, start selling health insurance to China. Maybe it's ok to just let people die over there, which would make for larger profits.

That is entirely backward. When it is funded by the taxpayers there is LESS incentive to reduce costs, because you never pay for ANYTHING out of your pocket.

LOL!

And this makes private insurance better, how?

Re:Universal Health Care

[sheldon]

That's self-evidently false, since the free market DID work in health care for many, many years. It's only in the last couple of decades that it has been failing, and that is largely because it has become LESS of a free market.

That may have more to do with life expectancy than government regulation.

It must be nice to live in your little fantasy world, where all you need is a tax cut to cure the world's problems.

Re:Universal Health Care

[chaotoroboto]

You'll be hard-pressed to find honest statistical analysis that justifies your position, I'm afraid. Longevity: I just grabbed the Human Development Report (excel file) off the UN's website and I got the US tied for 28th for life expectancy at birth.

Health Care Expenditure Per Capita: I did the same thing (excel again), and big shocker, the US was ranked first.

That 4 minutes pressed me hard. To my limit.

Socialism fails to grasp something basic about Liberty - it includes the freedom to make bad choices and suffer their consequences. You have failed to grasp something basic about Liberty - this is not a choice I have made, and yet I am suffering the consequences.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

acknowledging this does not imply "the government should do it." Then who should? Not-government. There's only one thing that is not-government: the private sector.

You'll never get elected, then. :-) Phew, I was worried! :D

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I see several problems. First, Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare. This will be a big hit to middle class and poor families. I agree with this in principle, but see no way around it harming others. Not true. Profit maximizing is already done with each of these markets separately (big differences in demand elasticity). As noted, it depends on the specifics. Some will go up, some won't. Those that do go up, some will go up a lot, some marginally. Yes, price maximizing is done, but a deal with Medicare also changes the market, as everything does, which changes the formulas for maximization.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sethawoolley]

It would be great if he had discussions out in the open, but he just makes shit up because it would work that way in his ideal Libertarian horseshit of a world, asserts "false" to everything you say in reply, and then tells you you're appealing to authority. In the last discussion on Novick he got the last word to whatever the fuck suited his fancy to everybody he disagreed with because somehow he's being paid to do nothing at slashdot. I'm not going to subscribe to Slashdot or disable ABP until the idiot is put in his place, pure and simple. He posts with the /. logo next to his name, and it looks terrible, as if their reputation weren't bad enough. You don't see kdawson going around telling people they're false and idiots if kdawson can't come up with a valid argument and you point it out to him.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

So, if we have mandatory medical care No one is proposing that. Do you mean mandatory medical *insurance*? I'll assume you mean that from the context.

first off, there will be no more people skipping their bills That's not true at all. Indeed, there could be more: more people insured, thus more people using medical care, and thus more people to skip out on their bills. Maybe the bills will be SMALLER, since insurance covers some of it, but no reason to think fewer people skipping out. Indeed, it COULD be that an even greater amount of money is "skipped out on."

Anyway, this is all beside the point that mandatory insurance destroys my liberty to NOT be insured, to NOT pay for something I may not want to pay for. This is the primary offensive part about it, and nothing you said fixes that fatal flaw. You can say all you like about how good it would be, but I can think of lots of good things. We can force everyone to watch PBS and NPR. We can force everyone to not eat meat. We can force everyone to exercise daily. Just because you think the immediate material results would be good, does not mean the force, the destruction of liberty, is justified.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Qzukk]

free market DID work in health care for many, many years.

The problem with the good old days, is that they generally weren't.

I'm not finding any serious study on google that relates equivalence of health care "then and now" versus the cost of a median patient receiving that equivalent care, between billions of articles hawking how the total expenditure on health care is outpacing inflation.

For all I know, everyone used to just let their sick kids die, now they have insurance.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sumdumass]

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the American public could choose to amend the Constitution to allow the federal government to institute universal health care. The process for doing so is well formalized, and doesn't in any way involve "magically ignoring" the Constitution as it presently exists.

Sure we could. I don't know if it would be a good idea though, mandating something to be payed along with all the other encroaches in the restrictions on the government is a little scary considering the type of leaders we get. Anyways, yes, and amendment can happen and when it does, it would be constitutional. But the way the discussion is developing right now, it is constitution be damned as long as I get what I want. That is something that is even more scary to me.

The world changes; our government (and its powers and responsibilities) needs to change accordingly. At present, it's my opinion that the benefits of adopting universal health care would outweigh the costs. That being said, I don't necessarily have anything against handling the issues on a state-by-state basis except for a concern that having a patchwork of different approaches across the nation will result in duplicated effort and the resultant inefficiency and waste.

Here is the thing, in either case of the constitutional amendment process, you are going to have to convince three quarters of the states to jump on. Almost each state has unique rules to determine if they will or won't sign the constitutional amendment into effect. So no matter what, the best approach is going to be the states first.

Now something congress can do without a constitutional amendment is allow the states to work amongst themselves to standardize on a process and basically make pacts between each other. So if say Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia want to collaborate, they can get permission from congress to do so and standardize their systems. And a system like that can allow a little congressional oversight but it would be stretching the role of the federal government to have congress forcing rules and such. It would have to be all negotiated by the states. And since no congress member can hold any other public office during their tenure, it isn't like they can push a commity outside the confines of their congressional duty.

Re:Universal Health Care

[chaotoroboto]

There isn't. We HAVE liberty. It is not provided, it is only taken away (sometimes justly -- for example, I have the right to swing my fist, but your right to not have me punch your nose supercedes -- and sometimes, unjustly). I understand the semantic difference between the terms liberty, justice, and equality. Justice and equality are certainly easier to create than liberty - but liberty can actually be created as easily as it is destroyed, and a progressive government will seek to create as much liberty as feasible, while eliminating as little as possible.

As an example, the tax code allows moving expenses to be deducted above the line. This lowers the burden of moving to an area with more jobs, something many Americans cannot afford to do, creating economic mobility - which I consider to be a fundamental liberty.

Public transportation is another good example of creating liberty. It lowers the cost of going out into the world and doing things such as finding and retaining a job, or getting groceries from the store to your house. That increases people's job options, their options regarding whom they purchase goods from, and increases their disposable income - providing them with more options on how they spend their money.

Re:Universal Health Care

[paitre]

Strict interpretation has failed because of folks like you that undermine it wherever possible, and have been doing so for 150 years.

By the by, the 17th Amendment has had a lot to do with the fucked up situation at the Federal level, as well. The entire purpose of the Senate was for it to counter the popularly elected House and prevent much of the bullshit that has been fed to us for the last 90 years.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Why is it that Conservatives are only too happy to adopt a minimalist reading of the Constitution when talking about health care (or education, or job training, blah, blah, blah) but not when discussing the War on Drugs, the erosion of our Civil Liberties or the ceding of power to the Executive Branch?

This is, of course, a textbook example of both a red herring fallacy. It does not address the actual point.

And it is a straw man fallacy, if directed at me personally. I am for the legalization of pot; I am against any erosion of our civil liberties; I am in favor of the proper constitutional separation of powers. I have several times posted that we must, at the least, give at least a basic due process/habeas corpus to alien unalawful enemy combatants; that taking away rights from CITIZEN enemy combatants is absolutely unconstitutional; that the President probably (I am not 100 percent sure, but, let's say 70 percent) does not have the constitutional right to do warrantless wiretapping of international communications in contradiction of the law.

Also: nothing about my view is "minimalist." That is a misrepresentation of any classic conservative view of the Constitution. Originalist is probably the most common, and accurate, label.

Where does it say that Congress can pass treaties without 2/3rds of the Senate (NAFTA)?

As I understand it, they are different things. NAFTA was a bill written and passed by Congress. A treaty is something negotiated by the President and then ratified by Congress. I am open to discussing where I might be wrong, but I think you're off here.

Where does it say that the President should have a line-item veto (not an actual power yet but one often advocated for by Conservatives)?

Shrug. I agree with the Supreme Court that invalidated Clinton's line-item veto, and I favor the so-called line-item veto plan that I believe DOES pass constitutional muster, which would allow the President to strike portions of a bill and then send it back to both houses of Congress for approval.

I'm not saying that you personally support any of those things but perhaps you could explain to me why your Conservative friends do and how they rationalize them.

Hm. How about YOU explain how you disregard the Tenth Amendment, first?

If you want to have a debate about the merits of going back to a minimalist interpretation of the Constitution, then fine. Tell the pro-lifers in the Republican Party that New York and California can legalize abortion just as easily as Texas and South Carolina can outlaw it (that's my reading of the 10th amendment).

I think the right of the federal government to outlaw abortion is CLEARLY implied by the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I, Section 8. The Constitution in many places discusses "the right of the people." So um ... how can the government know whether to uphold a given "right of the people" unless it knows what is, and is not, a person?

That said, I think this should be resolved with amendment. This is something important enough that it should not be treated so trivially as to be passed by a bare majority of 536 elected officials, plus the President.

Tell them that Oregon's assisted suicide law is no business of the Federal Government.

Oh, this absolutely can be construed a federal issue: the right to due process before being deprived of life. Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment. That I mention this, however, should imply that my main concern is that someone who kills himself is fully aware of what he is doing, and that I see no state OR federal right to interfere if he does.

Tell the interventionist crowd that the Founding Fathers were leery of a large standing army and opposed to foreign entanglements

No, that is beside the point. We are talking about actual law here, not uncodified views.

Tell the Rural Conserva

Re:Universal Health Care

[trolltalk.com]

It would be great if he had discussions out in the open, but he just makes shit up because it would work that way in his ideal Libertarian horseshit of a world, asserts "false" to everything you say in reply, and then tells you you're appealing to authority.

I know, he has the nasty habit of almost never providing citations or links. Lazy? I don't know, and I don't care - people can and do judge based on who amasses the lists of facts, and who goes "la-la-la-la-I-can't-here-you!"

BTW, this makes him SO easy to troll ... shove enough facts in his way and watch the melt-down into a mass of sputtering ... I like it because it's good exercise in sharpening my skills for court (most lawyers are real idiots, and if you can troll tem or their clients, you've got the upper hand. Ditto for other negotiations.

In the last discussion on Novick he got the last word to whatever the fuck suited his fancy to everybody he disagreed with because somehow he's being paid to do nothing at slashdot. I'm not going to subscribe to Slashdot or disable ABP until the idiot is put in his place, pure and simple.

I leave the ads on because I think slashdot is still a valuable resource, but that's just me. Besides, I *like* that those ads are costing Microsoft $$$.

He posts with the /. logo next to his name, and it looks terrible, as if their reputation weren't bad enough.

Rank hath its' privileges, and all that, I guess. I'm sure the office politics are no different than any other place (sigh).

You don't see kdawson going around telling people they're false and idiots if kdawson can't come up with a valid argument and you point it out to him.

Psst - "llegitimus non carborundum" ;-0

Well, gotta go, weekend is starting.

Re:Universal Health Care

[paitre]

Um. Yes. Food subidies are about 2.5% of the federal budget. On an income of $75K, that is about $250. Feel free to call that insignficant, but I don't. Sorry pudge, but your math is wrong. 2.5% of 75k = $1875. And that IS significant.

Re:Universal Health Care

[jonbryce]

I live in Britain which claims to provide mostly universal healthcare.

I don't have a problem with the fact that I pay money in taxes for a healthcare service. I do, however have a problem with the fact that I pay money in taxes for a healthcare service which is so completely useless that I have to pay again to a private provider to get anything done. That for example there is a single NHS dentist in my county or any of the neighbouring counties that is currently accepting new patients.

I also have a problem with the fact that this useless English NHS which manages to do very little is the fourth largest employer in the world (after the Chinese Army, the Indian Railways and Wallmart). The Scottish NHS, Welsh NHS and Northern Irish HSC are in addition to that.

Of course other european counties, particularly France, Germany and the ex communist counties manage a lot better.

Re:Universal Health Care

[tfoss]

Which is why such a system needs to be a national system.

No. It shows how such a thing doesn't scale.

Except that other countries show quite conclusively that it does. Clearly you are opposed to such a program, but you can't deny that it can be done on a large scale.

Then isn't it odd that we spend more per capita than any other industrialized country, cover a far smaller proportion of the population, and get no better results in terms of health care delivered?

Yes, which is why we need to REDUCE regulation and cost controls so we can spend less to provide more.

Again you are drawing a strange conclusion. You have our system, which fails in a number of ways & you have another system that doesn't, yet you are advocating for a third way to solve the problems with #1 that #2 has already fixed.

And the answer is because people WANT the federal government involved, for the sake of CONTROL.

Actually, its for the sake of uniformity. And if you think school budgets & programs for the poor are immune to local/state budget crises, you are very, very out of touch.

The goal should be fixing the health care system

Agreed. And until single-payer becomes a politically viable option, health insurance will define the how the fixing happens.

And the answer is essentially: reduce government regulation, increase competition and choice, reduce costs. When costs lower, people DO NOT NEED to care much about insurance except for expensive or catastrophic care, and if an uninsured person cannot pay for expensive or catastrophic treatment, then we have charities to handle this. If states want to try to cover expensive care for the needy, maybe we can discuss that, but there's no need for a whole universal/comprehensive system just to solve the one problem of relatively rare high-end procedures for poor people, if we reduce other costs across the board.

And here is the heart of the matter. You firmly believe that without regulation, insurance companies/health care providers will offer better coverage for less. I firmly believe that without regulation, ic/hcp will increase profits by offering worse coverage for more to a medically-ignorant public.

I agree that free markets can work well, within certain boundaries, in certain circumstances. But there are many requirements for that to happen, and health care exemplifies very few of those. When you buy a car or a cell phone plan, you know what you are getting pretty clearly. When you break your arm, you don't comparison shop for doctors. When you go to the doctor, you don't know what is wrong, what the best treatment is, nor how much is reasonable to pay for such a thing. Additionally, if I make a bad choice and pick the red pill instead of the blue pill, I am not going to know that I made a bad decision, so I won't know not to do it next time, supposing there even is a next time (which is another important aspect needed for a useful market system).

When people have to bear the expense directly of health care, they simply consume less health care. Perhaps you view that as a positive...I do not. Preventative health care is very important, but will be greatly reduced. Getting treatments for sicknesses will also go down, allowing greater disease transmission (people already go to work sick as it is, spreading colds & flus far more than they should). On top of the inherent problems with reducing health care, the system will be inherently regressive.

And the problem with health care is *not* "the one problem of relatively rare high-end procedures for poor people." A minor doctor's visit is a high-end procedure when you are somewhat poor. A minor surgery is a high-end procedure for the majority of the country. Health care is inherently expensive because it requires lots of highly-educated people spending lots of effort to make sure things don't go wron

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

No force involved, we are taking about free access. Well, no. First, I was talking about forcing ME to PAY for it. That absolutely is force. Agreed. However, in a democracy, we would have come to a willing consensus to provide free healthcare, so you were not forced into the decision, it was decided democratically. Yes, but in the worst sense of "democratically": against the rights of the minority, doing that which a republic is intended to prevent.

Obviously, the state's role is to enforce the consensual decisions. I disagree: the state's role is to protect the rights of individuals, first and foremost.

Meaningful participation in the society improves democracy and liberty because there is limited individual time and attention (the less spent on survival the better) That is your opinion. Please do not force it on me through the government.

The "cost" of liberty of the minority is an acceptable cost Protection of the liberty of the minority is THE most important function of government.

The US republic system determines the bounds of acceptable costs, by accepting and participating in the system you agree to and modify the costs you are "forced" to pay. Except that this system EXPLICITLY states that the federal government SHALL NOT do things the Constitution says it can do, and it does not say it can do universal health care. That's the point: this IS ALREADY a limit on the bounds of "acceptable costs."

Whether or not Congress has the power to provide for the "general welfare" through taxes Where "general welfare" means "whatever Congress decides is the general welfare," absolutely the Congress does not, constitutionally, have this power.

To decide that universal healthcare is wrong because of the system of decision-making forbids it is putting the cart before the horse Sorry, that makes no sense. This is my Tenth Amendment right you're talking about. It is not merely some meaningless system, it serves a very specific purpose: it was agreed that such things should be decided locally, because that is how we help to ensure self-governance, by disallowing a Congress 3000 miles away from controlling our lives, just as a Parliament 3000 miles away had done. This principle is no less important than the First or Fourth or Fifth Amendment.

Sure, I could give those reasons instead of saying "The Tenth Amendment." But so too could someone give the reasons justifying free speech instead of saying "The First Amendment."

If the US could add and then repeal the Eighteenth Amendment universal healthcare is possible, but I'm no expert. Yes, it is possible to repeal the Tenth Amendment. But I'll be damned if I sit by and let it happen without a fight.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

What do you consider our responsibilities to one another to be? Surely there must be some; mutual reliance or support is why social groups exist in the first place. Or has the notion of the social group broken down entirely at this point? I don't consider that question to be relevant. The issue here is not whether I have responsibilities to others, but whether government should be the means by which those responsibilities are codified and enforced.

For example, many liberal Christians, such as Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, have in recent years been speaking loudly about how it is the Christian obligation to help those in need. Yes, absolutely; but that make a logically unsubstantiated leap from "should help those in need" to "should favor the government's helping those in need." The former does not imply the latter, but they just assume it does.

Game theory shows that neither groups of individuals where all are entirely selfish nor those where everyone acts in entirely altruistic ways are stable I deny there is such a thing as a selfless act. Everything we do is because, at root, we WANT to do it, for our own reasons, even if it is just "because doing good for others makes me happy." Every act every person ever does is only properly understood as essentially "selfish." But that is beside the point, I think.

The question at hand is whether universal health care would lie to the "excessive" side on the spectrum of mutual altruism No, to me, the question is whether this is properly an object of GOVERNMENT, especially the federal government.

Stability in either case is disrupted by individuals that abuse the system, but universal health care frankly seems to me to be something that would be relatively hard for an individual to abuse Abuse is a side issue. I am concerned with liberty and the proper role of government in a free society. And yes, I put liberty above health care, every day of the week. Live Free Or Die is not meaningless to me, as it is to many Americans today.

Re:Universal Health Care

[chrb]

Does not follow, actually. A large fraction of those without health insurance do so because they are healthy and have no use for it.

Substitute "have no use for it" with the correct "are unlikely to use it" and you have one of the main problems with the whole idea of "healthcare insurance"; information asymmetry leads people who are unlikely to need insurance to not purchase it, and those who need it to over-purchase it. Insurance markets cannot function like this, it leads to a feedback loop with rising prices and falling numbers of unlikely claimants. The book "The Undercover Economist" has a good explanation of why a market like the US healthcare system will inevitably fail, and how it can be made to function correctly (eg. he recommends switching to a Singapore model healthcare system).

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I'm not finding any serious study on google that relates equivalence of health care "then and now" versus the cost of a median patient receiving that equivalent care Who ever said anything about equivalent care? There was no equivalent care 50 years ago to what we get today.

For all I know, everyone used to just let their sick kids die, now they have insurance. You're actually conceding my point. Health care costs more now in large part because we have many more, and more expensive, treatments. It is not that they let their kids die, it's that they didn't have treatments for them. Health care cost a lot less, so the free market handled it just fine.

The answer is not "zomg free market doesn't work" because it does, but we need to drive down COSTS to make it work, which necessarily means MORE competition and innovation and LESS regulation.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

liberty can actually be created as easily as it is destroyed, and a progressive government will seek to create as much liberty as feasible, while eliminating as little as possible. No, liberty cannot be created. The assertion makes no sense. If a government can give you liberty, then it is NOT liberty, because it is provided only at someone else's whims. All a government can do is recognize and protect liberty, not create it.

As an example, the tax code allows moving expenses to be deducted above the line. This lowers the burden of moving to an area with more jobs, something many Americans cannot afford to do, creating economic mobility - which I consider to be a fundamental liberty. Nope. Everyone in this country -- except for people who have not reached the age of having the liberty, or who have had that liberty taken away, such as convicts -- has the liberty to move anywhere they wish at any time. Period. The government might take action to increase your ability to act on that liberty, but it cannot create it.

Same thing with your public transportation and so on.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Um. Yes. Food subidies are about 2.5% of the federal budget. On an income of $75K, that is about $250. Feel free to call that insignficant, but I don't. Sorry pudge, but your math is wrong.
2.5% of 75k = $1875.

And that IS significant. An income of $75K is not a tax of $75K. I was taking 2.5% of 15% (approximate effective tax rate) of $75K, which is $10,500 / $262.50.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I don't have a problem with the fact that I pay money in taxes for a healthcare service My problem is not so much that we would pay taxes for health care, it is WHAT is being taxed. Right now I pay taxes on my income, and my home, and my car, and most of my purchases. If I earn income, own a home or a car, or purchase items, those activities must be paid for.

But under Hillary's plan, what activity requires me to pay? Being alive. Not working, shopping, or owning. Just living. It is a tax on being alive, and I find this absoultely and wholly offensive.

I do, however have a problem with the fact that I pay money in taxes for a healthcare service which is so completely useless that I have to pay again to a private provider to get anything done. That for example there is a single NHS dentist in my county or any of the neighbouring counties that is currently accepting new patients. Wait, but I am told that if I REALLY understood the English plan, I would realize how awesome it is! And now you tell me different. I am confused. ;-)

Re:Universal Health Care

[chrb]

First, I reiterate the fact that federal spending on health care for Americans in general is unconstitutional.

Is a non-defensive "regime change" war constitutional? Just asking, since that was the point of discussion...

Truly universal coverage will cost more per year than the war, and, of course, will surely last much longer.

Singapore provides one of the best healthcare systems in the world, for a cost of only 3% of GDP. US healthcare is worse by all measures, and costs more at an estimated 15% of GDP. The US spends more per capita on administration of the healthcare insurance model than many other developed nations spend on entire non-insurance based healthcare models. I recommend reading "The Undercover Economist" for a convincing argument of how the insurance based model destroys the whole concept of a market based system.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

That's self-evidently false, since the free market DID work in health care for many, many years.

What are the specific years where you believe the health care market worked? And specifically what do you mean when you say it worked? What are the specific objective criteria that you believe were satisfied by the health care market during those specific years?

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Which is why such a system needs to be a national system.

No. It shows how such a thing doesn't scale.

Except that other countries show quite conclusively that it does.

False. It shows that it scales IN THOSE COUNTRIES. It is clearly false to say that a system that scales in some places necessarily will scale here, if that is what you are implying.

Yes, which is why we need to REDUCE regulation and cost controls so we can spend less to provide more.

Again you are drawing a strange conclusion. You have our system, which fails in a number of ways & you have another system that doesn't, yet you are advocating for a third way to solve the problems with #1 that #2 has already fixed.

False. First, the "another system" fails in MANY ways, some of which I have already enumerated. And second, the "third way" solves problems that neither "#1" or "#2" do ANYTHING for: particularly: minimized federal control as per the Tenth Amendment, increased competition, decreased costs, and more choice. Neither #1 or #2 does anything to those ends.

And the answer is because people WANT the federal government involved, for the sake of CONTROL.

Actually, its for the sake of uniformity

Exactly. And why be uniform? Of what value is there in telling all states they have to have no more than a certain amount of sodium, when one state might want a little more? What is it to you? One word: CONTROL. It is, in fact, all about control, and nothing more.

