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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.;-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Try again!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Same thing with your public transportation and so on.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
... 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.