Yippee!!
Stu Dent
wsne...@hotmail.com
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
That is NOT good news. My strategy from here on out is to not get
sick.
Quadibloc
That *was* the strategy of a lot of Americans up to the present day
because of the condition of the American health care system, since
illness could result in a crippling debt burden... if the hospital
even lets you in.
John Savard
wsne...@hotmail.com
The hospital ERs do not turn people away. Since modern medical care
by its nature is going to cost something then there will be a debt
burden, UNLESS you buy insurance or have enough savings.
I think the new strategy for many Americans will be to get sick more
often, since "someone else" is paying the medical bills now. A
private insurance company might give a discount to non-smokers. Now
the non-smokers get to subsidize the smokers, who could in all
probability afford insurance if they didn't buy cigarettes.
My strategy now has to be to stay healthy since I might not be able to
count on government-run, government-rationed health care in my later
years. There is no way for me to assure myself that I will get needed
treatments, if the government decides that patching up an
irresponsible 17yo motorcycle rider who just wiped out at 120 mph on
the freeway, takes priority over my needs. If I manage to increase my
income to pay for private insurance (assuming that such insurance is
still legal) the government will only increase my taxes to help pay
for the 17yo's injuries.
Now we all get to pretend that we all have health insurance, an
illusion that will last only until the government denies us care.
Stu Dent
say...strategy is to now stay healthy..LOL
<wsne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1719dff-6026-4566...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Chris L Peterson
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
It's a first, small step towards the U.S. becoming as civilized as other
developed countries. Still a long way to go, however.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:51:21 GMT, "Stu Dent" <S...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
>
> It's a first, small step towards the U.S. becoming as civilized as other
> developed countries. Still a long way to go, however.
Now, instead of a system consisting of logical people making free and
voluntary deals and agreements with each other for health care and
health insurance, as we have now, we are heading towards a system
based on mob rule. How very "progressive."
wsne...@hotmail.com
> Your strategy should ALWAYS be healthy no matter what ! What a silly thig to
> say...strategy is to now stay healthy..LOL
Tell that to the smokers, drug users and those who overeat and don't
exercise. You will be paying their bills soon. Or maybe you are one
of them.
> <wsnel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Martin Brown
> Your strategy should ALWAYS be healthy no matter what ! What a silly thig to
> say...strategy is to now stay healthy..LOL
Given that 25% of the US population are seriously obese and take no
exercise it seems that a lot of your fellow countrymen disagree with
you. Incidence of heart disease, stroke and type II diabetes are
extremely high in the USA along with consumption of lots of junk food.
>
> <wsne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b1719dff-6026-4566...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 8, 11:54 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 8:40 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 8, 12:51 am, "Stu Dent" <S...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
>>>> That is NOT good news. My strategy from here on out is to not get
>>>> sick.
>>> That *was* the strategy of a lot of Americans up to the present day
>>> because of the condition of the American health care system, since
>>> illness could result in a crippling debt burden... if the hospital
>>> even lets you in.
>> The hospital ERs do not turn people away. Since modern medical care
>> by its nature is going to cost something then there will be a debt
>> burden, UNLESS you buy insurance or have enough savings.
The problem is that some of the people who are seriously ill are also
the least able to pay. And it does not make sense to have things like
multiple drug resistant TB in the city down and out population however
much you may dislike paying for its eradication.
Even the US manages to screen glaucoma sufferers irrespective of ability
to pay so you already have some socialised medicine. The costs to
society of leaving them to go blind is too great to ignore.
>>
>> I think the new strategy for many Americans will be to get sick more
>> often, since "someone else" is paying the medical bills now. A
>> private insurance company might give a discount to non-smokers. Now
>> the non-smokers get to subsidize the smokers, who could in all
>> probability afford insurance if they didn't buy cigarettes.
That one is easily solved. Smokers die young so you don't have to put
much extra tax on tobacco products to make smokers net contributors to
the overall healthcare costs.