And if you think school budgets & programs for the poor are immune to local/state budget crises, you are very, very out of touch.

False. I know exactly what I am talking about. You are buying into the lies the liberals tell you. It is very simple: make those things the top priority, and cut everything else. It has NEVER been necessary to cut those programs, for any state, ever. Well, maybe during the Depression, I can't say. But since? Nope. Cutting those things is a CHOICE made by the states because they decide to have other priorities.

I live in Washington. Our governor and legislature increased the state budget by 33 percent in just four years. This was a choice. And later when budget cuts come next year due to the economic slowdown, and they say "we'll have to cut schools" and try to blame everyone else for it, they will be lying, because they could cut many, many other things. That's not to say they SHOULDN'T cut schools. They should; many of the new budget additions were unnecessary expenses for schools. But they don't have to.

The goal should be fixing the health care system

Agreed. And until single-payer becomes a politically viable option, health insurance will define the how the fixing happens.

If government refuses to deregulate the insurance business, yes, exactly. Which is why we should do that right away.

And here is the heart of the matter. You firmly believe that without regulation, insurance companies/health care providers will offer better coverage for less.

Some would, yes, absolutely.

I firmly believe that without regulation, ic/hcp will increase profits by offering worse coverage for more to a medically-ignorant public.

Some people would be taken advantage of, of course, at first. Until the companies that are offering better services get the word out and people switch to them (which they now can do more easily because of decreased regulation, including decoupling from employers).

I agree that free markets can work well, within certain boundaries, in certain circumstances. But there are many requirements for that to happen, and health care exemplifies very few of those.

Nope, that's backward. There are very few cases where free markets do NOT work, and health care exemplifies NON

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

But under Hillary's plan, what activity requires me to pay? Being alive.

Wow! I did not know this! That's just crazy. Exactly what amount is Hillary proposing that we pay to the IRS for being alive? Is she proposing some type of prorated amount, so that we won't have to pay the full amount in the years when we're born or when we die? Or will you have to pay the full amount if you're alive for only a partial year?

If this really is a tax on being alive like you say, I can easily imaging a lot fun lawsuits. For example, if every person has to write a $5000 check to the IRS for every year they're alive, can you imaging the case Michael Schiavo would have had against the State of Florida? He could claim that keeping Terri alive was just to collect tax revenue, and sue for a refund! Or Dr. Kavorkian might be really busy on the evening of December 31st each year, just to help people avoid the "being alive" tax for the next year! It's horrible.

But it's not clear to me how this discussion of the "being alive" tax is related to the discussion of universal health care. Are you saying that Hillary has proposed this "being alive" tax as a way to pay for universal healthcare? If so, I really don't think she deserves anyone's vote, and I really can't imagine congress going along with it. I'm sure that there are less stupid ways to pay for universal health care, and that we'll use one of them.

But wow... a "being alive" tax. I suppose once someone proposes it, it will be proposed again and again. I bet it's not long before McCain proposes a "being alive" tax to pay for the war in Iraq...

Re:Universal Health Care

[nuttycom]

The issue here is not whether I have responsibilities to others, but whether government should be the means by which those responsibilities are codified and enforced.

The whole *point* of government is to codify and enforce those responsibilities toward others; it has no other purpose. Whatever mechanism you have in place for doing so is equivalent to a form of government. As such, we must collectively decide whether universal health care is such a responsibility. If it is, then it is absolutely the place of our government to codify that agreement. If *our* government has been presently been diverted (or subverted) away from its original purpose, that is a separate issue.

So, I will ask again, what do you believe are our respective responsibilities to one another as members of a common society? Why should ensuring one another's physical well being not such a responsibility, given the other mutual responsibilities that we have instantiated as our government?

I deny there is such a thing as a selfless act. Everything we do is because, at root, we WANT to do it, for our own reasons, even if it is just "because doing good for others makes me happy." Every act every person ever does is only properly understood as essentially "selfish." But that is beside the point, I think.I deny there is such a thing as a selfless act. Everything we do is because, at root, we WANT to do it, for our own reasons, even if it is just "because doing good for others makes me happy." Every act every person ever does is only properly understood as essentially "selfish." But that is beside the point, I think.

Whether or not there is such thing as a selfless act has no bearing on the point I am attempting to make. Indeed, mutual altruism is well understood to ultimately benefit individuals (since without the survival of individuals, you have no mechanism for propagating altruistic traits.) Altruism in a game-theoretic sense is simply defined as acting in a manner that at least appears to have no directly quantifiable individual benefit; any benefit must occur because of network effects.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

First, I reiterate the fact that federal spending on health care for Americans in general is unconstitutional. Is a non-defensive "regime change" war constitutional? If Congress authorizes it -- which it did -- then yes, of course it is. This is quite obvious.

Truly universal coverage will cost more per year than the war, and, of course, will surely last much longer. Singapore provides one of the best healthcare systems in the world, for a cost of only 3% of GDP ... Shrug. If we paid merely three percent GDP, then it would cost even more than the estimate I gave from John Edwards. We're talking about $400b a year, which is several times the annual cost of the Iraq War. So you agree with me, thanks.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Watson Ladd]

Your right to alienate that loaf of bread as you see fit interferes with my right to feed my family.

Re:Universal Health Care

[kiatoa]

The only advantage other countries have is that they made the switch years before when the costs were less and they could rely on the US for most of the medical innovation. We won't have that luxury and anyone expecting the same results is a fool.

Do you have any data to support that the US dominates medical inovation? A quick google search didn't give me a feel either way. As far as solution space goes my opinion is thus:

Make it illegal for employers to supply insurance.

Captive employer provided insurance *destroys* competition. Current insurance plans are 90% about keeping doctors from getting paid by the insurance co. and 10% about getting the patients real needs met. Then, if necessary, have the government give every person a voucher for health insurance usable with any qualified health ins. co.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

That's self-evidently false, since the free market DID work in health care for many, many years. What are the specific years where you believe the health care market worked? Every year before the last two or three decades when insurance became the norm for even routine care.

And specifically what do you mean when you say it worked? Most people got the care they needed without going broke.

Re:Universal Health Care

[l-ascorbic]

Do you feel the same about all taxes then?

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no...it's free health care, just Medicare, Medicaid, all that stuff is FREE!
Now, raising armies and fighting wars, that costs a BUNCH of money that only takes away from ....??? something - I can't remember what, but it can't be government health care, CUZ THAT'S FREE!!!

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue here is not whether I have responsibilities to others, but whether government should be the means by which those responsibilities are codified and enforced.

Government is the means by which responsibilities are codified and enforced. That's the definition of government. Asking if government "should" codify and enforce responsibilities is like asking if cows "should" be made out of beef. It's a nonsense question.

And yes, I put liberty above health care, every day of the week.

I am suprised to learn that you do not have health care; that puts this discussion in an entirely new light. Exactly what form did this tradeoff take? Which specific liberties did you gain by forfeiting health care?

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

The issue here is not whether I have responsibilities to others, but whether government should be the means by which those responsibilities are codified and enforced. The whole *point* of government is to codify and enforce those responsibilities toward others Not remotely. I have a responsibility to my neighbor to watch their house while they are away. This is not, and should not, be codified in government.

Further, the whole point of government is to secure our individual rights. That is it. Period. Nothing more. This statement is, indeed, in the founding document of our nation. This is not why I believe it, of course; but you'll have a hard time convincing many Americans, given the opportunity to think deeply about it, that it isn't true.

If *our* government has been presently been diverted (or subverted) away from its original purpose, that is a separate issue. False. It is my constitutional right -- as per the Tenth Amendment -- to help decide domestic affairs, except where the Constitution says otherwise, in the state or other local government. This right of mine is no less important than my right to free speech or due process. It is not in any way a separate issue, any more than bringing up the First Amendment in opposition to the Sedition Act was a separate issue.

So, I will ask again, what do you believe are our respective responsibilities to one another as members of a common society? And I will say again, that is entirely beside the point.

Indeed, mutual altruism is well understood to ultimately benefit individuals I do not believe that mutual altruism exists, so ... nope.

I do believe that we do things that we blindly believe are altruistic, but it is a self-imposed mirage, the creation of which is, too, selfish. We like to think of ourselves as altruistic, so we create an imaginary world where such things are possible, to feel good about ourselves. But it doesn't exist.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

But under Hillary's plan, what activity requires me to pay? Being alive. Wow! I did not know this! That's just crazy. Exactly what amount is Hillary proposing that we pay to the IRS for being alive? I didn't say that it was a tax in that quote. Just forced payment. I did refer to it as a virtual tax, but obviously, not an actual one.

However, she DID say, directly, that if you don't do it "voluntarily," the IRS may take your money from you by force.

If this really is a tax on being alive like you say Shrug. What would you call it? It is forced payment for the activity of being alive. That is actually what it is. It is entirely accurate to say that. "Tax" isn't the right word, but it has the same effect: government forcing you to give up your money. This is normally done for certain activities: ownership, purchases, income. This forced payment is, literally, for being alive.

Are you saying that Hillary has proposed this "being alive" tax as a way to pay for universal healthcare? She said everyone will be forced to have health insurance, or be punished (such as with wage garnishing by the IRS) if they do not comply. So, yes, she has proposed a "tax" (which is not really a tax, but has the same effect) on being alive.

Re:Universal Health Care

[maxume]

Not everybody files claims in a given period. The price of the insurance is based on how likely you are to file a claim. That's how it gets its name.

Re:Universal Health Care

[maxume]

Many of them don't make particularly huge profits. For instance, Wellpoint makes a little less than 6% profit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WellPoint

(on 10% gross income, so they are spending 9 out of 10 dollars they take in, and of that dollar they keep, the government is taking about 30 cents in taxes)

That leaves room for improvement, but you better hope your government agency is pretty efficient.

If you look at the profits of other companies, they are often much higher(Toyota is similar, but check out GE, Microsoft, IBM).

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

The issue here is not whether I have responsibilities to others, but whether government should be the means by which those responsibilities are codified and enforced. Government is the means by which responsibilities are codified and enforced. False. I have many responsibilities that have nothing to do with government. Responsibility to watch my neighbor's house while they are away; responsibility to mow the lawn in the backyard before the BBQ; responsibility to clean the dust off the back of the TV ...

That's the definition of government. False. The purpose of government is to secure our individual rights. At least, it is the reason why the U.S. government was created.

Asking if government "should" codify and enforce responsibilities is like asking if cows "should" be made out of beef. It's a nonsense question. No. The proper analogy would be asking if all meat should be made of cows. And obviously, the answer is No.

And yes, I put liberty above health care, every day of the week. I am suprised to learn that you do not have health care I am unsurprised to learn that you cannot read.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

However, she DID say, directly, that if you don't do it "voluntarily," the IRS may take your money from you by force.

Normally, people link to articles that support their argument. I must admit that I'm suprised by your tactic of linking to an article that contradicts your argument.

You have claimed that everyone would be forced to pay this tax for being alive. The article you linked claimed that only people who are working may be forced to pay. Do you have any citations that support your claim that Hillary Clinton has proposed a tax on people for being alive, or are you only able to cite articles that do not support your claim?

Re:Universal Health Care

[sumdumass]

Do you have any data to support that the US dominates medical inovation? A quick google search didn't give me a feel either way. As far as solution space goes my opinion is thus:

Nobody said that the US dominated medical innovation. What I said was they could control costs by relying on the US. This isn't saying that the US dominates anything. It is saying that any given country can slack off in order to control costs when it finds it necessary.

And BTW, Your not going to find any concrete links to which country dominates others in research of this type. While the US spends 20 billion a year as of 2001 and around 28 billion in 2005-2006. In contrast, the AU and UK spend about 2% of the GDP anually which comes to about 1-2 billion US or so. Canada has reached a little more but it is actually less $$ because they have a smaller GDP. But it is more complicated in just terms of dollars.

Take the MRI for instance, an American and a British scientist received the nobel prize for work making the MRI possible. They were both separately working on mathematical modeling and dimensional representation that was eventually applied to a process called "nuclear magnetic resonance", discovered in the 1930's which lead to Raymond Vahan Damadian of the US, to discover that it could be used to detect different layers and odities in tissue. Damadian patented a device in 1970 to detect caner using this, Paul Lauterbur (US) and Peter Mansfield (UK) combined their works under US finding and we know have the modern MRI that can explore a human body without an incision. So we have work from different countries, money from different countries, People from different countries, which gets the credit for inventing the MRI? Now consider all the improvements made to it over the years by different countries?

Your going to find most innovation like that because the civilised countries share information with each other.

Captive employer provided insurance *destroys* competition. Current insurance plans are 90% about keeping doctors from getting paid by the insurance co. and 10% about getting the patients real needs met. Then, if necessary, have the government give every person a voucher for health insurance usable with any qualified health ins. co.

Well, not really. The problems with health care didn't really start happening until medicade and madicare came around. If you look back to the debate at the time, the problem wasn't that elderly and the poor couldn't get treatment, they were concerned with how it was degrading for them to go through the "charity care". At that point in time, roughly 90% of everyone who needed treatment got treatment. Now what did suck was that your treatment increased with your ability to pay- no different then today except people where treated. The HMO act in the 70's did usher in some price hikes but there where other aspect that need to be considered too. Aspect like funding and procedures which where mandated over the years to be covered like boob jobs and birth control or invetro (SP?) treatments and so on. Plus you know have the US government cutting checks for about any amount that could be somewhat justified which has been scaled back quite a bit but not soon enough.

There isn't just one bullet that killed anything and I doubt anything can be undone. But with work and attention, the system can be fixed and people can afford medical coverage without having to resort to socialized medicine or government paid medicine.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Qzukk]

Health care costs more now in large part because we have many more, and more expensive, treatments

current therapies for childhood leukemia treatment have reached their peak effectiveness. Most drugs in current use were designed in the 1960s, with few major additions to the treatment arsenal since the late 1970s. Most clinical research has focused on the doses and schedules for administering the existing drugs rather than testing new, innovative therapies

-- http://www.sickkids.ca/LRG/section.asp?s=Children+with+Leukemia&sID=20606
How much do those same drugs cost now (they're generics by now, right? Can I get them at my neighborhood pharmacy alongside their other $5 generics?), how much did they cost in the 70's?

What about a simple broken leg, which is almost never fatal? How much did it cost to get an xray, set the bone, and get a cast back then? Now?

Health care costs more now in large part because we have many more, and more expensive, treatments.

So I assumed. Or, to put it another way, "for all I know, the price of leg casts has increased 5 millionfold."

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

However, she DID say, directly, that if you don't do it "voluntarily," the IRS may take your money from you by force. ... linking to an article that contradicts your argument. False. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos". This, in fact, backs up what I said.

You have claimed that everyone would be forced to pay this tax for being alive. The article you linked claimed that only people who are working may be forced to pay. No, in fact, it says nothing of the kind. Most people do not invent things articles don't say.

That wages may be garnished if health insurance is not purchased does not imply that the mandate for health insurance is only for workers. It is for every single person in the country. You are, if you are alive, required, under Clinton's plan, to have health insurance. If you cannot pay for it -- a decision for the government to make, not you -- you will be provided it by the government, either directly or through subsidy. If you can pay for it, you will be required to do so.

This is common knowledge, and she has said it many times. But here's a citation for those living in Rio Linda, from her own page: "Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible." Not "workers." Not "some individuals." All.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

How much do those same [Leukemia] drugs cost now Probably less. Obviously, not all costs rise. I wasn't saying every little thing costs more or less.

What about a simple broken leg, which is almost never fatal? How much did it cost to get an xray, set the bone, and get a cast back then? Now? Probably a LOT more now. They used to just set it and put it in a cast. Would cost maybe $50 for the whole visit when I was little. WITHOUT insurance. Now it might cost only $20 for the copay, but the actual cost can be hundreds, mostly due to insurance and drastically increased labor costs.

Re:Universal Health Care

[tfoss]

False. It shows that it scales IN THOSE COUNTRIES. It is clearly false to say that a system that scales in some places necessarily will scale here, if that is what you are implying.

True, I am implying that a system that scales in numerous western democracies who share a large number of similarities to each other would likely work here. You argue that a universal coverage system that failed in oregon could not scale. That is false as it has scaled in other western countries.

False. First, the "another system" fails in MANY ways, some of which I have already enumerated. And second, the "third way" solves problems that neither "#1" or "#2" do ANYTHING for: particularly: minimized federal control as per the Tenth Amendment, increased competition, decreased costs, and more choice. Neither #1 or #2 does anything to those ends.

First, you've not enumerated them to me anywhere. Secondly, the third way does not solve many problems, and invents other ones, *and* unlike the two former, is purely speculative.

One word: CONTROL. It is, in fact, all about control, and nothing more.

Nope, your conspiracy theories aside, it's about uniformity.

False. I know exactly what I am talking about. You are buying into the lies the liberals tell you.

Funny, if you look two states down you'll find that school budgets (& programs for the poor) are decreasing rapidly.

It is very simple: make those things the top priority, and cut everything else. It has NEVER been necessary to cut those programs, for any state, ever.

Would be great if we lived in that world, where education and support for poor were even close to top priorities.

Nope. Cutting those things is a CHOICE made by the states because they decide to have other priorities.

No shit sherlock. That's the point. State/local gov't is not positioned to manage through recessions/depressions with deficit spending, the federal gov't is. Thus, programs like these will be supported with more continuity by federal dollars.

If government refuses to deregulate the insurance business, yes, exactly. Which is why we should do that right away.

I agree that the insurance industry needs fixing (actually, I prefer abolishment for single-payer, but wishes don't make it so). I don't agree that de-regulation is the way to do it. Profit motive is *not* a cure-all.

Are you a believer in total free market solutions? Are any regulations ever justified?

Some people would be taken advantage of, of course, at first. Until the companies that are offering better services get the word out and people switch to them (which they now can do more easily because of decreased regulation, including decoupling from employers).

How would the information get out? Who do i ask about how BlueCross's coverage for my leukocytoclastic vasculitis versus Kaiser's?

Nope, that's backward. There are very few cases where free markets do NOT work, and health care exemplifies NONE of those characteristics.

What cases do you think free markets fail at?

You are right to identify knowledge as a key component, but you are entirely wrong to say that we won't be knowledgable in an actual free market system, especially in an information age.

So you are suggesting that WebMD is equivalent to a doctor? Really? No concern for the particulars of your situation? Again, what do i do with my leukocytoclastic vasculitis? Shit, how would I actually know that it is in fact leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Untrained people simply don't have the filters and understanding to parse out what these little bumps are based on the internet. Hell, I'd convinced myself I had hep C from internet research, and I have a doctorate in a biomedical field.

Exactly! THAT is precisely the problem. We SHOULD be doing that. This is the ONLY way costs will come down.

That

Re:Universal Health Care

[paitre]

Like Obama is any different from the rest of the idiots mentioned.

Re:Universal Health Care

[paitre]

Quite correct, my apologies on the misread.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe he truly could be.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Seraphim_72]

If we had less regulation and more competition, and gave consumers more control and choice, we would see cost cutting. Necessarily.

Hooray!!! Because the housing crisis is working out so damn well with those same ideals.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Seraphim_72]

I also absolutely disagree with federal school lunch standards.

Huh? I dont even see how you got to this. I mean, tater tots are cheap, so is peanut butter, buy them by the drum and you got lunch for weeks! Hell you want to fight something, fight NCLB. But lunch standards? Good Lord I cant even imagine being against giving a kid a nutritious lunch. If it were abolished do you have any idea what would happen in poor rural schools? You may sit on your nest and be proud that YOUR school's standards are better, but I would bet entire STATES would be worse off without them. Oh wait you are a "everyone for themselves" conservative who never benefited from society. /rolls eyes

Re:Universal Health Care

[plasmacutter]

your outlook of laissez faire society has already been tried in the first 2/3 of the nation's life.

It led to the worst economic depression in the history of the planet.

I certainly believe money should not be appropriated unless there's damn good reason, but providing basic healthcare IS a damn good reason in the same way appropriating taxes for national defense or local police is a damn good reason.

If providing basic healthcare is not worth it, certainly such frivolities as the interstate and public schools aren't worth it.

After all, the public schools only provide political and monetary advantage. It doesn't keep you from dying.

The nation was doing fine before interstates too. Lets stop federal funding of interstates! after all YOU are having to pay for all those other drivers right?

Re:Universal Health Care

[plasmacutter]

Correct, that is not liberty. It is an unrelated thing, so I am not sure why you bring it up at all.

I believe the phrase was "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

of course, from everything you've said in this thread. It's obvious a few hundred more dollars in your bank is worth more than the lives of your fellow human beings.

Re:Universal Health Care

[plasmacutter]

Nope. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that everyone's vote is equal in a given election for electors for President. The Florida recount treated some votes as more important than others. Therefore it was unconstitutional.

and the predominantly republican appointed USSC treated all those votes not counted as less important than others, preventing them being counted so they could hand their man the presidency.

this is also known as rigging an election and instating an illegitimate government.

Re:Universal Health Care

[plasmacutter]

That is entirely backward. When it is funded by the taxpayers there is LESS incentive to reduce costs, because you never pay for ANYTHING out of your pocket.

you heard it from pudge.. taxes are paid with magic beans! they dont exist!

Re:Universal Health Care

[nuttycom]

Not remotely. I have a responsibility to my neighbor to watch their house while they are away. This is not, and should not, be codified in government. Further, the whole point of government is to secure our individual rights.

Your example of watching your neighbor's house is a good one, because you leave unmentioned the responsibilities with respect to his house that are, indeed, codified and enforced by government - those that regard individual property.

Many, or most, of the individual rights of which you speak are defined by the social contract that I'm talking about. The right to property is not some fact of nature, like, say, life and liberty, and yet it is absolutely critical to how our particular society functions. Many societies have of course existed which didn't have a notion of a right to personal property, but we have instituted our government in such a way as to codify and enforce a common set of beliefs - namely, that individuals can own property and have the right to exclude others from utilizing, indeed, from even treading upon property that they own. Health care may not be a natural right, but it is a mutual social responsibility just as much as it is a mutual social responsibility (and one that we collectively enforce through the judicial branch) to respect the property rights of others.

I do not believe that mutual altruism exists, so ... nope.

I agree that indviduals may not be able to have altruistic motivations, but game theory is concerned not with motivation but with altruistic actions. Whether you believe it or not doesn't make a difference; there is good empirical support.

Re:Universal Health Care

[plasmacutter]

If we had less regulation and more competition

ah a fallacy of association.

less regulation does not mean more competition.

mah bell
standard oil
"the cable provider" vs "the dsl provider"
microsoft windows
"the photo editor" (adobe)

every deregulation I've seen in my lifetime has resulted in extreme levels of consolidation and a general drop in the general welfare.

the absolute worst has been the relaxation of media regulation, which has resulted in the disgustingly centralized propaganda machines like clear channel and murdoch's news empire (fox, etc. etc.)

