More change you can believe in.

[highfigh]

These are the conservatives you hear, but the minority party is always the loudest. The liberals think Obama is the savior of America. Most moderates think he's got great potential, but he's no saint either. He has helped our image abroad though and that needed bad repair.

I haven't heard a collective sigh of relief from anyone outside of the US. They're not stupid enough to think that Obama is any kind of long-term change, regardless of how he campaigned. They're taking a wait and see attitude, which is necessary to avoid jumping on the bandwagon of someone they don't know well. Immediately deciding that a new President is great (Nobel Prize notwithstanding) would definitely not be in their best interest, especially if he should go off the deep end in terms of radical ideas and actions. It doesn't matter which party the new President would be on, either- it's just too soon to make that kind of decision. Just saying "He's great because he's not Bush" isn't the right way to think that Obama is improving our image. Our allies with Bush in office are still our allies with Obama. Also, our image isn't bad only because of Bush, it's because of American attitudes and actions in general.

 

[highfigh]

I wouldn't be so hard on your own government - the US is still the most powerful nation on earth. You don't get and stay there by being completely incompetent. And, give Obama a chance - it's still early days in his administration. Lots of people are scared he's going to transform your country into something you don't want. From what I gather, the White House doesn't have nearly as much power over the government, as the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) has over ours.

IMO, it's always time to be hard on a government that has its own agenda and caters to lobbyists more than the citizens. The government is supposed to work for us but right now, the US government is the largest single employer in the country. That means we have to pay for all of those wages, benefits and programs that we don't necessarily agree with. Our government was framed so one branch can't become so powerful that they can't be removed in the event that they try to become all-powerful. The 22nd Amendment is specifically for preventing a monarchy and while many governments have commonalities, ours was designed to keep the American people from being ruled the way England ruled the Colonies. They way they're forcing programs, taxes and fees on us, the similarities are amazing. The difference is that now, the taxes stay on US soil.

Apparently, opposing high taxes is hereditary- one of my ancestors protested the tax rat in Rhode Island in the 1740s.

 

[JerryLove]

We need the fire departments for obvious reasons- private citizens don't have the resources to fight fires on a large scale. Add life-saving/EMS to that, and they're definitely a good thing to have. Police are needed because a large number of people can't control themselves, so they commit crimes that need to be investigated and when the suspect is caught, they need to be apprehended.

Interestinly, there are also a large number of sick and injured people, and citizens lack the resources to make drugs or fight epidemics or perform surgery on themselves.

So it sounds like healthcare would be another thing needed for obvious reasons.

 

[JerryLove]

IMO, it's always time to be hard on a government that has its own agenda and caters to lobbyists more than the citizens. The government is supposed to work for us but right now, the US government is the largest single employer in the country. That means we have to pay for all of those wages, benefits and programs that we don't necessarily agree with.

That would be the difference between anarchy (where all government activities are voulentary) and every other system.

Our government was framed so one branch can't become so powerful that they can't be removed in the event that they try to become all-powerful. The 22nd Amendment is specifically for preventing a monarchy

I would hardly call an amendment passed in 1947 as "framing".

Also, monarchs aren't elected: so term limits aren't relevent.

Then there's problems like Cheney-Rumsfield who were in power from Nixon to Bush Jr. It does nothing to stop that.

and while many governments have commonalities, ours was designed to keep the American people from being ruled the way England ruled the Colonies. They way they're forcing programs, taxes and fees on us, the similarities are amazing. The difference is that now, the taxes stay on US soil.

Yes. I belive the colonies had a rallying cry there.

Was it "no taxes"? No that wasn't it.

Ahh yes "no taxation without representation".

Was your vote taken away when I wasn't looking? It seems the problem is that you don't like who the people keep electing and what those representitives then do. I can understand that. I don't either. But putting false frames around the problems by calling them monarchies or taxation-without-representation will do nothing at all to fix them.

Apparently, opposing high taxes is hereditary- one of my ancestors protested the tax rat in Rhode Island in the 1740s.

Yes. Everyone wants the goverment to stop all spending on every project except the ones they benifit from.

But I say you start a protest. Show the government you don't need their invasive spending. Stop using the roads, and anything that uses government easment (power, water (unless you are on a well), sewage, the mail, the internet, etc).

 

[highfigh]

Interestinly, there are also a large number of sick and injured people, and citizens lack the resources to make drugs or fight epidemics or perform surgery on themselves.