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

If we had less regulation and more competition, and gave consumers more control and choice, we would see cost cutting. Necessarily. Hooray!!! Because the housing crisis is working out so damn well with those same ideals. The problems of the housing crisis are due to both OVER-regulation (rewarding banks that give our high risk loans), and POOR regulation (giving the impression of safety where there was none), but not DE-regulation.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I also absolutely disagree with federal school lunch standards. Huh? I dont even see how you got to this. a. It is unconstitutional as per the Tenth Amendment.
b. It is absolutely unnecessary, as states and school boards are more than capable of handling it themselves.

Hell you want to fight something, fight NCLB. I do, in fact, for the exact same two reasons.

Good Lord I cant even imagine being against giving a kid a nutritious lunch. I can't imagine how what I said could possibly be interpreted as being against giving kids nutritious lunches.

If it were abolished do you have any idea what would happen in poor rural schools? Yes, I do. I know quite well. They would be just fine. Indeed, this is how almost all school lunches are funded NOW: by local and state governments. Every state can handle it for the local districts that really cannot pay, with no exceptions.

You may sit on your nest and be proud that YOUR school's standards are better, but I would bet entire STATES would be worse off without them. Um. No. I do not consider even the POSSIBILITY that my standards would be "better." I trust each state to set the standards that are best for themselves, and I know for a fact that every state is capable of doing it.

Oh wait you are a "everyone for themselves" conservative who never benefited from society. /rolls eyes Straw man/red herring.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Not remotely. I have a responsibility to my neighbor to watch their house while they are away. This is not, and should not, be codified in government. Further, the whole point of government is to secure our individual rights. Your example of watching your neighbor's house is a good one, because you leave unmentioned the responsibilities with respect to his house that are, indeed, codified and enforced by government - those that regard individual property. Because they are beside your point. You point was that responsibilities should be codified and enforced by government. If it is a responsibility, government should therefore be involved. I gave an example of a responsibility that is not, and should not, have government invovled. Therefore, your point was wrong.

The right to property is not some fact of nature, like, say, life and liberty I absolutely disagree. The right of property necessarily flows from the right of liberty, which necessarily flows from the right of life. Property is the product of our liberty. If the right of property is denied, it rejects the expression of our right of liberty.

Of course, this doesn't matter to the main point: whether or not I have a responsibility to help my neighbor get necessary medical care in NO WAY implies that government should be involved, just like many other responsibilities I have that government is not, and should not, be involved in.

Health care may not be a natural right, but it is a mutual social responsibility just as much as it is a mutual social responsibility (and one that we collectively enforce through the judicial branch) to respect the property rights of others No, it is not. I only have a responsibility to help the people around me get their needs cared for because I choose to have that responsibility. With the right of property, I not only choose to respect the right of others, but they also have the natural right to defend their property (as much as their liberty and their life), which means they can use force against me if I do not. This makes it entirely dissimilar from health care.

I agree that indviduals may not be able to have altruistic motivations, but game theory is concerned not with motivation but with altruistic actions. But the word "altruistic" necessarily refers to motivation. It has no meaning otherwise. So that is a literally nonsensical statement.

Whether you believe it or not doesn't make a difference; there is good empirical support. I understand the prisoner's dilemma quite well, but it proves nothing, as I simply assert that someone using the word "altruistic" to refer to the strategies involved is misusing the word.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

your outlook of laissez faire society has already been tried in the first 2/3 of the nation's life.

It led to the worst economic depression in the history of the planet. False.

If providing basic healthcare is not worth it, certainly such frivolities as the interstate and public schools aren't worth it. The former is covered in Article I, Section 8. The latter is not. Therefore, the former is constitutional, and the latter -- like health care -- is unconstitutional.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Nope. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that everyone's vote is equal in a given election for electors for President. The Florida recount treated some votes as more important than others. Therefore it was unconstitutional. and the predominantly republican appointed USSC treated all those votes not counted as less important than others, preventing them being counted so they could hand their man the presidency. You are making things up that never happened. The case was not about votes not being counted, but having uniform standards.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

That is entirely backward. When it is funded by the taxpayers there is LESS incentive to reduce costs, because you never pay for ANYTHING out of your pocket. you heard it from pudge.. taxes are paid with magic beans! they dont exist! Translation: plasmacutter does not know what the colloquialism "out of pocket" means.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

If we had less regulation and more competition ah a fallacy of association. False.

less regulation does not mean more competition. Which is why I mentioned both separately.

every deregulation I've seen in my lifetime has resulted in extreme levels of consolidation and a general drop in the general welfare. False.

the absolute worst has been the relaxation of media regulation, which has resulted in the disgustingly centralized propaganda machines like clear channel and murdoch's news empire (fox, etc. etc.) False. You do not know what you are talking about. FIrst of all, "etc. etc." would be filled by ... what? Every other major broadcast news org is left of center, except for PBS, which is as close to unbiased as we can probably get.

Second, and more importantly to this context, Fox News has nothing whatsoever to do with media deregulation, as it is on cable/satellite, which never has been, nor should be, regulated for "fairness." The reason for media regulation was always for the unique nature of broadcast.

If you think cable and satellite (and presumably therefore the Internet, since it is no different) should be content-regulated, then what you say no longer matters because government control of content is just about the most un-American idea I can think of.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Correct, that is not liberty. It is an unrelated thing, so I am not sure why you bring it up at all. I believe the phrase was "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" Um. And? Are you honestly telling me you think that the right to life that Jefferson wrote about it implied that everyone else had an obligation to keep you alive? Because that's just ridiculous to assert.

of course, from everything you've said in this thread. It's obvious a few hundred more dollars in your bank is worth more than the lives of your fellow human beings. You're a liar.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

True, I am implying that a system that scales in numerous western democracies who share a large number of similarities to each other would likely work here.

No, I said it is a false implication to say that it WOULD work here. To think it is "likely" is fine, as long as you recognize the fact that you don't know for sure.

You argue that a universal coverage system that failed in oregon could not scale

I said that there is evidence that shows it doesn't. That doesn't make it impossible.

That is false as it has scaled in other western countries.

Incorrect. I was speaking specifically in the context of the U.S., so whatever has happened in other countries is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of my statement.

False. First, the "another system" fails in MANY ways, some of which I have already enumerated. And second, the "third way" solves problems that neither "#1" or "#2" do ANYTHING for: particularly: minimized federal control as per the Tenth Amendment, increased competition, decreased costs, and more choice. Neither #1 or #2 does anything to those ends.

First, you've not enumerated them to me anywhere.

I did in the very post you were replying to, that you were quoting! And again in the post you were replying to now!

Secondly, the third way does not solve many problems

Yes, it does. It solves ALL of the problems, except for one: guaranteed coverage for all needs. But since that does not exist anywhere under any system, that is a bit moot, although I do concede there are more guarantees under other systems than this one. Other than that? Solves all problems. Reduces costs as much possible, while preserving liberty and maximizing choice and control.

and invents other ones

False.

*and* unlike the two former, is purely speculative.

False.

One word: CONTROL. It is, in fact, all about control, and nothing more.

Nope, your conspiracy theories aside, it's about uniformity.

False. It is not about a conspiracy. It is about the fact that you think uniformity is so valuable that you want to force it on others. This NECESSARILY means you want control. It is amazing to me that you say "we must enforce uniformity" on one hand and then deny that it is about control on the other. Does not compute.

False. I know exactly what I am talking about. You are buying into the lies the liberals tell you.

Funny, if you look two states down you'll find that school budgets (& programs for the poor) are decreasing rapidly.

I lived in California for a decade, and went to its public schools for 8th-12th grade. Most of my family still lives there, as do a great many of my friends. I know all about it. And I know that California spends $43b on K-12 education, which is 31 percent of the budget. Which means that they spend 69 percent on other things. Which means they are CHOOSING to put other priorities above any cuts in education.

It is very simple: make those things the top priority, and cut everything else. It has NEVER been necessary to cut those programs, for any state, ever.

Would be great if we lived in that world, where education and support for poor were even close to top priorities.

Shrug. The point is that it is a choice. The state can do it. If it chooses not to, that is its problem. Note that if the feds were not taxing us to pay for these things the states should be doing, the states could increase our taxes to compensate for the our lower federal taxes and federal expenditures.

Nope. Cutting those things is a CHOICE made by the states because they decide to have other priorities.

No shit sherlock. That's the point. State/local gov't is not positioned to manage through recessions/depressi

Re:Universal Health Care

[The One and Only]

the world is changing. In terms of purchasing power parity, China's economy is now #2 after the US - and we'll probably see them surpass the US within a few years in terms of PPP, and in absolute terms before 2050.

Honestly, they probably should. Their population is almost an order of magnitude higher than ours, but their per-capita GDP is more than an order of magnitude lower than ours. They should claw their way up at least enough to be richer as a country than us, even if the individual Chinese isn't as rich or as economically productive as the individual American, on average. There's always going to be economic disparity between nations but the degree we have now can't and won't stand in the long term. The challenge of the 21st century is making sure that doesn't ruin the situation vis a vis natural resources and the environment since it's not possible for the rest of the world to have the per capita resource consumption and environmental impact Americans do.

Re:Universal Health Care

[The One and Only]

I favor the so-called line-item veto plan that I believe DOES pass constitutional muster, which would allow the President to strike portions of a bill and then send it back to both houses of Congress for approval.

That doesn't require any new legislation. The President just has to veto the bill in full, take a printout of the bill, strike out portions of it, make 535 photocopies, mail them to every Representative and Senator, and say "This is the bill I'm willing to sign". And I think he has staff to do most of that for him. Of course, constitutionally, the Congress could override the veto or not make all the requested changes in an effort to concede a little and negotiate. In practice this sort of thing already happens, just the other way: the President threatens to veto unless they pass extra provisions they don't want, instead of demanding Congress remove extra provisions the President doesn't want.

Re:Universal Health Care

[The One and Only]

Right you are: the Court would have accepted a full statewide recount, something which was the only mathematical scenartio that could have given Gore the state's electoral votes, though that wasn't known at the time.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Right you are: the Court would have accepted a full statewide recount... Yes. And my only problem with the decision is that it told Florida it could not even try to do such a recount, because there was not enough time. Granted, they were right, there was not enough time, but I think the court has no business telling Florida it couldn't try. cf. Souter's opinion.

...something which was the only mathematical scenartio that could have given Gore the state's electoral votes, though that wasn't known at the time. Yeah, that's the funniest part. :-)

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I favor the so-called line-item veto plan that I believe DOES pass constitutional muster, which would allow the President to strike portions of a bill and then send it back to both houses of Congress for approval. That doesn't require any new legislation. The President just has to veto the bill in full, take a printout of the bill, strike out portions of it, make 535 photocopies, mail them to every Representative and Senator, and say "This is the bill I'm willing to sign". Yes, but the bill proposed would create a "fast-track" procedure. Instead of being a brand-new bill, or starting over with a vetoed bill, it would just bring the changes of the "vetoed" bill to an up-or-down vote, without amendments, with limited debate (no filibusters), etc. It would also be more limited, as it would only apply to certain types of items that could be "vetoed."

So yes, this can be done now, but not nearly with this type of efficiency.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Josh Triplett]

Yes, because of the obvious problems in PAYING for it. That the legislature blocked it is a good thing: universal health care does no one any good if everyone is broke. The proposed system was literally incapable of sustaining itself.

To elaborate on that: Oregon has a novel system where the government actually has to have money to spend money. Not only that, but if it doesn't use all the money it collected (and it usually doesn't), it has to give the remainder back to the taxpayers in the form of a "kicker" check.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

Every year before the last two or three decades when insurance became the norm for even routine care.

Do you have any citation for your claim that the percentage of routine health care costs covered by insurance started to go up around 1983? Second, do you have any citation for your claim that the percentage of people who experienced bankruptcy as a result of health care costs started to climb around 1983? Finally, can you point at any work by an economist that indicates that there is a causal relationship between the two?

Re:Universal Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

pudge, stop being disingenuous. It will cost the Federal government a lot, but people are going to be paying less in taxes than they were in insurance.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Do you have any citation for your claim that the percentage of routine health care costs covered by insurance started to go up around 1983? Do you have any citation that I MADE that claim? (Pssst: no.)

Second, do you have any citation for your claim that the percentage of people who experienced bankruptcy as a result of health care costs started to climb around 1983? Ditto.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

pudge, stop being disingenuous. It will cost the Federal government a lot, but people are going to be paying less in taxes than they were in insurance. If by "people" you mean "all people," you are flatly incorrect.

If by "people" you mean "most people," I don't believe it, and you can't prove it.

If by "people" you mean "some people," I never implied otherwise.

Re:Universal Health Care

[plasmacutter]

yep. damn public education. you said it yourself.

Anything else associated with industrialized, civilized, and otherwise intelligently run society you would like to see dismantled?

Re:Universal Health Care

[ChrisMaple]

I've never understood why Conservatives are opposed to funding research.

Because government funded research is government controlled research, politically controlled research. Censored. Restricted and directed by bureaucrats, whose incentive is to keep their jobs by extending the duration of the project.

Because if the government funds a project, people who do not agree with that project are forced to suport it at gunpoint.

Re:Universal Health Care

[plasmacutter]

And here we have the greatest arrogance.

This post of yours will be bookmarked to haunt you every time you post on this subject now.

Blatant and unbased declarations. "false" may as well be your version of bill oreilly's "SHUT UP!"

You have no idea what I've seen in my lifetime, for instance.

Every other major broadcast news org is left of center

*takes out pointer*
And here gentlemen we have an example of the lemmini classification. This particular example follows the assertions of such leader lemmings as hannity that there is a so called "liberal media bias", ignoring for instance the extremity of their own view, which they in their arrogance or intellectual dishonesty describe as centerist or "down to earth".

In reality the media is majority conservative, as evidenced in a certain prolific author's chapter on the hypothetical liberal media paradigm matrix.

Re:Universal Health Care

[ChrisMaple]

I went to a grade school where everyone brought their own lunch. Not a single child was eating stolen food, food from a source that no parent could determine that was fresh and nutritious. There were no cases of hundreds of children getting ill at once from food-borne disease, as happened several times later in my education at a school with a cafeteria. No demands for special foods for kids with allergies or peculiar diseases. No lawsuits.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

And here we have the greatest arrogance. False.

This post of yours will be bookmarked to haunt you every time you post on this subject now. Yawn.

Blatant and unbased declarations. You say this as though there's something wrong with it. There isn't.

You have no idea what I've seen in my lifetime, for instance. I never implied I did. I only stated that in regards to media deregulation, you, in fact, have no idea what you are talking about, as evidenced by the fact that the example you gave has nothing to do with media deregulation.

Every other major broadcast news org is left of center *takes out pointer*
And here gentlemen we have an example of the lemmini classification. This particular example follows the assertions of such leader lemmings as hannity that there is a so called "liberal media bias", ignoring for instance the extremity of their own view, which they in their arrogance or intellectual dishonesty describe as centerist or "down to earth". First, I never watch Hannity. Or any other show on Fox News.

Second, shrug.

Granted, it is true that where the "center" is, is relative. However, my preferred news source is NewsHour, which most people classify as center/moderate/etc. And on that standard, yes, most of the national TV news is to the left.

As to my views being "extreme," shrug. Most of my views are shared by a majority of Americans. Calling that "extreme" makes you look pretty stupid.

In reality the media is majority conservative False.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

yep. damn public education. you said it yourself. You're a liar (or just stupid). I never said any such thing.

Perhaps you are not lying, and, instead, you are just so completely stupid that you think calling federal funding of public schools unconstitutional by virtue of the Tenth Amendment (which, in fact, the author of the Tenth Amendment himself said, specifically) means that I am therefore against public education, because you are apparently so dumb, so ignorant, that you don't know that most public school funding already comes from property taxes via state and local governments, not the federal government.

Re:Universal Health Care

[Seraphim_72]

Except of course you are wrong. It was unregulated lenders that sold to banks that are at the root of this problem. No bank was rewarded for rotten loans, quite the opposite. And you are right, there is poor regulation, it really needs more.

Re:Universal Health Care

[nuttycom]

Your example of watching your neighbor's house is a good one, because you leave unmentioned the responsibilities with respect to his house that are, indeed, codified and enforced by government - those that regard individual property.

You point was that responsibilities should be codified and enforced by government.

You misunderstand my point entirely. I stated that government is *how* we collectively codify and enforce certain social responsibilities that we have collectively agreed are of a high degree of importance. Not that every responsibility should be so enforced

I absolutely disagree. The right of property necessarily flows from the right of liberty, which necessarily flows from the right of life. Property is the product of our liberty. If the right of property is denied, it rejects the expression of our right of liberty.

Many societies have existed in which no right to property was recognized. In the animal world, there is indeed territorialism (which seems to be what you're advocating) but in that case it's more that territory is yours if you're strong enough to keep it - there is no social contract like what we humans have, where somebody who I have no relationship with (the police) will come and defend my territory if called upon, if for example I'm injured and unable to do so myself. So, I think that your argument here is not very well supported - your assertion that the right of property "flows from the right of liberty" needs a bit of elaboration.

Let's look at trespass as a reasonable example. Here in the U.S., our social contract states that you can't be on someone else's land without permission, and one can call for the enforcement of that contract through the government (you can't, actually, use force yourself according to the law in many places unless you're physically in danger.) In Britain, however, the traditional byways law allows one to cross *anyone's* land so long as you are on a path that has been in use for some period of time. Under that system, there is not considered to be any right to defend against trespass with force, and in fact the force of society (the government) will smack you down if you attempt to do so. Both systems have their notions of personal property, but the responsibilities of the social contracts are different. Calling your particular view of property a "natural right" seems a bit specious to me.

With regard to the Prisoner's Dilemma, it seems to me that guaranteeing universal health care is analogous to a cooperative, and hence mutually beneficial strategy. Of course, there would need t be some restrictions to prevent the abuse of the system, but as it presently stands the lack of such universal care is analogous to those of us that have insurance practicing an "always cooperate" strategy, while those who don't practice an "always betray" strategy and are hence getting benefits (expensive emergency room care that the rest of us have to pay for through higher insurance premiums) at our expense.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Except of course you are wrong. False.

No bank was rewarded for rotten loans False. The federal government has long provided incentives to lenders to make loans to people unqualified to have them.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Your example of watching your neighbor's house is a good one, because you leave unmentioned the responsibilities with respect to his house that are, indeed, codified and enforced by government - those that regard individual property.

You point was that responsibilities should be codified and enforced by government.

You misunderstand my point entirely.

Shrug. I went by what you actually said.

I stated that government is *how* we collectively codify and enforce certain social responsibilities that we have collectively agreed are of a high degree of importance

You did no such thing. You said it is how we codify and enforce responsibilities, not "certain" ones. You said, if it is a responsibility, therefore, we we should use government to codify and enforce it. I quote you replying to me:

The issue here is not whether I have responsibilities to others, but whether government should be the means by which those responsibilities are codified and enforced.

The whole *point* of government is to codify and enforce those responsibilities toward others; it has no other purpose. Whatever mechanism you have in place for doing so is equivalent to a form of government. As such, we must collectively decide whether universal health care is such a responsibility. If it is, then it is absolutely the place of our government to codify that agreement.

You said IF universal health care is a responsibility we have to others THEREFORE government should codify and enforce it.

I am not misunderstanding what you said, at all.

I absolutely disagree. The right of property necessarily flows from the right of liberty, which necessarily flows from the right of life. Property is the product of our liberty. If the right of property is denied, it rejects the expression of our right of liberty.

Many societies have existed in which no right to property was recognized.

So? Many socieities have also existed where no right to life or liberty was recognized.

In the animal world ...

Irrelevant. Moving on.

your assertion that the right of property "flows from the right of liberty" needs a bit of elaboration.

The right of liberty means the freedom to do, to act, to make. This freedom has no meaning without the right of property, because the product of our liberty IS property.

Let's look at trespass as a reasonable example. Here in the U.S., our social contract states that you can't be on someone else's land without permission, and one can call for the enforcement of that contract through the government (you can't, actually, use force yourself according to the law in many places unless you're physically in danger.)

Nope. Force is ALWAYS acceptable to protect your property from trespass, in every single situation. You're confused. If you are on my property and I tell you leave and you do not, I have every right in every state in this county to physically remove you.

Both systems have their notions of personal property, but the responsibilities of the social contracts are different. Calling your particular view of property a "natural right" seems a bit specious to me.

Saying I ever did so is far more specious. First, it is not a social contract, it is something much more: a legal framework. Second, I simply asserted a right of property, and how the legal framework deals with that right is irrelevant to the discussion.

With regard to the Prisoner's Dilemma, it seems to me that guaranteeing universal health care is analogous to a cooperative, and hence mutually beneficial strategy.

Also irrelevant. It is VERY easy to construct a mutually beneficial strategy where we have to give up the freedom of speech, or religion, or freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. But those thing

Re:Universal Health Care

[Red Flayer]

Yes, FDR did a good job convincing people of this. That doesn't make it true.

So what did cause it, then? You believe that government intervention in economics caused the GD. Please explain, as that runs counter to what most economists believe.

I mean, explicitly allowing subprime loans, not merely "deregulating" or "reducing oversight."

Explicitly allowing subprime loans is a reduction in government oversight. This is deregulation, when something that was previously forbidden is allowed. Never mind the loosening of capital reserve requirements for making consumer loans...

That is ENTIRELY beside the point of how to interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution has failed, fine, change it. If we've failed to change it, fine, change it.

Perhaps you misunderstand. Because the Constitution is now considered sacred, it cannot be changed to the extent required. Thus, it has failed as a self-sustaining document. It completely flavors how we should interpret the Constitution, since it is ridiculous that we should attempt to abide by the decree of a document that no longer functions well. I believe we should have a new Constitutional Convention, and rewrite the whole thing. It'll never happen, and if it did, the people writing the new Constitution would likely be the people abusing the system the best under the current Constitution.

My interpretation philosophy literally has no serious problems whatsoever, because if there's something you don't like, you can always change it.

And how would one change it? Do you think the Senate and House would ever do something so drastic when it would jeopardize their members' careers? Do you think it would be possible to get a referendum and pass an amendment by popular vote? Do you think it's possible to overcome the inertia of the people in the US wrt political activity? I think your philosophy is one of an optimist bent, and fails to account for the reality that most people don't care as long as they have housing, food, and entertainment. A Constitution that won't be changed is a Constitution that can't be changed, and has thus failed.

Your philosophy denies that these rights even exist: the only standard for a law is whether that law promotes your idea of an "ideal society." But there is only one definition of an "ideal society" that matters: the one the people have agreed on (and are fully capable of amending).

Well, first off, you misread my philosophy. I believe that actions taken by government officials need to assessed in the context of the greatest good. Certain things are off-limits -- anything that overrides a personal right, for example.

"What is desired now" is, necessarily, what the people want.

This is the foundation of our disagreement. I do not believe that the people have the understanding of the issues to the extent required to make the best decisions on most things. I do not believe that a nation of 300 million people should pass laws based on the tyranny of the majority. This is why we have representative government, this is why we have judges who are appointed for life terms (so that they are not overly influenced by political aspirations and the media, like the elected officials are).

What can I say -- I think that the public is miserably uninformed on important issues, and it's too easy for moneyed interests to sway them via media blasts. It's political suicide to try to effect change, since the process is dominated by those who are intertwined with the media.