So it sounds like healthcare would be another thing needed for obvious reasons.

I never said i t isn't needed. If you can show where I ever posted that, I'll eat my computer. I just don't think government can run it well, or efficiently.

 

[JerryLove]

I never said i t isn't needed. If you can show where I ever posted that, I'll eat my computer. I just don't think government can run it well, or efficiently.

I didn't say you said it wasn't needed. I showed it met the criteria for things you support government ownership of.

The only real-world evidence indicates that government-run healthcare systems are better and cheaper than private ones.

 

[Davemcc]

Interestinly, there are also a large number of sick and injured people, and citizens lack the resources to make drugs or fight epidemics or perform surgery on themselves.

So it sounds like healthcare would be another thing needed for obvious reasons.

Interestingly, citizens don't have the resources to build cars, homes, HT receivers or computers. I guess we should nationalize those too. In fact, some people don't have the wherewithal to make themselves dinner. Let's just forget about about private enterprise and put a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway. Think of all the profits that could be redistributed if the gov't ran the whole economy.

 

[Davemcc]

Well, here in Quebec the government sells electricity, alcohol and runs gambling casinos and all this money is redistributed. Again, I'm not against capitalism. But I'm not against some gov't run stuff either.


This has not been the case at Hydro Quebec, Loto Quebec or the SAQ. Oh and I forgot we have no fault car accident insurance.

There is nothing to suggest that the gov't runs those products "better" than the private sector. Just because the gov't legislated itself the sole authority to sell alcohol does not mean that it has the best model or the most profitable model, just that it is the only source.

Redistribution seems like such a nice word, doesn't it? Like everybody gets their share of the proceeds. Well, let's not forget that capitalism redistributes proceeds as well, but only to those people that work for it. In the case of alcohol, the retailer pays employees who in turn pay tax, rents or buys a store that then pays tax, makes a profit and pays tax on that. In the competitive model, there are thousands of retailers that pay wages and taxes that are "redistributed" to the people by way of that taxation, as opposed to one retailer. The single retailer system for alcohol is a socio-political restriction that actually costs the economy tax revenue and jobs, not a market requirement.

Casinos...give me a break. Two words...Las Vegas.

 

[JerryLove]

Interestingly, citizens don't have the resources to build cars, homes, HT receivers or computers. I guess we should nationalize those too. In fact, some people don't have the wherewithal to make themselves dinner.

Actually, that was another poster's argument on why (for example) fire departments should be government run. I simply used it to make my case.

For me personally, the bottom line is efficacy. I suspect that the general trend is that services and natural monopolies are best run by the government. Police, Fire, Power, Water, Local data services, healthcare.

Let's just forget about about private enterprise and put a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway. Think of all the profits that could be redistributed if the gov't ran the whole economy.

While we are spouting sarcastic hyperbole: why not get rid of all laws, all government, and all services and let the populous fight it out in (privately owned) thunderdome? Assuming they can get the permission to cross the private properties between them and the arena.

Redistribution seems like such a nice word, doesn't it? Like everybody gets their share of the proceeds. Well, let's not forget that capitalism redistributes proceeds as well, but only to those people that work for it.

So if you were a worker slaving away at Standard Oil, or US Steel, or Carnigie?

Conversely: are you saying that the rich are rich because they worked for it?

And no: redistribution sounds like a terrible word. That's why the people who oppose it use it. Mind you: many of them benefit from it, and many support it when they are getting the benefits of it (though they call it something else: like "entitlement program").

The single retailer system for alcohol is a socio-political restriction that actually costs the economy tax revenue and jobs, not a market requirement.

I also see little case for government-run distribution of booze; though it's an area that obviously needs significant regulation.

I suppose we would need to see what was trying to be accomplished (reduction in drunk driving?) and whether that was achieved better in which system. Otherwise, for me, alcohol, being neither a necessity nor a natural monopoly, seems fine in private hands.

 

[Nemo128]

My whole point is to get away from ideology and to be pragmatic. If it works, it works. You are quoting theory and I have real world examples that work. If reality contradicts theory should I give up reality?

Wait... since when were real-world examples more important than someone's personal ideology? How dare you use logic and reasoning in a political debate here?!?!?

 

[highfigh]

Actually, that was another poster's argument on why (for example) fire departments should be government run. I simply used it to make my case.

For me personally, the bottom line is efficacy. I suspect that the general trend is that services and natural monopolies are best run by the government. Police, Fire, Power, Water, Local data services, healthcare.

While we are spouting sarcastic hyperbole: why not get rid of all laws, all government, and all services and let the populous fight it out in (privately owned) thunderdome? Assuming they can get the permission to cross the private properties between them and the arena.

So if you were a worker slaving away at Standard Oil, or US Steel, or Carnigie?

Conversely: are you saying that the rich are rich because they worked for it?

And no: redistribution sounds like a terrible word. That's why the people who oppose it use it. Mind you: many of them benefit from it, and many support it when they are getting the benefits of it (though they call it something else: like "entitlement program").

I also see little case for government-run distribution of booze; though it's an area that obviously needs significant regulation.

I suppose we would need to see what was trying to be accomplished (reduction in drunk driving?) and whether that was achieved better in which system. Otherwise, for me, alcohol, being neither a necessity nor a natural monopoly, seems fine in private hands.

Why are you mixing Federal and local government issues? Police, fire, power and water aren't, and shouldn't be, run nationally. The "small government" argument and references to the US constitution have to do with the size and powers of the Federal government, not local. Nationalizing everything eliminates the possibility of a state to impose its own rights and an all-encompassing Federal government was never what was intended.

 

[JerryLove]

Why are you mixing Federal and local government issues? Police, fire, power and water aren't, and shouldn't be, run nationally. The "small government" argument and references to the US constitution have to do with the size and powers of the Federal government, not local. Nationalizing everything eliminates the possibility of a state to impose its own rights and an all-encompassing Federal government was never what was intended.

You are now introducing an entirely new debate, where before you were arguing that health-care should be private, and the ills of government: you are now arguing something different.

Of course, to begin with, your statement of fact is untrue. Police exist at many levels of government, including the FBI and US.Marshal service at the federal level. Power is sometimes actually owned by the fed (TVA) and usually otherwise private but regulated (again, at every level of government).

Given that the greater Tampa-bay area (as an example) has twice the population of the entire US circa 1790: I'm not sure how you can call state government anything other than "big government" while appealing to the constitution.

Nor does any of this pertain to your underlying argument against government healthcare.

Our current system: the most privatized in the industrialized world, and the only non-universal in the industrialized world, has proven the most expensive in the world (often by double) while not providing the best results. You seem to advocate more of what we've already done to get here.

 

[highfigh]

You are now introducing an entirely new debate, where before you were arguing that health-care should be private, and the ills of government: you are now arguing something different.

Of course, to begin with, your statement of fact is untrue. Police exist at many levels of government, including the FBI and US.Marshal service at the federal level. Power is sometimes actually owned by the fed (TVA) and usually otherwise private but regulated (again, at every level of government).

Given that the greater Tampa-bay area (as an example) has twice the population of the entire US circa 1790: I'm not sure how you can call state government anything other than "big government" while appealing to the constitution.

Nor does any of this pertain to your underlying argument against government healthcare.

Our current system: the most privatized in the industrialized world, and the only non-universal in the industrialized world, has proven the most expensive in the world (often by double) while not providing the best results. You seem to advocate more of what we've already done to get here.

You didn't specify which branch of Law Enforcement you meant when you posted 'Police", and you should have if you wanted to make a point. The FBI and US Marshalls aren't called 'the Police'. Yes, we have many different branches of LEO and IMO, they're necessary but I never mentioned them when I posted that big government is bad. You know what most people mean when they talk about big government and I don't understand why you have to twist comments when there's no need to.

We have runaway greed because we have allowed it. I haven't posted that I think profiteering is a good thing. Dayenu is a Hebrew word that means 'It would have been enough for us' but I have seen it used when talking about how much profit is made. That seems to be a foreign concept for a lot of people in business and as many have said, "money has no conscience". I think government should allow us to be free to live our lives with a minimum of interference but I don't like them giving handouts to people who have no intention of dong anything for them. I don't want a government that keeps people dependent on it for subsistence and just giving people food and money. I would much rather have a government that really helps people climb out of poverty by helping them realize that education is a big step and that a stable family life is important.

Huge programs are extremely hard to keep everything in order. I can't think of another program that would be modified as often, over as long a time period. Basically, I don't believe that the people who will be administering this program will do it to their best ability.