There is a stranglehold on the political process which prevents useful change to the Constitution which means that the Constitution loses relevance every passing year.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sm62704]

acknowledging this does not imply "the government should do it."
Then who should?
Not-government. There's only one thing that is not-government: the private sector.

They're doing as shitty a job of it as private-sector CILCO is doing at delivering natural gas to my home, and as bad as city-owned CWLP is good at delivering electricity to my home at the cheapest rates in my state. When the two F-2 tornados tore through here in 2006 everyone had power in a week, but later that year when a single F-1 went through the St Louis area 100 miles south of here where CILCO delivers electricity, people were without power for a month.

In some circumstances the private sector does an abysmal job. Those circumstances are almost always where the one who pays has no choice: like health care, you can't choose insurance companies (you're stuck with your employer's choice) and in many cases you can't even choose the doctor you want, as you have to use one approved by your insurance company.

The private sector is great for shoes and cars and washing machines, but it sucks at roads and electrical transmission and health care.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Yes, FDR did a good job convincing people of this. That doesn't make it true.

So what did cause it, then? You believe that government intervention in economics caused the GD.

No, but was a significant contributing factor.

... that runs counter to what most economists believe.

No, it does not.

That is ENTIRELY beside the point of how to interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution has failed, fine, change it. If we've failed to change it, fine, change it.

Perhaps you misunderstand. Because the Constitution is now considered sacred, it cannot be changed to the extent required.

First, that is false. People say that, but there's no evidence backing it up. Second, even if it WERE true, that does not justify violating it. How many serious efforts have there been to amend the Constitution since the last significant change, in 1971? (1992 does not count because it was a very different circumstance, a ratification process that lasted 200 years.) I can only think of a few -- the ERA, Flag Burning -- and all of them failed simply because most people were against them, or thought them unnecessary. So where is your evidence that the Constitution cannot be amended "to the extent required"? Note that any evidence that could be interpreted as people not WANTING to amend the Constitution is insufficient.

Second, even if this were true, it is not a rational argument. If the law doesn't change, for whatever reason -- except for lack of respect of rights -- then the law must be followed. As this is not an issue of rights at all, no, there is no justification for ignoring the law.

You lose here.

... since it is ridiculous that we should attempt to abide by the decree of a document that no longer functions well.

You are making a failed attempt at question-begging.

I believe we should have a new Constitutional Convention, and rewrite the whole thing.

Shrug. If you do that, fine. Until you do, or the Constitution is amended, we must follow the law. To not do so is to IGNORE our rights, our liberty, our democracy, our republic.

Do you think the Senate and House would ever do something so drastic when it would jeopardize their members' careers?

You are basically saying, "the people do not want such a change, so therefore it is not possible to make such a change." If the people wanted it, it would be possible. It is not that the Constitution cannot be changed, it is that the people do not agree with you. Deal with it.

I think your philosophy is one of an optimist bent, and fails to account for the reality that most people don't care as long as they have housing, food, and entertainment.

Nope, that's utterly backward. If that were true, then the people would be perfectly willing to change the Constitution to allow the federal government to take everything over. The fact that they are not is BECAUSE they care much more about how the nation works, about liberty, than you realize.

A Constitution that won't be changed is a Constitution that can't be changed, and has thus failed.

Question-begging again.

Your philosophy denies that these rights even exist: the only standard for a law is whether that law promotes your idea of an "ideal society." But there is only one definition of an "ideal society" that matters: the one the people have agreed on (and are fully capable of amending).

Well, first off, you misread my philosophy. I believe that actions taken by government officials need to assessed in the context of the greatest good. Certain things are off-limits -- anything that overrides a personal right, for example.

No, that is not your philosophy at all. If it were, you would be against violating the Tenth Amendment. But you are,

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

In some circumstances the private sector does an abysmal job. Again: that doesn't mean that therefore government should do it ... especially when doing so means violating my constitutional rights, such as in federal health care, which violates my Tenth Amendment rights.

Those circumstances are almost always where the one who pays has no choice: like health care, you can't choose insurance companies (you're stuck with your employer's choice) and in many cases you can't even choose the doctor you want, as you have to use one approved by your insurance company. Yes, and a big reason for this lack of choice is GOVERMENT REGULATION! Tax breaks for companies who offer health care (making it cheaper for businesses to do it, than to pay their employees), insurance regulations that push for consolidation and lack of choice and control, wide-open lawsuit regulations, and more.

When choice is opened up, your comparison to electrical transmission and roads no longer makes sense.

Not that we shouldn't have private sector roads and electrical transmission, too.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sm62704]

Again: that doesn't mean that therefore government should do it ...

And again, if not government, then who?

...especially when doing so means violating my constitutional rights, such as in federal health care, which violates my Tenth Amendment rights.

In what way?

When choice is opened up, your comparison to electrical transmission and roads no longer makes sense

Well, if it ever happens I may agree with you.

Not that we shouldn't have private sector roads and electrical transmission, too.

Most electricity is private sector, and like I said it's more expensive and less reliable. Some things the private sector just doesn't do well at, and infrastructure and health care are two of them.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Again: that doesn't mean that therefore government should do it ... And again, if not government, then who? Ummmmm. I already said. Private sector.

...especially when doing so means violating my constitutional rights, such as in federal health care, which violates my Tenth Amendment rights. In what way? Pretty obvious, isn't it? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Health care is not a power delegate to the U.S. government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, and therefore is a power of the states, or the people. Can't get much clearer than that.

When choice is opened up, your comparison to electrical transmission and roads no longer makes sense Well, if it ever happens I may agree with you. Um. So I say the private sector should do it, so we should have more choice, and then you say no, government has to do it, because we have no choice. Oooooooooo K.

Not that we shouldn't have private sector roads and electrical transmission, too. Most electricity is private sector, and like I said it's more expensive and less reliable. For you. Not for most people. We have one of the best electricity distribution systems in the world.

Some things the private sector just doesn't do well at, and infrastructure and health care are two of them. False on both counts.

Re:Universal Health Care

[sm62704]

Ummmmm. I already said. Private sector.

The private sector's doing it now and they're doing a horrible job of it, like I said.

Health care is not a power delegate to the U.S. government by the Constitution

Health care isn't a power. If the government mandated health care, say, passed a law that everyone must have an exam yearly then I would agree that it was unconstitutional. Of course I don't see how thay can constitutionally mandate vaccinations for children, either.

The Constitution was amended to allow them to levy taxes, that's a power. It doesn't say what they must use those monies for.

Most electricity is private sector, and like I said it's more expensive and less reliable.
For you. Not for most people.

That's my point, most people are paying usarious rates for bad service. I have the least expensive power in my state.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

The private sector's doing it now and they're doing a horrible job of it, like I said. But it is NOT doing it entirely. It is under very heavy regulation that makes it WORSE for us. We do not have a free market system in health care. We should do what we need to do to create one.

Health care is not a power delegate to the U.S. government by the Constitution Health care isn't a power. True. But anything the government would do in regards to health care IS a power.

The Constitution was amended to allow them to levy taxes, that's a power. It doesn't say what they must use those monies for. False. It does say precisely that, in Article I, Section 8. It has a whole list of things that constitute either the "general welfare" or "common defence" that the federal government may use those monies for. Adding a new stream of income to the government did not broaden its powers, it simply gave them more money to use to fund the existing powers.

Most electricity is private sector, and like I said it's more expensive and less reliable. For you. Not for most people. That's my point No, it's not. For most people, I said, it is NOT more expensive and less reliable in the private sector.

Re:Universal Health Care

[YomikoReadman]

I have several times posted that we must, at the least, give at least a basic due process/habeas corpus to alien unalawful enemy combatants; that taking away rights from CITIZEN enemy combatants is absolutely unconstitutional;

You are absolutely wrong on this. Enemy combatants have zero constitutional rights; their rights are covered by LOAC and Geneva Convention, and under those rights they have more than enough.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

I have several times posted that we must, at the least, give at least a basic due process/habeas corpus to alien unlawful enemy combatants; that taking away rights from CITIZEN enemy combatants is absolutely unconstitutional; You are absolutely wrong on this. Enemy combatants have zero constitutional rights; their rights are covered by LOAC and Geneva Convention, and under those rights they have more than enough. Nope, on two counts.

First, you state -- not sure if you mean this, but you state it -- that a CITIZEN who is an enemy combatant has no constitutional rights. That is, in fact, absolutely wrong. Every citizen has full constitutional rights, period.

Second, the Supreme Court, in fact, has never ruled explicitly on whether the Constitution applies to alien enemy combatants (lawful or unlawful) held outside of U.S. jurisdiction. This was the big deal about some of the recent cases: the Court ruled that statutory habeas rights applied to enemy combatants. So the Congress removed some of those statutory rights. But the question of whether Constitutional rights still apply remains open.

However, Guantanamo Bay IS in U.S. jurisdiction, so should apply to them regardless. What the Military Commissions Act of 2006 did was to remove those statutory habeas rights, leaving intact -- or attempting to -- such habeas provisions as would satsify the constitutional requirement.

Re:Universal Health Care

[YomikoReadman]

W/r to Citizen rights, you are indeed correct. However, non-citizens, aliens as you term them, have no rights under the constitution, regardless of where they are being held. SCoTUS has made no ruling, because it cannot make such a ruling.

So, again, I will point out that LOAC and the Geneva Conventions cover any and all alien enemy combatants, so long as they are 1: Lawful Combatants and 2: Citizens of a nation-state that agrees to both of those. If they don't, then all bets are off, and they have denied themselves of any and all rights under either. If you doubt this, then I'd suggest the 11th Amendment as reading.

Re:Universal Health Care

[pudge]

However, non-citizens, aliens as you term them, have no rights under the constitution, regardless of where they are being held. SCoTUS has made no ruling, because it cannot make such a ruling. No ... in fact, it is accepted by pretty much everyone that non-citizens have the same rights as everyone else under the Constitution if they are in the U.S. Nothing in the First Amendment, for example, limits "freedom of speech" to citizens. It is not expressed or implied.

CItizens are only granted a few rights everyone else does not have: the right to run for office and to vote, and a few others. Our judicial rights -- most importantly, in the fourth through eighth amendments -- are NOT specific to citizens, at all.

Futher, the SCOTUS absolutely CAN determine who the Constitution applies to, as the Constitution specifically gives it that authority. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ... [and] to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party ... ."

If you doubt this, then I'd suggest the 11th Amendment as reading. All that says is that the citizens of one state (or another country) cannot bring a state to federal court, that this is a state matter. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether citizens have Constitutional rights.

I want to move to Oregon

[Hyppy]

My wife has been trying to get me to move to Bend, Oregon for a few months now. Apparently, she heard that it has a decent tech industry and that the cost of living is much further below the average income than it is here.

If Steve Novick is elected, then I'll be at the realtor's office the next week. Seriously. This guy has had his share of water from the Fountain of Clue. he asks tough questions, gives honest answers, and seems to have (at least a staff with) a good working knowledge of many important issues.

Bravo, Steve, keep up the good work!

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife has been trying to get me to move to Bend, Oregon for a few months now.

I lived in Salem for several years. Some good and bad points about Oregon:

- No Sales Tax.
- Beautiful land.
- Everybody drives like they're 80 years old.
- Beautiful weather in May and June.
- Cold, awful, nonstop rain in the winter.
- Very unattractive women (and men, most likely).
- Generally, the people are not too bright.
- If you are sensitive to airborne pollen, you will be absolutely miserable in the spring.

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[afabbro]

If Steve Novick is elected, then I'll be at the realtor's office the next week. Seriously.

Just so everyone knows, Novick has zero chance of winning. Seriously. I'm not commenting on his views or stands, it's just the reality. I live in PDX and read the local papers, etc. and he really is an underdog to the point of Don Quixote.

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[A beautiful mind]

I lived in Salem for several years. Some good and bad points about Oregon:

(...)
- Very unattractive women (and men, most likely).
(...)

Burn the witches!

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[Anonymous Freak]

Unfortunately, both of your points are untrue any more.

The tech industry in Oregon is in shambles, and Bend has had some of the highest cost-of-living increases in the state in recent years. It may be lower than some places (New York, LA) still, but it's not low. (I think big-city Portland has a lower cost of living than Bend now!)

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[hansamurai]

Just so everyone knows, Novick has zero chance of winning. They said the same thing about Ron Paul!

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[maestro371]

I completely agree; almost all of these things are 100% true. The land isn't that nice and the weather is never pleasant. Best not to move out here. Far too many downsides.

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[Anonymous Coward]

So when did you move up from California?

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[Hyppy]

  They said the same thing about Ron Paul!</quote>

quod erat demonstrandum.

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[keytoe]

- No Sales Tax.

I love that things marked $4.99 cost $4.99 when you get to the register.

- Beautiful land.

Can't argue with that. To boot, there is a little bit of everything for everyone: forests, rivers, mountains, deserts, ocean, etc.

- Everybody drives like they're 80 years old.

This is true. The only thing that saves your sanity is that you get three lanes on I-5 between Salem and Portland. Anything further south and you're guaranteed to be stuck behind the cadillac going 66 passing the semi going 65. Of course, anywhere else in the state you're stuck with two lane highways.

- Beautiful weather in May and June.

This is true for the central Willamette valley, but not universal. Central Oregon gets just the right amount of snow in the wintertime to be absolutely gorgeous without the piles of suck that usually accompany snow. The coast never gets too hot in the summer. The mountains and foothills are idyllic from April through November. Also, I personally like the fact that during the time it took to compose this post, the weather outside went from freak spring snow to blue, sunny sky. In Eugene.

- Cold, awful, nonstop rain in the winter.

Again, only true from (roughly) Salem northward and all along the coast. There are a lot of mountain ranges in Oregon that provide rain-shades for the rest of the state.

- Very unattractive women (and men, most likely).

Not in any of the places I've lived (Bend, Eugene and Portland). I will agree that Salem has some seriously heinous looking people, however.

- Generally, the people are not too bright.

OK - I'm seeing the pattern. You really need to get the hell out of Salem. If you weren't tipped off by the fact that that's where we send the politicians, I'm not sure what more we can do for you. Ever been to Sacramento? Olympia? Same principals in play there...

- If you are sensitive to airborne pollen, you will be absolutely miserable in the spring.

Again, this is specific to the Willamette Valley. Central Oregon is virtually allergen free (aside from a short Juniper pollen season) and the coast is fairly mellow. However, there's a reason for the urban legend that 'Willamette' means 'Valley of Sickness' in some Native American tongue. I always feel bad for the people who wander the streets wearing surgical masks all spring. Then I wonder why the hell they haven't moved yet.

I'll finish this up with my standard 'I'm considering moving to Oregon response': It's terrible, you'd hate it. Don't move here.

Also, we have the best beer in the world here. If you get a chance, pick up a Total Domination IPA (brewed here in Eugene by Ninkasi) - you won't regret it. You hear that, Germany?! You've been beat!

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[frank_adrian314159]

Novick has zero chance of winning.

I hope this is not the case and will vote for him in the primary regardless. However, what you say is the conventional wisdom. And that's a shame. Not only was he first in the fight, while Merkley was sitting back scared that someone with higher visibility than him would get into the race, but Novick is a real Democrat, while Merkley has been the local equivalent of a DLC (read spineless corporatist) Democrat. Of course, this also means that Merkley is much better funded. Y'all could help, though. I'm sure that Steve would appreciate a donation or five. And, if he can beat Merkley, there's a good chance he could wipe the floor with Gordo. After all, Novick can actually contrast himself with Smith, while Merkley will just be another lukewarm, MotR Democratic candidate. Novick is the best Democrat in this race. Remember - he's the guy with the strong left hook!

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[brentrad]

I urge you to reconsider moving to Bend if you're in the tech industry. Consider the Willamette Valley instead.

I grew up in Bend, until my girlfriend (now wife) and I decided to move to the Portland area when I was 20, in '94. The main reason we moved? Lack of decent jobs in Bend, most notably tech jobs. While the situation has changed somewhat in the years since then, Bend has nothing on the Willamette Valley. It isn't nicknamed "The Silicon Forest" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Forest for nothing: Intel, Tektronix, HP, Symantec, Netflix...and of course, Portland is the current home of Linus Torvalds. Just take a look at the tech jobs currently available on dice.com in the Portland area. High tech is everywhere here in Portland, and readily available...I currently have at least 3 different options for broadband internet in my neighborhood (including Fios), and I live in a lower-income area. And we have a Fry's Electronics in the area (Wilsonville.)

Granted, Bend is beautiful, and a paradise if you're into outdoor activities like skiing, hiking, camping, etc. But you can get that anywhere in Oregon. But Bend has changed from a nice sleepy town into a rapidly-growing mini-metropolis with huge traffic problems (my mom tells me the traffic during rush hour is worse than in the Valley!) and truly outrageous home prices, even compared to the overinflated prices in Portland. I now consider Portland my home, and Bend is just a nice place my wife and I visit my mom.

You do get used to the rain in Portland. And because of all that rain, it is one of the most beautiful, green parts of the country I've ever seen. The other day, on my morning commute, I saw a bald eagle just sitting on a tree, in the middle of Beaverton. And that's far from the only eagle I've seen, there's several nests within the city limits of Portland, on Smith and Bybee Lakes.

And to another poster who complains about "ugly women" in Portland: yes, if you consider only blond tanned plastic surgically-altered women beautiful, you will often be disappointed. I know, I lived in Phoenix for 5 years, and the women there were pretty hot in general. But I found that I missed the Oregon women after a while. If you like a woman to look like an actual real woman with real curves, there are babes a-plenty here. Just come visit when the weather starts warming up and the layers of flannel start coming off and you'll see what I mean. :)

Re:I want to move to Oregon

[Paradise Pete]

OK, ok, I consider myself well-rebutted. :-)
Very good post.

(And I did get out of Salem. One miserable cold rainy winter day I packed up and flew to Costa Rica, and I'm still there.)

I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[Colonel Korn]

I don't agree with some of the things Steve says here. I'm a supporter of nuclear power and I worry that the taxation on stock transactions, while on some levels satisfying, would cripple the liquidity of American markets (I HATE the way the financial sector works, but I'm afraid it's a horribly complex monster that will respond chaotically and massively to any serious change).

On the other hand, I'm really impressed, almost shocked, but how candid his answers are. I don't think I've ever heard a politician respond to questions with even a tenth of Steve's directness. Wow. My instinctual reaction is to expect Steve to lose badly, though, because no one so honest and intelligent ever seems to serve in a national office.

Good luck, Steve.

Re:I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[Gat0r30y]

because no one so honest and intelligent ever seems to serve in a national office. I agree, and was also impressed with his answers. And here you raise a good point. Why can't we as a people elect leaders who are honest with us? Why do we insist upon electing the fairy tale candidates who say that everything will be rainbows and butterflies if they get into office, then disappoint and blame their failure on the other party (Red and Blue are both guilty here)?
I believe the primary cause here is the lack of honest discourse in the media. There isn't a channel for honest conversations about politics. We treat elections in much the same manner as the latest news about Brittany Spears. This in turn causes what I would call "high school president" syndrome in the electorate. We vote for the candidate that is going to give us a new gym (which we will never get), improve test scores (usually with a magic wand to wave over everyone and make them all smarter, certainly never by insisting students work harder), and really change things. It is refreshing to see a candidate with a slogan like "the voters can handle the truth" - but can they? Based on the predictions I've seen here (2 saying Steve stands a snowball's chance in hell) - we certainly don't believe the voters can handle the truth, nor do they want to. The electorate doesn't want to confront real issues (namely the only real change will be more vending machines filled with crap to exploit the fat kids for the benefit of all) they want to believe that the rainbows and butterflies will come, and all will be well even if we don't do anything substantive to try to fix the real problems.
And more to the point, how can we bring this sort of discourse away from places like slashdot (where the everpresent goatse seems to inject itself, as a matter of free speach?), and into the mainstream media (which often seems more disturbing than goatse)?

Re:I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[mcpkaaos]

no one so honest and intelligent ever seems to serve in a national office. Barney Frank.

Re:I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[sm62704]

I worry that the taxation on stock transactions, while on some levels satisfying, would cripple the liquidity of American markets

I think that would be a GOOD thing. Profits on stock sales should be at least, if not more, than taxes on an equal amount of money earned by actually WORKING. The guy on the factory floor, in the programmer's cube, behind the McDonald's grill, they are the people who create wealth. The stock traders just aggregate and control it.

Re:I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Curiously I find myself enamored with this guy also. While over-all I don't agree with most of his politics I find his candor refreshing. If only we could get more politicians to tell the truth when asked questions. While we may be on opposite ends of our political beliefs thanks for your honesty. There is another guy speaking honestly.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Re:I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[chromatic]

Profits on stock sales should be at least, if not more, than taxes on an equal amount of money earned by actually WORKING.

Shall we mark you down as someone opposed to liquidity then?

Re:I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[sm62704]

No, mark me down as someone who values work over hustling. I'm not for high taxes on anyone, but the company's owners (its stockholders if it's a corporation) should pay at least as much of a percentage of their income as its employees, whether the income is profits (dividends) or sale of assets.

Should I mark you down as someone who's against fairness then?

Re:I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[chromatic]

Should I mark you down as someone who's against fairness then?

That depends. Is a higher tax rate fair for people who have greater incomes and pay more dollars taxes relative to the standard deductions? Is it fair to reward workers who take a modest risk the same as capital investors who take much larger risks? Is it fair that people make different salaries and that some investments return greater results than others? In the context of an S-corp, is it fair to make shareholders pay the same income tax rate as employees if the company takes a loss one year? (If so, what does that even mean?)

"Fair" is rather an interesting word to use in an economic context.

Re:I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[sm62704]

Is a higher tax rate fair for people who have greater incomes and pay more dollars taxes relative to the standard deductions?

If there were no such things as deductions and everyone paid the same percentage, that would be fair. But it will never be that way.

Is it fair to reward workers who take a modest risk the same as capital investors who take much larger risks?

Risk? Capital investors don't know the meaning of the word! A logger or a construction worker is risking his life (and thank God I'm in a safe job). Are you going to tell me he's facing a lower risk than an investor?

Is it fair that people make different salaries and that some investments return greater results than others?

It is as long as the opportunities are equal. That said, I think CEO salaries are WAY too high.

is it fair to make shareholders pay the same income tax rate as employees if the company takes a loss one year?

If there's no profit there should be no tax.

Re:I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

It's perverse, but we've collectively (as have other nations) developed a habit of looking for candidates to say the right things during the election, rather than what they're actually planning on doing.

For example, we either want a candidate to say "I will get us out of Iraq" or "I will stand by our committment to Iraq." As a society, we don't really understand what is going on well enough to decide which is better, or even more succinctly, how candidates with the same basic position differ. Are we going to get out of Iraq by bringing all the troops home next week, or are we going to do it by setting a timeline for handing over security responsibility to Iraqi forces based on stability of a region. Is there going to be flexibility on the timeline/deployment levels if this creates problems? If Iraq and/or Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or anyone makes a relatively unified request that we stay or return, will we?

This is extremely well reflected in the fact that we see detailed media coverage and analysis of the words Clinton and Obama say about each other, but little about their actual stances on issues, and almost nothing (except from fringe sources like rense.com) about how their past political activity reflects or deviates from those positions.