 

[JerryLove]

You didn't specify which branch of Law Enforcement you meant when you posted 'Police", and you should have if you wanted to make a point. The FBI and US Marshalls aren't called 'the Police'. Yes, we have many different branches of LEO and IMO, they're necessary but I never mentioned them when I posted that big government is bad. You know what most people mean when they talk about big government and I don't understand why you have to twist comments when there's no need to.

You didn't generally specify "big government"; and frankly most people are idiots. You made statements opposing government-run services. You then clarified that you support some government-run services, but have not mentioned a criteria to tell one from another.

We have runaway greed because we have allowed it. I haven't posted that I think profiteering is a good thing. Dayenu is a Hebrew word that means 'It would have been enough for us' but I have seen it used when talking about how much profit is made. That seems to be a foreign concept for a lot of people in business and as many have said, "money has no conscience".

How would you stop companies from exploiting the populus for a buck?

I think government should allow us to be free to live our lives with a minimum of interference but I don't like them giving handouts to people who have no intention of dong anything for them.

And making sure that people have access to healthcare is handouts?

What about the people who have intention of doing something for it? What would you like to say to the children without healthcare? What would you like to say to the people who paid in for many years but then got sick and so were dropped? What about the people who felt young and immortal and are now sick? What about those of us who have been sick and so cannot afford private healthcare because we are "a risk".

More than half of all bankruptsies in the US are from medical bills. How does that help us?

We have the most expensive healthcare in the world. How does that help us? Not on our standard of care, nor on our life-expectancy.

I don't want a government that keeps people dependent on it for subsistence and just giving people food and money. I would much rather have a government that really helps people climb out of poverty by helping them realize that education is a big step and that a stable family life is important.

Because starving people with zero money will be able to get to school and not die of starvation in the process how?

But we are not discussing money or food. We are discussing health insurance.

Huge programs are extremely hard to keep everything in order. I can't think of another program that would be modified as often, over as long a time period. Basically, I don't believe that the people who will be administering this program will do it to their best ability.

The people currently running the current systems are also not doing so to their best ability (at least not attempting for a positive patient outcome). They are huge programs.

Your complaints are all exsiting problems with the private system. What's unique to the private system (compared to every other first world country) are the cost (the highest in the world), and the coverage (the only non-universal).

And I'd not mind knowing who the anonymous coward repeatedly neg-repping is. How pathetic must someone be that internet anonyomity isn't enough: they can't even sign their fake name? ...and passive-aggressive rhetorical questions at that. Whomever you are, I hope you are a girl, because you lack the testicular fortitude to be a man.

 

[highfigh]

You're getting negative reps? I don't even see a point in being able to do that and I don't think it should be possible to do it anonymously.

How many times have I posted 'big government needs to go'? That's the single biggest complaint I make.

 

[lsiberian]

You're getting negative reps? I don't even see a point in being able to do that and I don't think it should be possible to do it anonymously.

How many times have I posted 'big government needs to go'? That's the single biggest complaint I make.

There's a red giver on the loose again. I'm sure they'll stop when they are bored.

 

[Nemo128]

And I'd not mind knowing who the anonymous coward repeatedly neg-repping is. How pathetic must someone be that internet anonyomity isn't enough: they can't even sign their fake name? ...and passive-aggressive rhetorical questions at that. Whomever you are, I hope you are a girl, because you lack the testicular fortitude to be a man.

That happened to me once too, I bet by the same person. And judging by the names active in this thread and the other I was in, I have a pretty good idea who the limpwrist is, but hey, why even pay it mind. Silly zealots and their chicklets.

EDIT: See below.

I really have to wonder... 10-29-2009 11:37 AM - Health care options my ***. You're still an idiot

Red chicklet from current thread. This is the kind of pathetic troll we have around here. You just tune it out after a while.

 

[JerryLove]

And I'd not mind knowing who the anonymous coward repeatedly neg-repping is. How pathetic must someone be that internet anonyomity isn't enough: they can't even sign their fake name? ...and passive-aggressive rhetorical questions at that. Whomever you are, I hope you are a girl, because you lack the testicular fortitude to be a man.

Not surprisingly: this got the little red chicklet

"Ur a Girl!!" 10/29/2009 - 11:49am

I'll stop giving her the attention she is after now and return to our regularly scheduled topic