Honestly, think of all the people you know. How many do you think could explain any difference between Obama's and Clinton's health care plans? I admit that I barely can scrape out 1 or 2 high level differences, although in my defense, health care is not high on my issues priority list.

Re:I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[plasmacutter]

There isn't a channel for honest conversations about politics

*cough*comedycentral*cough*bbc*cough*

granted.. those are not given the credit they deserve.. but they are out there : P

Re:I don't agree, but I'm impressed

[The One and Only]

Fairness is overrated. If we fuck with the markets too much and they stop working, it'll be that much harder for businesses to take investment, which will make it that much harder for workers to find work. The way our economy works is by bribing the rich folks into investing their money into everyone else: the rich get richer but so do everyone else. It's not "fair", in the sense of you and I both having five dollars is fair, but it's better than fair, in that me having twenty dollars and you having ten is better than both of us having five. You could even have the twenty and it's still better than fair. Shit, you could have twenty-four, as long as I had six, and I'd still vote for that plan.

Thanks for your time

[LetterRip]

Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions honestly and forth-rightly.

You seem willing to adopt good ideas - what is the best way to send you new ones :)

LetterRip

Ignoring the Experts

[Dolohov]

While I applaud the professed willingness to leave scientists alone to do their jobs without partisan interference, not all of the government's experts are scientists. It's one thing to denounce Bush for suppressing government scientists who are warning about climate change in favor of his own partisan hacks who are saying, "hey, no problem here, just weird weather is all" You're right to denounce that kind of thing.

But I can easily foresee a day when government economists come to the Democrats and say, "Look, your health care plan just isn't going to work." Are you going to accept that and re-work your plan, or are you going to dig through and find your own experts to counter them?

Re:Ignoring the Experts

[El Pollo Loco]

This is a good point. But what I think people fail to realize is that we don't really know. When it comes to economics, global warming, and really all of the big button issues, we simply don't know. We have theories on both sides, but that's all we have. There's evidence for and against climate change, so who wins the argument is who has the best marketing. Its the same thing when it comes to economics(supply side, etc). Arguments on both sides, no clear answer.

We need to be moving towards a state that requires information. Instead of just making this an exercise in marketing, we need to be doing more studies to find out if climate change is real. We need honest politicians to stand up and say, "We don't know. Here's how we're going to find out." When we get to the science of it, it is honest. We just need to distill the hype down to useful information.

Re:Ignoring the Experts

[chaotoroboto]

I thought economists were scientists? And really, the biggest issues with our healthcare system today are in that it ignores basic economics - it incentivizes the denial of care while driving up prices even as supply increases. So don't be that surprised if the GAO signs off on a semipublic healthcare plan: they certainly seem to be hinting that way. See also: this.

Re:Ignoring the Experts

[dekemoose]

I believe that Economics is generally categorized as a social science. A large part of economics involves the actions and re-actions of a human element and as such there isn't the precision typically associated with hard science.

Re:Ignoring the Experts

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't really the question. The question is would he try to *suppress* publication of the conflicting report? The answer should be categorically no. The actual response to the publication clearly depends on the particular problems.

Re:Ignoring the Experts

[Dolohov]

This is also a good question, but it's setting the bar a tad low, don't you think?

Re:Ignoring the Experts

[chaotoroboto]

My understanding (IANAE, btw) is that economics was considered a philosophical pursuit until the late 1800s / early 1900s - with Marx being the last major purely philosophical economist. With Keynes and the Austrians, economics moved over into the social sciences with the introduction of graphs, statistics, math, etc. More recently, with game theorists, economists have been running simulations. Having participated in chemistry labs and game theory simulations at the junior/senior level, I can say that game theory simulations are as rigorous as organic chemistry experiments if not as rigorous as p-chem. One of the most interesting things to observe when participating in those experiments is how people in (well designed) simulations begin to act like rational automatons, while people in chemistry experiments will let an extra drop in the beaker slide, or will make the temperature that a reaction occurred be the average of when they stopped paying attention and when they looked over and noticed that the reaction they'd been waiting on had apparently happened at some point. Granted, this is all anecdotal, and I'm not trying to imply (at least not to the extent that last paragraph reads) that economics is somehow harder than chemistry. In my opinion, chemists and physicists discount economics primarily because of its sordid (i.e., not hard science) history and not because of how it is currently practiced. The historical stigma is of course, hard to shake when every study done has (obviously) sociological implications.

Re:Ignoring the Experts

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm tired of discussing Global Warming (especially since the question has been settled), but I'm just curious about something: when would you consider the big button issues to be settled? When would you say that we have collected all the necessary data, done all the studies that are possible and done all the analysis that needs to be done? When there's no dissent anymore? If that's the case, you've set the bar impossibly high, and I don't know if you've done so without ulterior motives.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: being informed is hard. It's not an excuse not to be. It is also not an excuse to be spoon-fed all information.

Re:Ignoring the Experts

[Dolohov]

I had not meant to disparage economics -- in fact, I hold the field in very high regard. I do not consider it a science, but I don't mean that in a pejorative way: not everything that is rigorous and useful is a science, and vice versa. My fundamental problem with it is that while it is excellent at analyzing and explaining the present and the past, it has not really gotten to the point of being truly and reliably predictive in the way that, say, physics has. And because of its ornery subject matter, it is likely to never be predictive except on very large scales.

As a methodology and a way of thinking, it is tremendously valuable. This is why it would be important for politicians to accept economic analysis of their proposed policies: each policy is fundamentally based on assumptions that can be shown to be solid or faulty. Policies built on solid premised cannot be proven to succeed or even be a good idea, but you'd at least have a chance.

8) Building the team?

[D3]

Cool. If he or his people read this. Thanks for the reply.

In a 'small world' kind of way, I'm from WI originally and a buddy of mine works for Herb Kohl.

Hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching two Americans argue about which of their beers is better is like watching two women argue about which of them is the better driver. Perspective, people.

Re:Hilarious

[jtev]

LOL American Beer is teh Suxxor!!! LOL. Just because there are American beers that do, indeed, suck does not mean that all American beer sucks. There are good American beers, just not the stuff that is sold across the country. Microbrews, and local beers tend to have actual flavor. And even the lack of flavors in the mass market beers isn't due to a lack of skill, but rather because of the taste of the consumers of American beer. That's right, the vast majority of the US beer drinking public likes Lagers and Pilsners that have that little flavor to them. They dislike the beer that comes from other places, because it has too strong of a flavor. Now, there are a few cost-cutting measures that large breweries have taken that makes their products no longer "Pure Beer", and that has hurt them in international competitions, and in the eyes of beer purists, but that doesn't change the fact that the best selling beer in the world is Bud Light.

Re:Hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahaha. Whatever dude, Oregon beer rules.
Others agree:
http://beercast.blogspot.com/2007/11/2007-world-beer-awards.html
World's Best Stout/Porter
Obsidian Stout, Deschutes Brewery, Oregon

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6456904/Oregon-s-BridgePort-IPA-Prevails.html
Oregon's BridgePort IPA Prevails at the Australian International Beer Awards.

Re:Hilarious

[bjorniac]

As a european, I've got to disagree with this. Sure, the beer they export (Bud, coors, etc) is drivel. Absolute undrinkable mud-water. But some of the micro-brews are actually quite nice, and they're gaining in popularity. The next city over from me has a couple of breweries that only serve locally, and I'm glad as hell no-one outside knows about them yet so we can keep all the good stuff to ourselves.

For a comparison, think about the wine you could get in France in the 70s-80s, then the stuff they exported to Britain...

Re:Hilarious

[vacantskies9]

Offensive to Oregon beer and to women. Good work.

Yes

[ch-chuck]

It would be great if more candidates were so .... candid.

Oh noes! Nuclear obviates enviro plans!

[UbuntuDupe]

Finally, of course there is nothing stopping the development of additional nuclear plants in America today. Conservative proposals to spend billions in assisting the construction of these plants or putting the federal government on the hook for insuring these plants seems a poor investment of our money that would be better served exploring renewable alternatives.

Looks like rationalizing, to be honest. The government is "on the hook" for insuring (that's with an i, as in "providing funds in the case of failure) accidents that just won't happen, and even if they did happen, no court would rationally and proportionally assess damages. You can insure "$1 trillion". You cannot insure "how much you got?", which is what nuclear accident lawsuit damage awards amount to.

In buying a car, you don't expect people to insure unlimited damage, why a nuclear plant? And why would I buy an insurance policy that covers $300,000 if simply getting it, causes me to be $300,000 *more* liable?

Nuclear power obviates most of environmentalists claimed justifications, so they have to work overtime to say why we can't do it. In fact, as I've noted before, a federal lab has the details worked for "nuclear powered octane". That is, take water, atomspheric CO2, and energy from nuclear reactions, and store the energy in gasoline (basically equivalent to reversing combustion, though not necessarily through that process). THen, with no infrastructrual changes, cars are carbon-neutral.

Great solution!

But it doesn't get us what we want, which is SUVs "off the road" (er, or not emitting net CO2 ...) so they have to find another way to bury social policy in environmental reasons.

Health care

[sm62704]

major portions of it (such as a requirement that all employers contribute toward their employees' health care) were blocked by the Republican-controlled legislature.

Why can't we do as all the other industrialized countries have done? Why should the employer provide health care?

My dad (and indeed, all the other retired folks I know) are quite happy with Medicare. OTOH the poor people I know (and I know a lot of poor folks) absolutely HATE Medicaid, which is a symptom of our country's unaddressed scourge, classism.

I'd like to see the health insurance companies go out of business completely and find honest work. Why not just extend Medicare to everyone - old, young, rich, and poor? It works for the rest of the world!

-mcgrew

Re:Health care

[slas6654]

I'm glad your father enjoys my tax dollars. I feel great just knowing I have touched someone's life.

PS. Why do we have to be like every other country?

Re:Health care

[grassy_knoll]

Why not just extend Medicare to everyone - old, young, rich, and poor? It works for the rest of the world!

Perhaps because rising health care costs are already bankrupting medicare?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-16-medicare-riddle_x.htm

Medicare's problems are compounded by soaring health care costs, which are running at more than twice the general rate of inflation. And they're made less predictable by future medical technologies whose emergence, impact and cost are impossible to foresee.

Re:Health care

[CrimsonAvenger]

Why not just extend Medicare to everyone - old, young, rich, and poor? It works for the rest of the world!

Medicare outlays are between $350 billion and $400 billion per year right now.

Medicare covers between 45 and 50 million people right now.

Taking the most optimistic of those figures ($350 billion and 50 million people), we see that Medicare extended to the general population would cost on the order of $2 trillion (with a "TR") per year. Which would ALL be deficit, unless we increased Medicare taxes by a factor of six or so. Note that Medicare is expected to spend more in 2008 than Medicare taxes take in already.

So, you're talking about increasing payroll taxes from 1.45% (each, from you, and from your employer) to about 9% (from each of you). At least.

Re:Health care

[everphilski]

My dad is a financial consultant. When he consults someone my age, someone with a good chunk of working years ahead of him/her, he says something along the lines of "don't count on Medicare, and don't count on social security to take care of you. Chances are they won't be there." They are barely there now, as it is. My tax dollars are paying for your dad. Whose tax dollars will pay for me? There's no buffer in the system, and indeed the system is running itself into the ground.

Honestly, the system should be paid for by the individual. Between my employer's contributions and my own, we pay around $700 a month for good group medical coverage, for my entire family. When I was in college a few years ago, I paid out of pocket less than that to cover my wife and son (working part time, I had no coverage). I'm curious what socialized medicine programs can beat those rates with the same benefits I'm receiving now.

Re:Health care

[Arthur B.]

Why can't we do as all the other industrialized countries have done?

Because stealing is wrong?

Re:Health care

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm glad your father enjoys my tax dollars. I feel great just knowing I have touched someone's life."

Are you assuming his father never paid any money into the system himself? Or are you assuming he's taking so much advantage of it that he's getting more than he paid for? Or do you claim to be the only one who ever paid taxes? And that you never have and never will use any benefits from tax dollars?

"Why do we have to be like every other country?"

No one is saying we have to be like every other country. But if there is a system that works in other countries and the system we are using is horribly broken it would be pretty stupid not to take a look at the methods others are using successfully and fit them to our needs.

Re:Health care

[A beautiful mind]

I'm curious what socialized medicine programs can beat those rates with the same benefits I'm receiving now.

Pretty much most of the world's. The USA spends the highest percentage of it's GDP of any country in the world on health care, but lags behind on statistics published by the World Health Organization. Canada spends half the amount and scores higher in a lot of the comparisons than the USA.

You know, the core of the problem is that the hundred billion dollar profit margins of the health insurance companies comes out of your pocket and you're not receiving a service for that profit.

Re:Health care

[TheLink]

Taxation is not the same as stealing.

Currently it seems like you're paying a lot more to make the CEOs of Big Med/Bio Corps rich. And you can't even vote them out. You can only do that if you own enough shares (by that time you'd probably be part of the problem).

The Police aren't privatized and are funded by taxes. They provide services to the poor ( everyone even illegal immigrants), etc that taxpayers pay for.

For a rich country to choose not treat people just because they cannot afford basic treatment seems to be very uncivilized.

Universal healthcare is a good idea, BUT there should be max limits of how much the State is willing to pay for per person, because as technology improves I believe there will be more and more super expensive ways of treating people, and facts are even the richest countries won't be able to afford to give everyone the most expensive treatments.

If they need the top of the line treatment, and can't afford it, and nobody else steps up (charity, private money etc), well too bad so sad.

I argue that you can reduce a lot of misery just by providing the cheap stuff. And some things a Government just does better than private companies, basic healthcare is one of those things.

In a democracy if the Gov is not doing such a good job and keeps getting voted in, the voters and people are to blame.

Re:Health care

[sm62704]

He's not enjoying nearly as many tax dollars as Haliburton's shareholders, Boeing's shareholders, etc, and he's not enjoying nearly as many tax dollars as he paid in during his forty years of building America's infrastructure with his hands; he was in electrical construction. The electricity coming into your home is likely carried over a 30KV high tension line he built.

We don't have to be "like" every other country, I would prefer we'd be BETTER, but we damned sure shouldn't be INFERIOR. When it comes to health care, we are. Our lifespan is shorter, our infant mortality is higher, and we pay more per capita for our health care.

Re:Health care

[sm62704]

You realise that countries where everyone has the equivalent of Medicare have lower per capita costs, lower infant mortality, and longer life spans?

Thought not. Stop drinking the corporate koolaid.

Re:Health care

[sm62704]

unless we increased Medicare taxes by a factor of six or so. So, you're talking about increasing payroll taxes from 1.45% (each, from you, and from your employer) to about 9%

And not having to pay medical insurance premiums. Factor that and whet your employer pays for your insurance in. The only losers would be the insurance companies, their stockholders, and employees. The health insurance employees are surley on The Golgafrinchans "third ark"

Re:Health care

[bjorniac]

Now compare those figures to your healthcare deductable (and that of your employer) to see if money is saved overall. I know in my case about 20% of my total paycheck goes to healthcare - so for me it would be a great saving.

Re:Health care

[bjorniac]

Ah, I see I've effectively reproduced your point - sorry about that! I believe that overall it would be an efficient thing to do - from the figures I remember about 4% of Medicare is overhead (administration etc) and for private health companies it's closer to 50% (advertising, legal etc etc).

Re:Health care

[Arthur B.]

Taxation is not the same as stealing.
Of course it is. What makes you think when people employed by the government do something it enjoys a different moral standard that when ordinary people do it ?

Re:Health care

[Idiomatick]

His dad is wealthy and retired aka paying into the system which is why it is working for him. So he's not stealing your munnies. As for why you should be like other countries thats a good point. So long as you know preventable deaths in the US are higher than almost all 1st world countries. Its also worse than almost all 1st world countries in preventable diseases, quality of health, life expectancy of minorities and so on ... So long as you are aware of this and comfortable with it I'm ok with your point. But i won't accept it when americans think they have the best of everything because they are the super-power. And simply deny their lack of caring for the poor and sick.

Re:Health care

[lysse]

Why can't we do as all the other industrialized countries have done? Why should the employer provide health care?

In Britain, the employer pays a chunk of National Insurance (that portion of taxation which is ringfenced for social provisions), usually a larger one per employee than the employee pays. So in effect, the employer is paying a share of healthcare over here.

Re:Health care

[grassy_knoll]

Seems like you might have missed the point.

Given the rapidly aging population, health care costs are rising. Now, if under the "new medicare" we're denying treatment to the elderly then that controls costs.

As others have pointed out in this thread, prescription drugs costs in the US are higher because of price controls on those same drugs in other countries. What happens when we, to keep spiraling costs down, do the same thing?

Try to avoid the socialist koolaid yourself; you might see there's more problems than simple solutions.

Re:Health care

[sm62704]

I'm more of a social libertarian than a socialist. I think someone ought to have the right to screw his life up any way he wishes, but at the same time I don't want to see people starving, or living in the street (unless they want to), or dying of diseases that are easily cured.

Part of the high cost of health care in the US is that those without health care won't get it when it's relatively cheap, but get the most expensive health care there is - the emergency room at the last minute. And then after running up huge bills they die anyway because they didn't get care in time.

If I didn't have insurance I'd go blind in my left eye; I'll be getting a vitrectomy probably next week. I shudder to think what would happen if I was unemployed, or working for an employer that didn't offer health insurance.

Re:Health care

[TheLink]

No it's not. Who makes the currency you use?

Mark 12:13-17
Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn't we?"

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.

Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
            And they were amazed at him.

--
Anyway, as long as you keep their currency, they can inflate it and tax you whether you like it or not.

Whenever the US Gov "prints" more US Dollars it "taxes" all nations holding US Dollars (billions or more) for trade or other reasons (automatically making them poorer and the US Gov richer - who if not corrupt trickles down the wealth to the US people[1]). So the USA gets it easy as long as lots of countries keep using the USD for trade.

[1] Pouring the newly printed money into Iraq (Halliburton etc) instead is naturally not such a good idea.

Re:Health care

[Arthur B.]

Barter is taxed.

Re:Health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Medicare covers the elderly and disabled. I would expect that these groups have somewhat higher health care costs than the general public. This puts your $2 trillion dollar figure as a very generous upper bound. For comparison, the total US spending last year on health care (according to Wikipedia) was $2.26 trillion.

Re:Health care

[guywcole]

The bigger problem I see is one of generational inequity. Social security was made, then the initial funds looted, and then each generation paid for the last. Medicare/aid is set up the same way, so that increasing benefits for one generation means raising taxes on the next.

Without significant policy changes, we face the specter of massive tax increases or benefit cuts in Medicare when baby boomers retire. That is why we must reform our healthcare system now, just as we must put the government as a whole on sound fiscal footing before it is too late and we are faced with unacceptable options. The time to fix medicare for the baby boomers was 30 years ago, when they started work, not now when they get to claim benefits and stop paying in. It's especially dubious that the baby-boomers are the ones now in Congress voting to increase medicare benefits by taxing the young in ways they were never taxed.

(To be fair, Steve Novick was born in 1963, so it's dubious to call him a baby-boomer.)

I like the quote from the aviation industry:

Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

Re:Health care

[j. andrew rogers]

Our lifespan is shorter, our infant mortality is higher, and we pay more per capita for our health care.

This is the kind of superficial reasoning that will prevent any good from coming from these discussions. For example:

- American life spans are shorter due to higher incidence of accidents and homicide. If you remove these from the statistics, Americans are among the longest lived people in the industrialized world. Healthcare has nothing to do with it. The only person that lives longer than a Japanese person in Japan is a Japanese person in the US.

- Infant mortality in the industrialized world is a function of genetics, with some ethnic groups having integer factor higher rates. If you control for genetic/ethnic demographics, all industrialized countries have roughly the same infant mortality rate. Infant mortality in the non-industrialized world is a function of infectious disease -- those people might actually benefit from more healthcare.

- Americans pay more for their healthcare, but by every direct measure of medical outcomes they also receive superior results, particularly in terms of diagnostic accuracy and disease treatment. For example, in the recent Lancet Oncology study, the average US survival rate across all cancers exceeds that of every other country in the world by a large margin. Relative to western Europe, your odds of surviving cancer is 20-40% higher in the US, which is no small margin. Since these are the results I am actually paying for with healthcare, it seems that Americans get more when they pay more.

All of which ignores the fact that every state has socialized healthcare services for the poor -- it is not a Federal function under the US constitution. There is government healthcare, just not at the Federal level. I am okay with the idea of universal healthcare, but let us be accurate when characterizing the current situation. For starters, I would not want to trade e.g. US cancer survival rates for the European cancer survival rates considering that cancer is one of the leading killers in the industrialized world. If the European model is so great, how come their disease survival rates are so poor relative to the US?

Re:Health care

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

You're assuming that medical insurance premiums are at a competitively low rate, which they are not.

Re:Health care

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

You're assuming that insurance premiums are at a competitively low rate, which they are not.

Re:Health care

[TheLink]

You're missing the forest for the trees.

You are benefiting from the Government because it maintains the rule of law, the currency (ok laugh) and lots of other things.

If you became weak somehow and anybody tried to steal your bartered goods, you still have _some_ recourse: the police and the courts.

The Government also is in charge of maintaining its monopoly over violence - so normal citizens don't go around in mobs dealing out extrajudiciary punishments for real or imagined crimes.

I have no objections to paying for a good government, and I think it is ridiculous to want no government - since it just means you'll have a Dictatorship - the leader of the most powerful mob will end up ruling.

You can see for yourself what happens in countries where there is a really bad government, or effectively no government.

You may have a crappy government now, but while ordinary people still have the vote (if they don't allow diebolded or rigged elections) they are choosing that crappy government. If enough people voted for independent candidates even if they didn't win enough power the resulting Government would start to pay attention. Yes the first past the post system sucks, but it's unlikely to be changed soon.

Meanwhile believe me it is still better to have the citizens elect one "thief, mass murderer" to rule over them, far better than to have many random ones spring up more easily. If the elected Thief steals too much, go elect a different one.

Now if you have the Thief start saying he doesn't want to steal/kill/play by the rules (Constitution etc), then citizens better do something ASAP before it all starts to fall apart. Like get a new Thief willing to.

Re:Health care

[Arthur B.]

Whether I am benefiting or not is subjective and actually irrelevant. Theft is theft, even when the thief claims he acts for the own good of his victim. I have a right to live my life according to my own judgment, respecting the other's right to do so as well.

Once again you are assuming that people working for the government are somehow subject to distinct moral rules. How would you react if a company started charging you (at gunpoint) for unrequested services.

Re:Health care

[TheLink]

"How would you react if a company started charging you (at gunpoint) for unrequested services."

I would report them to the police, and possibly take it up with the courts.

Re:Health care

[Arthur B.]

Then how on earth does this become acceptable when it is done by the government ?

Re:Health care

[TheLink]

I find it acceptable because I see no better alternative.

If you know of an alternative which doesn't end up becoming a Dictatorship or degenerating to chaos, then sure, I'm all ears.

Say you don't pay taxes. Who pays for the police force, and the courts? Who pays for the legislators making the laws? Go by "tips"? Advertising? Or Microsoft/Hollywood/Sony pays for it? I don't see viable alternatives.

In fact I think it is best if the government, cops etc can only get money from taxes and not from 3rd parties directly, so as not to be more easily influenced by those 3rd parties.

Re:Health care

[everphilski]

Canada spends half the amount and scores higher in a lot of the comparisons than the USA.

I have friends in Canada, and grew up close to the Canada-America border, so now I know you're spouting BS. Yes, Canada is cheaper, but the service is crap in comparison. Mortality rates for most cancers, heart attacks, etc. is substatnially lower. Wikipedia will confirm:

One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 12% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S.[42]

In a 2003 survey of hospital administrators conducted in Canada, the U.S., and three other countries, 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery.

Give me numbers. Show me less cost and same value, or same cost and better value, and I'll believe you. Every proposal for national health care plans by every Democrat out there that I have seen shows me paying more, and getting no more value. No thanks.

Re:Health care

[A beautiful mind]

Yes, Canada is cheaper, but the service is crap in comparison. Mortality rates for most cancers, heart attacks, etc. is substatnially lower. Wikipedia will confirm:

Wikipedia doesn't actually confirm this. Even though the USA spends 16% of it's GDP on healthcare and the highest amount per capita in the world, it still sports these numbers:

The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in both responsiveness and expenditure, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).

(source)

The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate[13] and 45th for highest total life expectancy.[14]

You're saying that:

One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer.

It is true that the USA is first in world ranking in responsiveness, however, responsiveness doesn't automatically mean a better system. The reasons for this are quite complex and it is an interesting subject to explore, but the currently available statistics show that while the system is responsive in the USA, it is less capable of treating someone than a lot of other countries, who might slower in providing medical care, but once they do, they do a much better job at it. I would say that the goal of the healthcare system is to provide medical assistance first and foremost and endulging in improving the perception of the patients is only secondary.

Of course, providing the perception of a good system is easier than actually having a good system. It is cheaper for the health insurance companies to make you believe you're getting a good service than actually providing a good service. (Let's not talk about how healthcare is not a traditional service anyway.)

Show me less cost and same value, or same cost and better value, and I'll believe you.

I've shown you some statistics, but I'd like to reiterate the point: the health care system should be judged based on how effectively it cures people. The healthcare system shouldn't be judged based on satisfaction indexes, because the goal is to cure, not to please. Perception is easily manipulated. Food companies learned this the hard way in the 1960s, there is a fascinating case study about this, which shows that 1/4-1/3rd of the US consumer market likes their sphagetti sauce extra chunky, but they never demanded extra chunky in any of the focus groups. The people didn't know what they wanted, or they didn't want to tell what they wanted due to the cultural stereotypes. There are similar effects in play when talking about coffee and it was an important lesson for companies. This issue is also connected to the fact that drugs are tested using the double blind method. Asking the patient whether he/she feels better doesn't cut it. There are vastly more reliable statistics to gauge how well the system works than by asking the people.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a democrat (one who believes in democracy, not the party affiliation), I believe in asking the people and I believe in that ultimately the power rests in the hands of the people, but there are questions of facts and questions of opinion. Science is not a democracy and whether the healthcare system works is a scientific issue of fact. It doesn't matter what people think, mass opinion is religion. Science is about facts, it doesn't matter if someone is ignorant of them, doesn't like them, they still remain true.

Re:Health care

[Arthur B.]

Whether there is or not an alternative doesn't make it less evil. A woman faced with an aggressor offering to kill her or to rape her may have no other alternative and may make a choice. That doesn't mean she *accepts* what is going to happen to her. The original discussion is about tax-funded healthcare. Not taking taxes from people to fund healthcare does not and will not result in dictatorship or degenerate into chaos.

You raise another question, which is, is it possible to have a society free of institutionalized violence (such as taxation). Police and courts are a useful service, but they should and can be provided by private companies. Actually, most courts and most police force, today, in the US are already private. Private arbitration is extremely common, faster and cheaper than the state run judicial system, and rent-a-cop, security forces outnumber the civil servants.

The idea that police and courts have to be state provided is merely a hobbesian myth. Furthermore, it is not up to me to prove that such a system can and does work. You are advocating a system relying on theft, you have the burden of proof, it is up to *you* to prove that it is unavoidable.

Re:Health care

[TheLink]

You keep saying taxes are theft. I say people who don't pay taxes (though required to) but enjoy the benefits of being in a country (which requires them to be taxed), they are the thieves.

It is a bit like being member of a club, and saying the membership fee is theft. If you use any of the club facilities without paying the fees, then who is doing the stealing? Even if you just sit in the club premises to talk to your member friends, you are benefiting from the past membership fees and the legacy of it all (club rules created by the committee, infrastructure, contracts with 3rd party suppliers). Even the fact that it's harder for outsiders to wander in and hassle you is a benefit.

Is it wrong for the club to charge for membership fees? I think not - especially when the club rules allow it, and the founding members, most of the past members and present members have agreed that membership fees are ok. If you don't think you're getting a good deal from the fee (your club is badly run), then you should take it up with the committee, and/or maybe try to get the rest of the members to vote them out. Or leave.

If you really object to taxes, you have some options:
1) Try to get your country to abolish them, but IMO going about saying it's stealing is a lie.
2) Leave your country and join a different country - like Andorra or wherever they don't have taxes.

There really are choices - not all countries tax "everything" or "everyone". And some countries have practically no government and thus no taxes (don't be surprised if those have no law and order either).

There are many people in my country who don't get taxed (especially the aboriginal people living in the jungles). Even so they can still benefit from taxes - the courts, police and hospitals are still available to them, and even some basic commodities are subsidized.

If you don't like my reasoning, here's someone else's take on it: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm

Re:Health care

[Arthur B.]

You keep saying taxes are theft.

Well they are, and the only argument you have come up with, so far is the mere assertion that "without taxes there would be chaos" which, per se, does not even contradict that taxes are theft.

 

I say people who don't pay taxes (though required to) but enjoy the benefits of being in a country (which requires them to be taxed), they are the thieves.

Enjoying a benefit is not theft. You are enjoying the benefit of talking to me, but I have no right to charge you for it because there is no existing contract between you and me. Similarly I enjoy the benefit of pretty girl wearing short skirts in the street when the spring comes, it doesn't make me a thief, etc. The simple truth is, government provides some services and then say: hey, I've given you this service, now pay me... Uh, I didn't ask for any service, no thanks. I do pay taxes because I fear the government, but if I didn't, it wouldn't make me a thief at all... if the government doesn't want me to use its services for free, let it not provide them to me, I don't want them. Maybe it can't not provide it to me... too bad but that's it's problem, I want to have nothing to do with this organization, period.

 

It is a bit like being member of a club, and saying the membership fee is theft. If you use any of the club facilities without paying the fees, then who is doing the stealing? Even if you just sit in the club premises to talk to your member friends, you are benefiting from the past membership fees and the legacy of it all (club rules created by the committee, infrastructure, contracts with 3rd party suppliers). Even the fact that it's harder for outsiders to wander in and hassle you is a benefit.

It's quite different, there's a contract when you're a member of the club.
What you are implicitly assuming is that living in North America between the 49th parallel and the Rio Grande implies suscribing to the services of the United States government. You are assuming the United States government has a legitimate monopoly of jurisdiction over that territory, which is precisely equivalent to what I am denying, you're merely assuming the consequent.

I am well aware of the arguments in the link you provide, none of them are correct. Let me point you to these arguments, http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

Re:Health care

[sm62704]

There are only two problems with SS amd medicare, and one solution. The first problem is one you noted: the funds were looted, "borrowed" to pay for war and roads. The second is that the rich aren't paying their fair share. Take SS tax; my employer and I together pay 15% of my income to social security, while Bill Gates and Microsoft pay far, far less than 1% of his salary.

Make the rich and their employers pay the same fifteen percent I do (and that includes ALL income; capital gains, interest income, all the income nobody has to actually WORK FOR to earn) and you'll have no shortfall whatever.

Re:Health care

[sm62704]

That's why the private sector can't work with health care - the one who pays isn't the one to choose. I can only go with my employers' choice of health insurance, unlike my car insurance. And your choices of doctors or hospitals may be limited by your insurance plan.

Some things the private sector does badly, and health care, like roads, is one.

Re:Health care

[sm62704]

American life spans are shorter due to higher incidence of accidents and homicide

I don't belive it. You're going to have to show me some believable numbers from a believable site before you'll convince me. I could easily show you the statictics showing our life spans are shorter, but you admit I'm right about that.

Infant mortality in the industrialized world is a function of genetics

Bullshit. Again, cite a study.

it is not a Federal function under the US constitution

Neither is building roads prohibited, but both are allowed. "To promote the general welfare", as the Constitution itself says.

Americans pay more for their healthcare, but by every direct measure of medical outcomes they also receive superior results

Bullshit again; if our health care were superior our life spans would be longer and infant mortality lower.

I would not want to trade e.g. US cancer survival rates for the European cancer survival rates

Again, citation needed. And with all of them, no neocon sites or insurance company sites.

Re:Health care

[j. andrew rogers]

I would not want to trade e.g. US cancer survival rates for the European cancer survival rates

Again, citation needed. And with all of them, no neocon sites or insurance company sites.

Are you retarded? What part of "Lancet Oncology Journal" do you not understand (I gave that example because it is the most recent)? The only way you could not find a myriad of supporting citations in reputable medical journals is if you refused to look -- this is a well-known and undisputed fact in medical academia.

I actually heard about the Lancet Oncology data in the British press, mostly because they wanted to know why the UK NHS has such abysmal cancer survival rates compared to the major economies of Europe. (What the British press did not say is that the same study shows the US out-performing every industrialized country in the world for which we have data in this regard.)

Like I said, your attitude is an exemplar of why nothing good will come from the politics of healthcare.

Re:Health care

[sm62704]

Are you retarded? What part of "Lancet Oncology Journal" do you not understand (I gave that example because it is the most recent)?

1) no you didn't. Nowhere in your original post did you mention the "Lancet Oncology Journal".

2) If you had, which you didn't, I don't have a copy of the Lancet Oncology Journal.

The only way you could not find a myriad of supporting citations in reputable medical journals is if you refused to look

If you want to confince me of something it's up to you to cite, not up to me to search. No link == bullshit.

Re:Health care

[TheLink]

"It's quite different, there's a contract when you're a member of the club."

My parents are members of a private club.

While I was a child I enjoyed the benefits of a member without paying the membership fees. I did not sign any contract.

When I grew up, I decided I didn't want to be a member, so I left and now I don't get to enjoy the benefits (except occasionally as an invited guest).

Assuming that you have grown up and are now an adult, you can now decide for yourself whether you want to be a member or not (read on for legitimacy of monopoly/government).

What if the USA was really rich from say oil money, and Government was paid for by oil money and there are no taxes. Would that be fine then? I believe there are some countries like that. Or is your real objection to Government itself?

Club USA has monopoly over its territory because 100-300 million "members" living there say it has. As long as it has some form of democracy I will assume there is some legitimacy to its claims. That being said, the low voter turnout and the diebolded elections do lower the legitimacy level.

When enough people say they prefer to be ruled over by a particular entity, then if you wish to continue to live amongst those people you have to respect that. That pretty girl you enjoyed looking at might have voted for the "wrong party", and because of her evilness you have to pay that evil tax and endure that evil government, as long as you still want the opportunity to admire her beauty in person.

That's the "price" you pay for living with other people.

Some believe such a fee (Gov, taxes) is evil, and people should not have to accept it.

To me it is more true that the "fee" reflects the evilness and flawness of people in general. If everyone were good and had good enough information, then there would be no need for such a "fee". We'd not need Government or taxes, and still be able to scale societies to City levels (rather than being stuck at Village levels).

So I admit taxes and Government are evil but only in the same way the whole world is evil (and it is).

Even if all that is evil, I still don't see tax as theft. I have agreed to remain amongst a people that have agreed on a Government that demands such a tax. I can always leave.

If a Government demands taxes from poor people who cannot afford to even "leave the club", if so then that Government is rather evil. Mine doesn't - in fact poor people get subsidies, and prices of basic necessities are controlled. The ones who pay tax can afford to leave.

Re:Health care

[Arthur B.]

My parents are members of a private club.
While I was a child I enjoyed the benefits of a member without paying the membership fees. I did not sign any contract. When I grew up, I decided I didn't want to be a member, so I left and now I don't get to enjoy the benefits (except occasionally as an invited guest).

When you left your parent's club, did they ask you to leave your home as well ?

Assuming that you have grown up and are now an adult, you can now decide for yourself whether you want to be a member or not (read on for legitimacy of monopoly/government).

No, the government will use force and prevent me from doing it.

Club USA has monopoly over its territory because 100-300 million "members" living there say it has. As long as it has some form of democracy I will assume there is some legitimacy to its claims. That being said, the low voter turnout and the diebolded elections do lower the legitimacy level.

If every property owner in the US willingly gave to the government a monopoly of law over his land, you would be right, but it hasn't happen and wouldn't happen (I for one would not). The fact that many people believe the government to be legitimate does not make it so. Democracy is beside the point, if someone does not grant the US government jurisdiction over his land, his neighbors can't do it for him.

When enough people say they prefer to be ruled over by a particular entity, then if you wish to continue to live amongst those people you have to respect that.

No I don't, they may exclude me from there club, but they cannot legitimately exclude me from my own property. Landowners do not have a right to refuse US jurisdiction. The only way the US government could be "like a club" would be if it granted the right to secede from it (leave the club). Obviously it does not.

That pretty girl you enjoyed looking at might have voted for the "wrong party", and because of her evilness you have to pay that evil tax and endure that evil government, as long as you still want the opportunity to admire her beauty in person.

Indeed if she lives in a place where the property owners have voluntarily surrendered jurisdiction to the US government, then I don't believe I have a right to be there.

That's the "price" you pay for living with other people.

I never asked the government to help me live with other people. I can manage to do that by myself. If the government let a landowner leave Club USA, it could set up a city on its land and would obviously not be alone.

So I admit taxes and Government are evil but only in the same way the whole world is evil (and it is).

Governments steal, murder and enslave people. That's much much more evil than any evil you and I can imagine committing in our lives.

If a Government demands taxes from poor people who cannot afford to even "leave the club", if so then that Government is rather evil. Mine doesn't - in fact poor people get subsidies, and prices of basic necessities are controlled. The ones who pay tax can afford to leave.

Won't you leave poor people out of it? Poverty is not a badge of morality or merit. Why should morality be based around "poor people" rather than "rich people", "bearded people" or "people with earlobes" ?

Re:Health care

[TheLink]

"When you left your parent's club, did they ask you to leave your home as well ?"

After I became an adult, I left the club. So I don't have to pay the club fee.
I have not left my home, so I pay whatever is due from me for that.
I have not left my country, so I will continue to pay the taxes in that country.
I can leave my country for another country, then I will pay whatever is due in that new country.

"No, the government will use force and prevent me from doing it."

I don't know where you are living, or what you did, but I can freely leave my country, pack my bags, and leave.

I think if you move your entire house, and land top soil to some other country or middle of the ocean, I think your government won't stop you, or at least it won't be legal to do so (as long as you respected the environment impact laws etc, have fully paid for the house etc).

I'd personally suggest converting that property=land to property=money (by selling it), and move. Much easier.

If that land is worth so much more to you than your objection of paying taxes + sale price, then I think your Government must be doing at least some things right.

"If every property owner in the US willingly gave to the government a monopoly of law over his land"

What makes your land 100% yours? Just because you say so? Sure you can, so can I. So what happens if we both make claims on the same piece of land? Well, before you took "ownership" of your land, there were lots of people who came before you, who have said it's not 100% yours, that the Government has say over it no matter what. So they said so _first_ before you.

It's very easy to say "This land is mine, mine, all mine!". Despite some of the land having been taken from the Native Americans (and other people) years ago (was it a Government doing that in most cases? I'm not that familiar with US history), and the Government eventually paying some compensation for it, to hopefully satisfy most of them.

Lastly, as a Christian I personally believe it's all God's, so it's easier for me to not kick up a big fuss if it's taken away (being human I bet I'll still kick up a fuss :) ). So maybe that's why my perspective is a lot different from yours - I find it hard to kick up a big fuss over paying taxes:

1) It's required - because enough other people believe it is required.
2) You can pay it in money - which only has value because enough other people believe it has.
3) After you die, it's not worth as much to you.
4) If you believe in eternal life, then people matter more, so if it makes them happy if you pay... :)
5) You can go elsewhere.

People make fun of World of Warcraft (WoW) players and their virtual gold and items. But to me the USD isn't much more real than the WoW money. I wonder if the USD has weakened against the WoW currency ;).

Re:Health care

[Arthur B.]

After I became an adult, I left the club. So I don't have to pay the club fee. I have not left my home, so I pay whatever is due from me for that.

So you recognize that the club had no right to ask you to leave your house in order to stop paying fees.

I have not left my country, so I will continue to pay the taxes in that country.

Why do you believe club USA has the right to ask you to leave the country if you do not want to pay taxes? I don't have this right, your parent club doesn't have it, why on earth would club USA have it. You own the land when you buy it from a previous owner, when you receive it as a gift, or when you homestead it. Homesteading means you work the land, mix your labor with it and eventually make it your own by this process. Club USA is just a bunch of people who used force to say : hey we really own everything.

I can leave my country for another country

That is completely beside the point. The question is: why do you have to?

I don't know where you are living, or what you did, but I can freely leave my country, pack my bags, and leave.

I'm going to send you a poem by email every week. Since I believe it is a valuable service, I will take $100 from you every week. Of course you are free to opt out, just leave the USA. Does that sound honest to you? Exactly why is it ok for the government to do it and not for me? Why do they have a right to force their services over what is known as the USA?

I think if you move your entire house, and land top soil to some other country or middle of the ocean, I think your government won't stop you, or at least it won't be legal to do so (as long as you respected the environment impact laws etc, have fully paid for the house etc).

You're completely missing the point. Read my lips. WHY - DO - I - HAVE - TO - PHYSICALLY - MOVE.

What makes your land 100% yours?

What makes your kidney 100% yours? Here, let me have it.

Just because you say so?

Because I bought it and no one successfully challenged my ownership claim.

Sure you can, so can I. So what happens if we both make claims on the same piece of land?

We would probably find an arbiter who would examine our claims to the land and help us find out who the rightful owner is.

Well, before you took "ownership" of your land, there were lots of people who came before you, who have said it's not 100% yours, that the Government has say over it no matter what. So they said so _first_ before you.

So ?

It's very easy to say "This land is mine, mine, all mine!". Despite some of the land having been taken from the Native Americans (and other people) years ago

Actually big junks of land were bought, but, granted, some was stolen. If a native American can challenge that I am the rightful owner by proving he has a better claim than I to that particular piece of land, let him do so. So far it hasn't happened.

Lastly, as a Christian I personally believe it's all God's, so it's easier for me to not kick up a big fuss if it's taken away (being human I bet I'll still kick up a fuss :) ). So maybe that's why my perspective is a lot different from yours

Well I'm not a Christian but I certainly know a lot of Christians who share my views.

- I find it hard to kick up a big fuss over paying taxes: 1) It's required - because enough other people believe it is required.

Other people believe it is required to worship Allah. Do you do that?

2) You can pay it in money - which only has value because enough other people believe it has.

Nope. Assume I have a farm, I produce carrots and exchange them for all kind of foods (it's legal). One day the tax collector comes, he asks me for money. I don't have the government's money to pay him, so he takes away my tractor (IRS will seize proper

Re:Health care

[TheLink]

"Because I bought it and no one successfully challenged my ownership claim."

If your country's law does say it belongs fully to you, including sovereignty (look it up) then sure it's yours. Otherwise, even when you buy the land (or acquire it some other way) it is _never_ 100% yours - you do NOT get sovereignty with it.

As I said, way before you took "ownership" of your land, there were lots of people who came before you, who had claims to the land, who have said it's never becomes 100% yours, that the Government has say over it no matter what. And they said so _first_ before you.

That's why it's not totally yours even though you bought it. So it ain't stealing when the Gov seizes it - they're taking it back. Maybe you could sue the seller for misrepresentation, or maybe you didn't read the fine print.

That's the big difference. If say you find some island in the middle of the ocean with no other claims to it, then you can claim that land as yours as long as "no one successfully challenges your ownership claim". Then I suppose you have every right to keep it, even to the point of going to war to do so if need be, and you can make the rules however you want, like say if someone buys land from you, they get sovereignty over that land as well.

That said, I am not a lawyer, so you can check with a lawyer on your legal standing in this.

Reforming the voting method?

[Snarfangel]

I'm an Oregonian, and I'd like to hear his views on voting reform. By that I mean, will he push for a change from our current Plurality voting to a better system, such as Condorcet, Approval, or Range voting? I see both Democrats and Republicans complaining about "spoilers" in national elections -- Perot in 1992 and 1996, and Nader in 2000, for example -- but neither party seems to want to fix the cause of the spoiler issue. Instead, they apparenty prefer whining that people are wasting their vote, if not enabling the worst candidate to win, when they vote for a third party candidate.

Re:Reforming the voting method?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is incorrect to categorize those systems as inherently "better", as each has their own flaws (some serious). "Better" and "worse" depend on your point of view.

Re:Reforming the voting method?

[Snarfangel]

Granted, each voting method has its own flaws -- Kenneth Arrow showed that not every desirable voting criterion could be satisfied simultaneously -- but that does not mean all methods are equally bad.

Rather than use a lot of boring math, it's easier to show with pretty pictures: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/

This shows voting simulations using Plurality, Borda, Approval, Condorcet, and IRV. (Note, the reason I left Borda out of the post above is because it seems to be more sensitive to strategically burying opposing candidates).

Re:Reforming the voting method?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, they apparenty prefer whining that people are wasting their vote ... when they vote for a third party candidate.

It's almost like they don't want the third party candidate to win...

Re:Reforming the voting method?

[pjp6259]

Yeah... Fucking Nader. I saw him on television talking about how he was running to stand up for third parties. Saying that Europe has strong third parties, and so should we. (Ignoring the fact that their parliamentary system is very different from ours).

If he really wanted to support 3rd parties, he'd run for an office he has a chance of winning and/or focus on changing our voting system to Condorcet.

Typical

[maestro371]

I see nothing out-of-the-ordinary here. Looks like the responses were drafted from a typical Democrat's playbook: more government manipulation of policy items that would be better regulated by the open market. Nothing short of a direct attack on individual liberty.

As an Oregonian, I'll be casting my ballot for Smith.

Interesting but...

[sigzero]

We should never ever enact universal health care period finito! Why shouldn't the Feds second guess the Oregon voters when the elected officials in Oregon have second guessed their own people on occasion? It *is* a Federal issue.

Can slashdot interview subjects get an account?

[A beautiful mind]

I wonder if it would make sense to create a slashdot account for interview subjects automatically. I'm sure most accounts wouldn't be used, but for example on the off chance that someone from Steve Novick's team would reply to for example pudge's points would make an attempt worthwhile.

I think it would fit better in the modern age in which I'd expect a dialogue, not simple statements people have no chance to argue and discuss with the person who said it. Communication in the internet age can be one many and I think journalism on the internet should partly about moderating a debate, instead of asking the questions. What slashdot has going is a good step in that direction, so I wonder if we can improve on it and how.

Re:Can slashdot interview subjects get an account?

[Anonymous Freak]

He already created one, and started answering questions in the original thread!

However, because I was uncertain on of the new "SteveNovick" user was really him, I commented that he should follow the "official procedure" for answering them, and he stopped posting.

Steve: You can start posting again! Feel free to respond to the responses, or even go back and answer other questions that the official moderators didn't pass along!

Right on

[El Pollo Loco]

While there's a moderate amount I don't agree with in there, I appreciate the candor. I wish all politicians were like this!

Nice to see he understands states rights (q.9)

[Brian Stretch]

I liked his answer to question #9. Most of the time the feds should butt out and let states follow the will of their citizens. I can only hope that this philosophy also extends to the federal education department, housing, attempts at federally run universal health care, agriculture, and almost everything else not specifically listed as a federal responsibility in the Constitution.

On Iraq, I can only hope that he reads some of the reports from people over there such as Michael Yon, Michael J. Totten, etc.

Re:Your thoughts on Utah?

[Anonymous Coward]

Useless?

Television
Odometer
Electric Traffic Light
Modern Firearms

So he's just another democrat then?

[mosb1000]

So he's saying that he'll solve all your problems for you by raising taxes and increasing government regulation? Isn't that the same thing most politicians say? I don't think there's anything special going on here. I resent the fact that I wasted my time reading this garbage; I'm going to pass Slashdot's shameless political plugs from here on in.

Re:So he's just another democrat then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because deregulation has worked so well for the current economy.

Re:Thanks for answering my questions

[Kazrath]

Your statement confuses me. What is the base of your opinion? He answered your question very well and your response to his answer is basically indicated that "I will not vote for someone who answers my question fully and who wants to make a real attempt at achieving something".

I could understand if you do not agree with his platform. But what right do you have forcing your opinions down someone else's throat? Just because you don't agree, understand, or like something does not mean you should force others to your way.

Due to Obama running this is the first year since high-school that I have even had at least a vague interest in politics. The last two presidential campaigns were a joke and both "Contestants" were worthless and thus I could not bring myself to vote. This year I have been paying a lot of attention to politicians around our country and have determined that not a single one of them fits 100% as a perfect representative of me. While this seems like an obvious answer I think most American people have not come to this understanding. They find a candidate that they read through 99% of his platform and they love it and get hooked on something insignificant or not earth shattering and decide to not vote for the candidate and choose a worse option. These are usually controversial things such as abortion. I 100% believe in the right of choice, but I believe that choice is made as soon as two consenting individuals make the choice to take of their clothing and have sex. Basically, I believe individuals should accept responsibility for their actions and not have a way to shun responsibility through abortion. If you don't want a kid don't have sex. If you are impregnated against your will or your pregnancy is causing long term medical issues or death then the option should be available.

Before my actual understanding that I will not get 100% of what I wanted I would not vote for anyone that was not pro-life as that was the closest to my own ideals as I was able to achieve. Now, I look more at the candidates natural ability, intelligence, and the big issues that have a real affect on America and not issues that have an emotional affect on me.

Seriously?

[geekoid]

"U.S. would likely lead the rest of the world to follow suit "

I think you mean follow, since a large majority of the world already does this.

surprise, more nuclear ignorance spewing forth from Oregon.

Not like the average politician...

[Arthur B.]

much worse apparently. He has what it takes to be a nice little tyran.

Dumbocrap?

[Anonymous Coward]

yawn

Re:Thanks for answering my questions

[chaotoroboto]

If you go re-read the question, the question was really "Are you an objectivist?" and Novick's answer was No. So it would make sense for someone who is an ideological voter, and whose ideology is objectivism, to vote against Novick.

Re:Thanks for answering my questions

[Erioll]

He didn't say he didn't like that he answered them clearly, he seems to be indicating that he doesn't agree with the answers. What's wrong with having a different opinion on matters? It isn't who answers the most eloquently, it's who has the answer closest to what you agree with! So why attack the OP on not liking the answers given?

What the heck?

[JayTech]

As I pledged on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina last year...

What the heck does Hurricane Katrina have to do with anything? Sounds like just another politician pandering for votes.

Re:What the heck?

[PotatoFarmer]

What the heck does Hurricane Katrina have to do with anything? Sounds like just another politician pandering for votes.

Well, the answer was in reference to the current lack of oversight with regard to political appointees. Given the FEMA response to Katrina, I'd say it was an appropriate comment.

I think that's backwards...

[Xenographic]

> That the legislature blocked it is a good thing: universal health care does no one any good if everyone is broke.

And what good is money if you're dead?

Re:I think that's backwards...

[pudge]

That the legislature blocked it is a good thing: universal health care does no one any good if everyone is broke. And what good is money if you're dead? Everyone dies without universal health care?

Huh. I didn't know that!

Re:I think that's backwards...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone dies.

Re:I think that's backwards...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Everyone dies without universal health care?

Actually, it's more like they end up sick or dead AND poor. Socialized health care is cheaper, unless you're trying to avoid health care entirely.

But the other AC is correct, of course, that we all die eventually. Oh, and please drop the "I" pay for it bit from elsewhere. The rest of us pay taxes, too!

Re:I think that's backwards...

[pudge]

> Everyone dies without universal health care?

Actually, it's more like they end up sick or dead AND poor. Um.

Everyone?

Because most people in this country are not sick or dead AND poor. And yet we don't have universal health care. So ... I'll disagree that without universal health care, everyone winds up sick or dead AND poor.

Socialized health care is cheaper Nope. I will absolutely pay more for my health care under any socialized health care plan.

Oh, and please drop the "I" pay for it bit from elsewhere. The rest of us pay taxes, too! No, I won't drop it. It is accurate and meaningful.

Re:I think that's backwards...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Oh, and please drop the "I" pay for it bit from elsewhere. The rest of us pay taxes, too!

> No, I won't drop it. It is accurate and meaningful.

I'm saying it should be WE pay taxes. Because the implication that the rest of us (WE disjoint from I) is flat-out wrong.

> Nope. I will absolutely pay more for my health care under any socialized health care plan.

This is not borne out in practice by those countries which have implemented it. So I guess I should say "poorer" then.

Note that I recommend socializing insurance, NOT health care. Please get that straight, too, or you'll start quoting me Canada's troubles without realizing that their system is bad.

> Because most people in this country are not sick or dead AND poor. And yet we don't have universal health care. So ... I'll disagree that without universal health care, everyone winds up sick or dead AND poor.

You pay for all the people who don't have insurance, but only emergency care, and you do this whether you want to or not. No, they're not going to just start turning people away. And sooner or later, everyone DOES wind up sick, though (and dead, for that matter). Even the responsible can be bankrupted by a layoff + illness. That's why full coverage is so important.

We COULD have a decent system. We COULD have better care, cheaper. We COULD still allow those with money to try experimental treatments and whatnot. We COULD save lives.

But money is more important, right? That's why we need to get rid of the "entitlements" and it will be so much cheaper when we have all those sick & desperate people in the streets who can't even get emergency care... I know that'll turn out great! Screw the Star Trek-like future, I want to live in a world more like Shadowrun!

Re:I think that's backwards...

[pudge]

Oh, and please drop the "I" pay for it bit from elsewhere. The rest of us pay taxes, too! No, I won't drop it. It is accurate and meaningful. I'm saying it should be WE pay taxes. Because the implication that the rest of us (WE disjoint from I) is flat-out wrong. No such implication exists. I pay for it. So do you.

Nope. I will absolutely pay more for my health care under any socialized health care plan. This is not borne out in practice by those countries which have implemented it. False.

Note that I recommend socializing insurance, NOT health care. The former would result in the latter, inevitably.

Because most people in this country are not sick or dead AND poor. And yet we don't have universal health care. So ... I'll disagree that without universal health care, everyone winds up sick or dead AND poor. You pay for all the people who don't have insurance, but only emergency care, and you do this whether you want to or not. No, they're not going to just start turning people away. And sooner or later, everyone DOES wind up sick, though (and dead, for that matter). Even the responsible can be bankrupted by a layoff + illness. That's why full coverage is so important. So you change the subject by bringing up something completely irrelevant to anything I've said, and in doing so, you introduce a question-begging fallacy, assuming that the only way to protect people from bankruptcy is full coverage.

We COULD have a decent system. We COULD have better care, cheaper. We COULD still allow those with money to try experimental treatments and whatnot. We COULD save lives.

But money is more important, right? No. LIBERTY is more important, though. And any system you have that does not respect liberty is unacceptable. Liberty is your STARTING point, not something you try to shoehorn in after the fact.

Big Brother vs Big Brother

[Archangel Michael]

I'd really like to discover what makes Federal Laws about Marijuana (medical or otherwise) "Big Brother" while Universal Health Care isn't ever referred to that way?

Quite frankly, IMHO, being in support of Medical Marijuana and opposed to federal laws against it, while being for Universal Health Care, and all the laws that will end up being created to support it, is an hypocritical stand.

Being Libertarian, I'm for legalization of drugs (and taxing the crap out of them), and opposed to Universal ______, that requires assaultive taxation of the people.

All Forced Taxes are assaultive, and ultimately require the use of force (or threats of force) and have guns pointed at the head of everyone. Until people realize that taking money, by force or threat of force, is an assault, people (well intentioned or not) will continue to propose increasingly more Big Brother laws to take from others what they want for themselves, using the force and will of government to do it.

Call me a nut case, but I'd rather have Liberty than Universal Health Care and the slavery to the government and politicians it will necessarily create.

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

There must be some decent-sized chunk of America somewhere that's completely undeveloped, that we can designate "Libertarian Land", and everyone who doesn't want to pay any taxes whatsoever can go there.

There'll be fences, of course, but once inside you can decide to chip in (or not) for the local fire department, if anyone chooses to start one, and build and maintain your own roads, and pay for as much of a police force as you personally want to have protecting you (or not, if you have a few Uzis and an armor-plated house that you never leave).

If you run a business, you can charge whatever you want, and do whatever you want to the competition, but don't come crying to Mommy when your competition does likewise back to you -- Mommy'll probably blow you away by accident when you knock on the door.

If you're doing well, you'll have your armed guards, etc., who can pick off the poor people who might try to climb the fence of your compound -- they won't have many other options but to turn to crime, but hey, sucks to be them.

I'm exaggerating, perhaps... but so far everything I've read about the kind of Libertarianism you're talking about (no "forced" taxes?) sound interesting but would be absolute hell in practice for a whole lot of unfortunate people.

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[Zephyr14z]

Here in the US, we have (in theory) a government of the people, for the people, etc. For the people. The government exists to serve us, the citizens. Wasting billions trying to enforce prohibition isn't serving us, so I think they should stop. On the other hand, extending medical care to all of its citizens, regardless of class, would be serving the people, and thus is OK. The issue isn't nearly as complicated or contradictory as you seem to think it is.

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me a nut case

Nut case.

I think what is ignored by some libertarians is the fact that, while having complete and total liberty may seem quite nice and wonderful, unfortunately it is an unstable situation. Given enough liberty, someone (a dictator, corporation, etc.) will be able to gather enough power to restrict the liberty of others. This is why we have democratic government: we give power to an organization in exchange for the ability to choose its leadership and the assurance that it will fend off other power-grabbers.

As for the case of social programs like universal health care, they serve as a trade-off between "pure" liberty that libertarians seek and the personal liberty that comes from having health.

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[Archangel Michael]

I live in the US. Government was designed to be limited and according to the Constitution, was to provide for the common defense, and promote general welfare. Not the other way around. Very defined, and contrary to what your opinion is.

Besides, what you offered up is nothing more than opinion. Wasting Billions (in your opinion) on the Drug War may not be a "waste" to someone else. So, please define what a "waste" is in broad enough terms to cover anything you deem a "waste" of money.

I'll use your own definition on the very same things you probably support. Go ahead, try it. I dare you.

BTW, I agree that wasting billions on prohibition isn't serving us, because by definition it is costing us more than it serves us. On the other hand, if we made all the illegal vices legal, and taxed the crap out of them we'd have all the money needed to fund all the goofy projects (UHC). The problem with this is "progressives" think that it is "regressive" to have the stupid people pay for their stupidity.

That and it doesn't fit their "stick it to the man" agenda. (which they never realize is sticking it to themselves).

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[brsmith4]

I don't see universal health care and medical marijuana laws as being at all similar. I mean, in one, you are criminalizing, at the federal level, some substance. In the other, you are collecting tax to guarantee rights to an acceptable level of a public service (medicine). This is akin to military spending, IMHO. Honestly, I think that states should be required to implement universal health care programs along the lines of single payer. This, of course, occurs after the elimination of personal and corporate income taxes (at the federal level) in favor of a vat/fairtax-ish system to pay for federal and state services... none of which appears likely to ever happen.

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[Zephyr14z]

That's not in any way contrary to my opinion. Those are the things I think the government should do. Making sure the poor of our country can get medical attention is promoting general welfare. The reason I say we waste billions on the drug war is because there are no results seen from it. It's pretty much the definition of waste: using a lot of a resource for no, or insufficient gain. I support legalizing most vices and taxing them. We could be making money off drugs as a nation, instead of spending so much trying to get rid of something that the general population doesn't even really want gone. Somebody being poor is in way an indicator of intelligence or lack thereof. I do think people should pay for their own mistakes, but it's hardly a person's fault what parents they're born to, or what color their skin is.

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

No taxes in the USA are forced, as nobody is forcing you to live there.

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[plasmacutter]

I'd really like to discover what makes Federal Laws about Marijuana (medical or otherwise) "Big Brother" while Universal Health Care isn't ever referred to that way?

because both stances fall under this idea of respecting your fellow man's right to live how they like.. the operative word being live.
I dont mind the idea of being taxed 300 bucks more a month if everyone around me (including me) is provided with the health care which differentiates industrialized first world nations from third world hellholes. I don't mind giving up a little money for the sake of the general welfare.. namely human LIVES.

Apparently you do not.

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd really like to discover what makes Federal Laws about Marijuana (medical or otherwise) "Big Brother" while Universal Health Care isn't ever referred to that way?

Anti-marijuana laws take something away from you, while Universal Health Cares gives you something for "free." I don't know many people who refuse something for free, but those same people would be upset with having to give away something they want.

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

Being Libertarian, I'm for legalization of drugs (and taxing the crap out of them), and opposed to Universal ______, that requires assaultive taxation of the people.

Excessive taxes are only justified to recoup negative externalities not already captured in the price. If you are "taxing the crap out of" something, the question is "why?". Is it to

a) decreases imports (minimize consumption) of that item or raise taxes of that item (maximize tax revenue)?
b) pay for net externalities or to punish the users (tobacco smokers)?

"Being Libertarian" you should never be for "taxing the crap out of" anything. Taxes - as evils - should be minimal and rational whenever possible. If it is punitive, please punish someone who is not a citizen (Slave Labor Imports, Inc.). Ideally, taxes should generate the maximum necessary revenue for minimum cost such that cottage industries of lawyers and accountants need not grow up around them.

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Hilarious. Do you do stand-up?

If I am in the US, and do not pay taxes, I am sent to prison or forced to leave. No force, you say?

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me a nut case, but I'd rather have Liberty than Universal Health Care and the slavery to the government and politicians it will necessarily create. Nut case. You are suffering from paranoid delusions. Ask anyone who lives in a country that already has universal health care.

Re:Big Brother vs Big Brother

[Archangel Michael]

"It's pretty much the definition of waste: using a lot of a resource for no, or insufficient gain."

I'll take that definition, and apply it to the Welfare System and all other social programs. After all these years, the war on Poverty has cost us way more than the war on drugs, and has produced little, if any, measurable results. In fact, I dare suggest that welfare has been the greater of the two boondoggles.

And speaking of color of skin, IMHO, welfare has cause more harm to black people in America than just about anything else, by destroying the black family. Especially when mom doesn't really know who daddy is, which isn't necessarily a black problem, see Anna Nicole Smith's baby for example). However rich Anna's estate could afford the paternity tests necessary to prove paternity, while most poor single black women can't.

It has less to do with brains and more to do with core values. When you define values by the exceptions, then exceptions become the norm, while real values are pushed to the side. Single mothers used to be an exception, now they are the rule. This can't be good for the kids, unless you think that men are irrelevant, almost unnecessary biological holdovers of a paternalist age. And yes, I've heard of men being spoken of exactly that way.

Why I can't respect Democrats over the war

[Sloppy]

The war has been extremely challenging for our party, given many Democrats' .. fear that they will be attacked for not supporting the troops if they stand strong on demanding an end to it.

This isn't the first time I've heard someone say that. And it's so utterly ridiculous. If Democrats are attacked for "not supporting the troops" by

1. moving the troops to a safer place
2. using the troops to protect the security of America rather than the security of Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Israel (something that would likely appeal the ideals of many soldiers who signed up on the assumption that they would get to serve their country, as opposed to serving someone else's country)

then Democrats should laugh the attack off. Debating whether or not having American troops in Iraq happens to protect America is one thing. But debating how the strategic use of troops relates to the degree the troops are "supported" is another thing, and it's utterly preposterous. It's not just wrong; it's not even serious or credible or sincere. The accusation does not deserve respect.

That they harbor so much fear, and apparently do respect such an absurd stance, makes Democrats look like sniveling cowards. And by selling out their own conscience and the troops' interest, in order to address those fears, they become guilty of the very charge they wish to defend themselves from. It's a fucking disgrace to equate "supporting the troops" to "supporting the war" and anyone who does that, should be viewed as a troop-hater.

And that doesn't mean I'm against the war (although I do happen to be). The wisdom of the war is an utterly different issue. Being in the war to Look Strong, though, is a bad reason to do it. That isn't merely a strategic mistake; it's an ethical mistake.

If democrats want to be taken seriously, then the whole "support the troops" issue needs to come off the table immediately, except perhaps in contexts of VA funding, etc.

Re:Why I can't respect Democrats over the war

[Anonymous Coward]

While I can't respect the Democrats for not standing up to end the war DESPITE the accusations that they are not supporting the troops, it does not take away the fact that those accusations are there. You seem to have no concept on politics if you think they can just "laugh the attack off". The accusations of course does not make sense when you think through it logically, but making sense logically is not as important to the attack as tugging on the emotions of the people listening. Most of the right-wing attacks, and basically Bush's whole platform, is based on using vague and emotional buzz words and phrases to manipulate voters. If it is the first time you have heard that accusation, then you evidently have not heard any Republican speeches or debates.

As for the rest though, the Democrats have been a complete disgrace in their failure to stand up against the war regardless of the attacks and accusations the pro-war lobby might throw at them. If that is their 'reason', it just proves they care more about their political power than the lives of the many soldiers and civilians that being lost, and that is unacceptable.

Re:Why I can't respect Democrats over the war

[Cocy]

Firstly, let me preface this by saying that I am SICK of non-troops speaking FOR the troops. We have voices of our own, are largely not afraid
to use them, and don't need political interests, armchair generals/politicians, or professional protesters to speak for us. Ever.

Don't begin to speculate about the ideals of the troops if you haven't been through what any person in the armed forces has gone through. You don't know what our ideals are, regardless of how many books you've read, or TV specials you've watched. You, therefore, cannot begin to speak as to what would "appeal" to us, since you lack the knowledge of our motivations, or the understanding of what it is to -serve our country-. What so many people fail to understand (among so many things) is that we serve our country if they tell us to go and stand outside of some Iraqi family's home as a deterrent, or if they tell us to come home and sit at a desk and file inventory reports. We go where the nation's leaders tell us to go, because no one else will, and we do it understanding that we've effectively written our country a blank check for an amount up to and including our lives. We will serve our country's order's regardless if Bush is in office, or if Clinton is in office. If they tell us to fight, we fight. If they tell us to come home, we come home. If one of us isn't there, then there'll be someone in our place, and what right do we have to say our own life is worth saving more than person that'll be standing in my place if I'm not?

Along with the above, I also find it utterly ridiculous when someone says someone else is selling out our interests. I'm not suicidal, but I'm willing to give my life. I didn't -volunteer- (it's an all volunteer service, remember) to stay at home, be back every night by 6pm, tucked into my cozy bed every evening, with weekends and holidays off. We know what we were doing when we signed that check. Sure, there are some people that are too pathetic to bear that responsibility, and I'm sure you've heard these people on various media outlets, crying about how they suddenly have to do something more than 2 weekends a month of military work, or professing one way or another about how this isn't what they signed up for. Well, it is, and if you think that those people are speaking for the "troops interests" any more than the sidelines are, then I suppose there's just no reasoning left to be done.

Won't work

[jgc7]

I have proposed specific measures to control costs -- like limiting drug companies' tax deductions for direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs
Drug companies aren't getting any special subsidies, they expense marketing costs like every other company. This has been suggested before, and it won't work. There is a 1st Amendment problem. If you do succeed in passing this, it will get overturned in the courts and probably have the unintended consequence of allowing more ads, not less. Nice try, no cigar.

Re:Won't work

[TheSync]

Drug companies aren't getting any special subsidies

Even if they did, prescription drug costs are only 10% of health care costs. Most of your health care dollar goes to US doctors and nurses who make 50%-100% more than the OECD average.

Re:Thanks for answering my questions

[Kazrath]

The original person I replied to was marked troll. For what ever reason on the main page w/o showing the parent to my reply it appears I replied to a person who is not whom I replied to.

Your responses to my first post would be 100% sound if I replied to him with my comment. I made the choice "Not" to mark the recipient of the 10th question as a troll and instead make a response to him. Someone else marked him as a troll :( Please hit "parent" on my first post to better frame my response.

Thanks

Candor...

[BoogeyOfTheMan]

First off, thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. But mostly I would like to thank you for the way in which you answered them. Truthfully and in-depth. Now I definately do not agree with you on everything, and I'm a R, not a D, but if I lived in OR I would vote for you.

You seem like the kind of guy who cares more about facts than party lines. The kind of guy who may not have a plan, but will be honest about not having one and realistic about what it can accomplish when you do formulate a plan. You also seem to be the kind of person who is willing to re-assess your stance as more research/facts come to light, instead of just blindly sticking with it. Which is why I would vote for you. I know I dont know everything, so while I dont think federal health care is a good idea, I dont know all the details. And most importantly, you seem like the kind of leader I would trust to weigh the facts on the issue. So if it turns out to be impossible to do, I beleive you are honest enough to scrap the idea and admit its not feasable. On that same issue, if it turns out you are right, I would be more likely to take your word for it than any other politician pushing for it.

Better Healtcare Plan

[mlund]

Stop giving exclusive tax incentives for insurance to Employers.

Give the full capacity to purchase medical insurance to the Citizens - not the businesses.

Right now, even if you entered an identical pool of insured individuals, you'd have to pay through the nose compared to what you would through your employer with the same pool. That's because businesses get tax incentives for providing insurance to employees while private citizens trying to purchase insurance themselves (even in groups) have access to an over-priced, second-class market.

That's completely unacceptable.

Private citizens have formed groups that purchase Life Insurance at reasonable prices for over a hundred years in this country - even in hostile environments. Look at the Knights of Columbus Life Insurance program some time. Health Insurance should have the same competitive market, but it does not. Prices are higher and choices poorer due to Government Interference in the first place. More Government Interference isn't going to fix it. It will just give bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians more power over the citizenry and give incumbent hacks something to trumpet as "evidence" that they "feel your pain."

What's the relevance?

[Call Me Black Cloud]

A candidate for Senate from Oregon? Why is this significant to the larger Slashdot community?

Re:What's the relevance?

[zoobaby]

It's all part of Oregon's plan to rule the world! Of course we are starting here, with the /. community. It has the best and brightest....

Re:What's the relevance?

[rjamestaylor]

What's the relevance?

He had a successful YouTube video. That's the relevance.

Sadly.

Re:Thanks for answering my questions

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"What is the base of your opinion?"

His answers to my questions.

"He answered your question very well..."

To me, it seems like he skipped over everything else in my statement and pulled the questions out of context, answering them independently of the rest of my statement. Maybe he just disagreed with the rest of my statement, but he should at least have addressed it. What my question basically said was: "Most politicians use legislation violating peoples' rights to help corrupt companies, in exchange for financial support", and he responded by listing off a variety of rights-violating legislation he would like to see passed.

"But what right do you have forcing your opinions down someone else's throat?"

Whose throat am I forcing my opinion down?

Re:Thanks for answering my questions

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

If labels are what works for you, feel free to throw them around, but you'll usually find that although it is easy to label someone, you end up make assumptions about that person that are incorrect. My question was really "are you willing to violate the rights of your constituents and the rest of the public", and his answer was "yes".

Doctors Rights?

[dunc78]

I have a similar problem as the GP. Giving somebody an absolute right (healthcare in this case), deprives somebody else (a doctor for example) of their rights. By saying that everybody is entitled to healthcare you have said that a doctor does not have the right to set his/her fees. Instead, decisions made by the government will mandate what the doctor does. If I were looking for a profession, I would not want to enter such a profession.

Maybe the congress-people should go to medical school in their spare time so they can provide for the general welfare of the populace.

Re:Doctors Rights?

[Shakrai]

If I were looking for a profession, I would not want to enter such a profession.

If that's the way you feel then don't go into that profession. Problem solved. But don't pretend that various professions don't come with some sort of reduction in your rights.

Police Officers/Soldiers don't generally have the right to abandon their posts during times of emergency. Doctors don't generally have the right to refuse to lend treatment during similar times. Lawyers can be forced to retain clients they might not otherwise wish to represent. Individual citizens don't generally have the right to refuse to serve on a Jury or refuse to testify.

Re:Doctors Rights?

[dunc78]

I believe Police Officers/Soldiers present different circumstances, as it is basically their job to be present at times of emergency. As far as Lawyers, which Lawyers besides Public Defenders have to retain a client that they don't wish to represent? If you only refer to Public Defenders, then that is fine, have Public Physicians. Once you create Public Physicians, I predict complaints about unequal quality of care almost immediately. I do not intend to convey that this is a simple problem; however, it is a slippery slope, and when compelling arguments exist on both sides of a topic, I prefer to go with the side that requires less government intervention.

Re:Doctors Rights?

[VJ42]

I have a similar problem as the GP. Giving somebody an absolute right (healthcare in this case), deprives somebody else (a doctor for example) of their rights. By saying that everybody is entitled to healthcare you have said that a doctor does not have the right to set his/her fees. Instead, decisions made by the government will mandate what the doctor does. If I were looking for a profession, I would not want to enter such a profession.

Maybe the congress-people should go to medical school in their spare time so they can provide for the general welfare of the populace.

I live in the UK where we have universal healthcare; but we have a mixed economy, so private healthcare is available for those who wish to pay for it. If he so wishes a doctor could work purely in the private sector and set his own rates. The way it actually works is that many doctors work most of their time in the National Health Service and do private work as well.

These is no reason a similar system couldn't be arranged on your side of the pond so that doctors can keep their rights.

Re:Thanks for answering my questions

[T.E.D.]

If you are impregnated against your will or your pregnancy is causing long term medical issues or death then the option should be available.

I would argue that this is actually a pro-choice opinion too. The chief difference comes in whether you think that the final decision on the appropriateness of this option should rest with the woman whose life this directly effects, or with a relatively disinterested government.

Re:Universal Health Care and REAL costs

[trolltalk.com]

Most of the research on drugs is being done in cooperation with universities. Guess who reaps the payback? The drug co, not the uni, even though universities get some of their funding from the public.

Also, research costs are not the reason for high drug costs. for every $1 spent on research, they spend $4 on those stupid ads you see on TV.

In other words, you're paying already. You're paying to help run the universities that do the research, you're paying at the counter for the misleading advertising to convince you to push your doctor to prescribe a specific drug rather than letting him or her exercise their professional judgment and experience, you're paying to run your HMO bureaucracy, and you STILL have to pay for the indigent, the working poor, etc.

Baseline is everything

[jd]

In the end, sick people produce nothing and cost lots in lost productivity and lost knowledge. Poor nutrition in schools cost children their minds - quite literally. The brain can only build from certain foods and is disrupted or damaged by others. Lost minds, lost money.

Why the emphasis on money? Because not even nothing is free. Nothing is one of the most expensive commodities out there. Reducing costs is stupid, if it leads to reduced return. You want the best return for the cost, for each individual and for the group as a whole, which requires careful and judicious social intervention. Hands-off approaches are disasters in the making and, frankly, I can find nothing clever about libertarian idealism. However, heavy-handedness is just as stupid. Swiss watchmakers should be considered far better role-models than sumo wrestlers.

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

In the end, sick people produce nothing and cost lots in lost productivity and lost knowledge. Poor nutrition in schools cost children their minds - quite literally. The brain can only build from certain foods and is disrupted or damaged by others. Lost minds, lost money. None of this has anything to do with anything I've ever said. I am not sure why you think it does. I never said we should not have good nutrition in schools. I never said we shouldn't try to make sick people well.

Reducing costs is stupid, if it leads to reduced return No, it depends on how much return is reduced. A 90 percent reduction for a 5 percent reduced return is probably GREAT. A 90 percent return for 90 percent reduction would be terrible.

You want the best return for the cost, for each individual and for the group as a whole ... True.

... which requires careful and judicious social intervention. False.

Hands-off approaches are disasters in the making False.

and, frankly, I can find nothing clever about libertarian idealism. Cleverness is not my goal.

Re:Baseline is everything

[Anonymous Coward]

I never said we shouldn't try to make sick people well.

Speak for yourself, you stupid communist pinko. Making sick people well is the job of health care professionals. If you don't think that we shouldn't make sick people well, then you do think that we should make sick people well. Only liberty-hating fools like you think that "we" have the right to tell health care professionals what they "should" do.

In the true land of liberty, the only responsibility health care providers have to poor people is to throw their bodies in the dumpster behind the hospital each morning, so that the stench doesn't bother the paying customers.

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

I never said we shouldn't try to make sick people well. Speak for yourself Yes, that is what "I never said" implies. KTHX.

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

Exactly. People who love liberty are proud to say we should not force health care providers to make sick people well. People who love liberty are proud to say we do not force anyone to do anything, unless they have violated someone else's rights and have earned punishment deserving of the use of force.

It's obvious to all of us that you're trying to weasel out of your own words. Which words would those be? In fact, no such thing is true, and you are, typically, just making things up. Yawn.

Since you've never said that we shouldn't make sick people well, it's obvious that you hate liberty and love to force health care providers into a life of indentured servitude. Nope. That is an illogical train of thought, for many reasons, the most obvious of which is that not saying something does not imply anything, but further, just because I do believe we should make sick people well does nothing to imply that I believe it is government's job to do it, let alone to force anyone else to do it. Try again!

You are a communist. False, of course.

Re:Baseline is everything

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe we should make sick people well

What sort of constrains on my precious, precious liberty do you plan to impose by force in order to implement this unnatural desire of yours?

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

I do believe we should make sick people well What sort of constrains on my precious, precious liberty do you plan to impose by force in order to implement this unnatural desire of yours? It's not unnatural, and I would impose absolutely nothing on anyone. It's sad that you would assume otherwise.

Re:Baseline is everything

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand. When you say, "I do believe we should make sick people well", you don't actually mean that anyone has any responsibility to make sick people well.

You're just saying empty words without thinking about what they mean.

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

I understand. False.

When you say, "I do believe we should make sick people well", you don't actually mean that anyone has any responsibility to make sick people well. False.

You're just saying empty words without thinking about what they mean. False; that, is, in fact, what YOU are doing. For example, yu incorrectly and unthinkingly assume "responsibility" means "government should enforce it."

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

Government is only of one of the methods that communists like you use to force people to do things you think they "should" do. Yawn. Except, of course, that I do not favor force of any kind.

you have a million sneaky ways to enforce compliance with your unnatural wishes. Liar.

Re:Baseline is everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, of course, that I do not favor force of any kind.

False.

Liar.

False.

True lovers of liberty know that we don't decide who "should" be treated. Any decision on who should be treated is between the health care provider and the patient. The health care provider can refuse treatment to anyone for any reason. One big reason that health care costs so much is because the government forces hospital emergency rooms to treat poor people. That destroys liberty, and the Tenth Amendment says the government has no power to infringe on the rights of doctors to throw poor people out on the street.

You think sick people "should" be treated because you are a communist.

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

Liar. False. Shrug. Prove it. Show an example where I "like you use to force people to do things you think they 'should' do."

True lovers of liberty know that we don't decide who "should" be treated. False. We do not decide who anyone should be FORCED to treat. Not the same thing.

You think sick people "should" be treated because you are a communist. Yawn. You are lying by claiming my "should" implies any type of force.

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

Show an example where I "like you use to force people to do things you think they 'should' do." Nothing else you say matters until you back up your primary assertion.

Re:Baseline is everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Show an example where I "like you use to force people to do things you think they 'should' do."

You have said sick people should be treated. You have not provided an alternative definition for "should", therefore you are using the standard english definition. The standard english definition of "should" is "used to express an obligation or duty." Therefore, you are claiming that health care providers have an obligation or duty to treat sick people.

You are not a health care provider. Therefore, you are not exercising your personal liberty to freely accept an obligation or duty on yourself. Instead, you imposing an obligation or duty on someone who is not yourself. You are limiting the liberty of another person through coercion. All limitations of liberty through coercion are only be successful with the implied threat of force or violence.

Either you mean "sick people should be treated" and mean to successfully enforce it through threats of force and violence, or you are just blowing out empty meaningless words.

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

Show an example where I "like you use to force people to do things you think they 'should' do." You have said sick people should be treated. Mostly accurate.

You have not provided an alternative definition for "should", therefore you are using the standard english definition. The standard english definition of "should" is "used to express an obligation or duty." Fair enough.

Therefore, you are claiming that health care providers have an obligation or duty to treat sick people. False. I am claiming no such thing. Indeed, I am only claiming an obligation on myself, and no one else.

you are not exercising your personal liberty to freely accept an obligation or duty on yourself. False.

You are not a health care provider. Therefore, you are not exercising your personal liberty to freely accept an obligation or duty on yourself. False. Yes, I am not a health care provider, for the most part, but I am capable of helping people to get the health care they need.

You are limiting the liberty of another person through coercion. False.

All limitations of liberty through coercion are only be successful with the implied threat of force or violence. Correct, and I did no such thing, and you have utterly failed to show otherwise.

Either you mean "sick people should be treated" and mean to successfully enforce it through threats of force and violence, or you are just blowing out empty meaningless words. False.

Re:Baseline is everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore, you are claiming that health care providers have an obligation or duty to treat sick people.

False. I am claiming no such thing. Indeed, I am only claiming an obligation on myself, and no one else.

Then you you're not using the standard english definition of "should". You're using your own definition, which means whatever you think you want it to mean.

False. Yes, I am not a health care provider, for the most part, but I am capable of helping people to get the health care they need.

Since you have declared that you have an obligation to provide health for sick people, and you have claimed that you have the ability to help sick people get the health care they need, why have you not helped Mr. Ben Smith at 555 Running Brook Lane, Scranton Ohio? He has a very bad cold, and he might even have bronchitis.

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

Then you you're not using the standard english definition of "should". False. Nothing you've said shows that.

Since you have declared that you have an obligation to provide health for sick people So you admit you were wrong that I used a nonstandard definition.

Re:Baseline is everything

[Anonymous Coward]

False. Nothing you've said shows that.

False. You said that when you claim something "should" be done, you are claiming an obligation on yourself, and no one else. Therefore, you are using a nonstandard definition of "should".

So you admit you were wrong that I used a nonstandard definition.

False. You said that when you claim something "should" be done, you are claiming an obligation on yourself, and no one else. Therefore, you are using a nonstandard definition of "should".

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

You said that when you claim something "should" be done, you are claiming an obligation on yourself, and no one else. Correct.

Therefore, you are using a nonstandard definition of "should". You are completely making that up. That has no basis of any kind.

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

Buy a dictionary, dipshit. Shrug. I know you read a dictionary, but the problem is, you don't know how to read it. Nothing you quoted disagrees with my usage. You are wrong, as expected.

your half-baked, poorly thought out political philosophy I have no such philosophy, and you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that I do, as expected. What is actually true is that you do not understand my philosophy, and you are scared of it, and therefore you lash out ignorantly at it.

Your ignorance is boring.

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

Pudge, your philosophy is exactly the same as a muslim terrorist or a socialist eco-nut False.

you've discovered the real truth, and everyone who disagrees is just too stupid or scared to understand That is, in fact, not my view at all.

You've wrapped your philosophy in a thin layer of poorly-understood libertarianism False.

deep down you share exactly the same philosophy as every other self-righteous asshole in the world. False.

You are, in fact, quite ignorant.

Re:Baseline is everything

[pudge]

You keep talking after everyone else has given up Pot, kettle, yadda yadda.

Serious response to a joke question

[benwaggoner]

Well, I was just making a joke, but you're making some interesting points there I'll respond to.

Certainly, there are huge costs to providing high quality medical care no matter the delivery mechanism. But we also see a big differential between the cost of delivering medical care in the USA and single payer countries.

You suggest this is because a much bigger portion of our medical costs goes to R&D for drugs and other stuff. Could be true, but it seems like we could be able to quantify it, and better yet, fund them differently. We already know how to fund medical research in this country as a seperate budget item; no reason we couldn't fund each sepertely to track the real cost of health care delivery.

The cost differential between our system and other countries comparied to the differential in outcomes is so huge I can't imagine it wouldn't be cheaper to just fund R&D directly than indirectly through higher costs.

Re:Serious response to a joke question

[sumdumass]

Well, I was just making a joke, but you're making some interesting points there I'll respond to.

I'm sorry I didn't recognize the joke. This area has been a little pet peeve of mine for a while now. I actually know people who think that government health wouldn't cost them anything more then they are paying right now. It would be life as usual except that they wouldn't have to pay the doctor.

Certainly, there are huge costs to providing high quality medical care no matter the delivery mechanism. But we also see a big differential between the cost of delivering medical care in the USA and single payer countries.

Sure we see a difference in costs. However this difference isn't in anything they do differently now, it is in what they have done in the past to curb expenses while the medical costs where skyrocketing. Things like not paying the doctors and nurses enough to attract new workers (Canada) or to shift part of the burden back to private companies in order to not have to deal with excess costs of meeting demand (Australia). There are more countries I can list and what they have done too. But the point is that they limited the increases in costs, not the cost. They started years ago when the cost of providing medical was cheaper and controlled the increases. But like I listed before, those controls have a negetive effect. In Canada, unless you live in a major city, you will only have in MRI machine serving large distanced communities and there is a wait for their use. In america, not on city is less then 30 minutes away from at least one MRI machine if not more. The waits are calculated in hours not days or weeks.

You suggest this is because a much bigger portion of our medical costs goes to R&D for drugs and other stuff. Could be true, but it seems like we could be able to quantify it, and better yet, fund them differently. We already know how to fund medical research in this country as a seperate budget item; no reason we couldn't fund each sepertely to track the real cost of health care delivery.

Not really. I was suggesting that other countries save costs by not investing in medical R&D. It is a significant costs which in both cases is highly funded by tax dollars. So other countries shifted taxes from one point to another which decreased the cost of providing medical coverage compared to what we already pay. This is only one of many ways the other countries have been able to reduce costs so you can say other countries are cheaper. That isn't something I think most Americans would be willing to forgo in order to slightly reduce the costs of medical coverage.

The cost differential between our system and other countries comparied to the differential in outcomes is so huge I can't imagine it wouldn't be cheaper to just fund R&D directly than indirectly through higher costs.

A good portion of the medical research uses tax dollars already. But if you limit the research to tax funded programs, you will be subjecting yourself to a system riddles with political influence. Take the MRI machines I mentioned about Canada on earlier. It was a political decision to who got how many and how close they are. They took an arbitrary number and chose to draw maps of population similarly to how Gerrymandering works in the US and you the consumer was stuck with it.

In the US, the machines are already in place, we are stuck with using them and paying for them. If we went to a socialized or single payer medical system, the best we can do is curb increased costs unless we are willing to force doctors and nurses along with other medical staff to take a cut in pay, Force companies providing services to only make an allotted profit, and so on. That would destroy our medical industry and probably whats left of the economy as well. It would get severely worse before anything resembled better. No one has introduce any plans that would indicate otherwise.

Re:Serious response to a joke question

[benwaggoner]

Well, I think we're in agreement that the current semi-private insurance model isn't doing a good real-world job of reducing costs. I guess it's becuase we're not going to have a real liquid market, since drugs aren't really commiditized until they're generic.

Given the uniqueness of health-care, a fully market-based solution seems implausible. So the question is what's the right way to run it.

Re:Serious response to a joke question

[sumdumass]

Given the uniqueness of health-care, a fully market-based solution seems implausible. So the question is what's the right way to run it.

One of the problems, and I think you might agree, is that it is easier to point out flaws and problems then it is fixes. I seriously don't think there will be a fix that doesn't make the situation far worse off before any benefits can be seen if it attempts to alter the current system. BUt even in the attempting to do this, we don't really have a good metric for evaluating our performance compared to other countries. If we go by dollars spent on costs per person, then we lose out automatically because we have a larger user base which requires replication of facilities and services. We also don't take into account canceled operations or procedures and waiting lists or how the government takes over personal decisions like the type of foods you can eat by imposing taxes on what it deems unhealthy. And yes, I did chose that story specifically because of the attitude.

With that being said, Government involvement is probably one of the biggest problems which is also the last thing we want to get rid of at this state. I heard some one suggest denying employment plans that lock employees into one plan because of bulk discounts and so on in order to promote competition in insurance companies which should lower costs. Maybe streamlining minimum coverage plans and allowing individual people add ala cart items to it. Perhaps a catastrophic plan that would cover instances where you would lose work for more then 3-5 days and so on. Reforming patents for drugs developed under tax payer funded research which might allow the patent for only 3 years instead of the 5 to 20 currently allowed (I'm pretty sure the 5 year patents are only for AIDS drugs). Getting the government out of directly insuring the elderly and poor with medicade and medicare if and only if no contract on it can be held more then 2-5 years and a minimum of 3-5 companies have to be used with at least two serving any given area. Limiting liability on malpractice suits while possibly at the same time giving criminal penalties similar to vehicular accidents.

I think that might be a start. It would clear up some of the major issues in a few years and force the restructuring of non-governmental related entities at their own pace which would match market necessity. Perhaps something along the lines of adding diseased persons who wouldn't lose work directly because of the disease to the new medicad/medicare roles for treatments of the diseases could assist too. Of course because of the nature of the budgeting and government, medicare/medicade would initially costs more because premiums would have to match everyone covered not just the current payouts for service. It would seem that getting government to a minimal role and letting the market play out along with maybe scholarships to increase the medical staffs of technicians, doctors, nurses and aids in order to cause a flood of competent workers and lower the wage increases a little.

Modeling after other country's system will cause issues like the ones raised in this article. It appears that the US isn't the only country seeing a slight recession or running a deficit and it is turning the model health care systems upside down.

Re:Universal Health Care and REAL costs

[sumdumass]

Yes, but there is more to medicine then just medicine. So lets take some of what you said and present is in a way that makes more sense. You are already paying for drug development, you are already paying for profits and advertising and all when you buy the stuff. How much of that is going to disappear if the government controlled medical? You would still be paying for the drug development, you would still be paying for the cost to inform doctors of the drug companies latest novel drugs. So at best, you would be almost even. All those problems can be fixed without having to have a socialized medicine. Public domain on research that uses public finding, perhaps limits to advertising of new and interesting drugs. All sorts of things through existing powers (FDA, FCC and so on.)

Now lets look at the HMO situation. Your paying for the risk of the other people at your provider. Right now, right or wrongly, they have a choice of either denying high risks or charging them more. So your volunteer subsidy is somewhat equalized by a lack of coverage or a increased premium from those likely to use the system more. With the automobile industry, rates increase enormously when companies had to provide coverage to a larger unrestricted pool of people. In some cases, you even lost coverage for increased payments and in most, you had to drop coverage to remain in a price point that was affordable. Nothing coming from the medical industry suggest that anything would be different. And yes, in a single payer system, they have to make a profit too. Otherwise, when the economy lapses, they will be running deficits just like the UK is right now. The good thing about the UK is that the rich can still goto private providers and jump past the poorer people and in essence shortening their waiting lists.

Australia has somewhat of a different system where it manages costs by allowing private companies provide for pay, some non emergency medical procedure in which you still need to buy an insurance policy to cover unless you have tons of money sitting around. But in any case, you are still paying for it. Nothing is free and that was my only real point outside of costs will go up because they have in almost every field that shares a likeness. Take Flood insurance, the federal government underwrites it now because of the costs increases and it is still too expensive for some people to pay it.

I don't think we are at odds that much. I actually think we are saying different things here.

Clearer View?

[fm6]

let's just say that if every candidate spoke out like Steve, we'd have a much clearer view of our choices and would be able to cast our votes a lot more rationally. Rob, do you get all your news from cable TV or what? Novick's answers are reasonably intelligent and straightforward (if I lived in Oregon he'd probably get my vote) but not more so than a lot of other politicos.

If you compare him to the sound byte cowboys on the political talk shows, he sounds like a genius. But the same can be said for my cat.

The link is in front of you...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I still find it fascinating that drug prices started skyrocketing when we allowed drug companies to advertise.

> You seem to think there is a link. What link is that?

The cost of advertising. Who do you think pays for it?

Re:The link is in front of you...

[pudge]

I still find it fascinating that drug prices started skyrocketing when we allowed drug companies to advertise. You seem to think there is a link. What link is that? The cost of advertising. Who do you think pays for it? No, that's not how advertising works. What usually pays for advertising is increased SALES, not increased PRICES. Else there would be no reason to advertise. Because increased prices means DEcreased sales.

Try again!

This guy needs mod points!

[plasmacutter]

I haven't seen something so well spoken in a long time, and always get my mod points on slow news days. If anyone has mod points to lend, please give for the common good.

And now, the libertarian flame.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get saved from dying in a fire by a publicly funded fire department.

Re:And now, the libertarian flame.

[pudge]

Get saved from dying in a fire by a publicly funded fire department. Introduce a red herring/straw man argument.