>>
>> My strategy now has to be to stay healthy since I might not be able to
>> count on government-run, government-rationed health care in my later
>> years. There is no way for me to assure myself that I will get needed
>> treatments,
Paranoid delusions of a rightard.
Every other industrialised first world nation manages to provide
universal healthcare to its population. Why should the US be any
different? The arguments you are using are exactly the same ones as
were used when the UK's NHS was formed. They are a pack of lies designed
to scare people into paying through the nose for private medical care.
>> if the government decides that patching up an
>> irresponsible 17yo motorcycle rider who just wiped out at 120 mph on
>> the freeway, takes priority over my needs. If I manage to increase my
>> income to pay for private insurance (assuming that such insurance is
>> still legal) the government will only increase my taxes to help pay
>> for the 17yo's injuries.
>>
>> Now we all get to pretend that we all have health insurance, an
>> illusion that will last only until the government denies us care.
You really are barking.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Tom McDonald
> On Nov 8, 12:36 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:51:21 GMT, "Stu Dent" <S...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
>> It's a first, small step towards the U.S. becoming as civilized as other
>> developed countries. Still a long way to go, however.
>
> Now, instead of a system consisting of logical people making free and
> voluntary deals and agreements with each other for health care and
> health insurance, as we have now,
We *don't* have that now. What we have now is people getting
whatever their employers choose to give them (unless they have a
decent union that got them good coverage -- which is less and
less common), or whatever they can afford in the individual market.
And, of course, Medicare and Medicaid and the VA system, which
actually work very well, at a lower cost and with greater
efficiency, than the 'voluntary deals and agreements' you tout.
> we are heading towards a system
> based on mob rule. How very "progressive."
You really want to go with that 'mob' image, Skippy? Take a look
at who comprises the mob these days. It ain't the Progressives.
--
Tom
When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing;
When friends rejoice, both far and near,
How can I keep from singing.
wsne...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Stu Dent wrote:
> > Your strategy should ALWAYS be healthy no matter what ! What a silly thig to
> > say...strategy is to now stay healthy..LOL
>
> Given that 25% of the US population are seriously obese and take no
> exercise it seems that a lot of your fellow countrymen disagree with
> you. Incidence of heart disease, stroke and type II diabetes are
> extremely high in the USA along with consumption of lots of junk food.
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:b1719dff-6026-4566...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Nov 8, 11:54 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 8, 8:40 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>> On Nov 8, 12:51 am, "Stu Dent" <S...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
> >>>> That is NOT good news. My strategy from here on out is to not get
> >>>> sick.
> >>> That *was* the strategy of a lot of Americans up to the present day
> >>> because of the condition of the American health care system, since
> >>> illness could result in a crippling debt burden... if the hospital
> >>> even lets you in.
> >> The hospital ERs do not turn people away. Since modern medical care
> >> by its nature is going to cost something then there will be a debt
> >> burden, UNLESS you buy insurance or have enough savings.
>
> The problem is that some of the people who are seriously ill are also
> the least able to pay.
They still get treated even if they don't pay. The rest of us pay for
them, but the system we have is still cheaper, more flexible, and
better than what you have.
> And it does not make sense to have things like
> multiple drug resistant TB in the city down and out population however
> much you may dislike paying for its eradication.
Maybe TB is a big problem where you live?
> Even the US manages to screen glaucoma sufferers irrespective of ability
> to pay so you already have some socialised medicine. The costs to
> society of leaving them to go blind is too great to ignore.
Glaucoma screening can provide plenty of bang for the buck, but is
something that should be done during regular eye exams, which are
reasonably priced.
Healthcare is expensive. It provides much. It is up to the
individual to look after his/her own health care, go to the doctor
regularly and live a healthy life. It is part of the cost of doing
business.
> >> I think the new strategy for many Americans will be to get sick more
> >> often, since "someone else" is paying the medical bills now. A
> >> private insurance company might give a discount to non-smokers. Now
> >> the non-smokers get to subsidize the smokers, who could in all
> >> probability afford insurance if they didn't buy cigarettes.
>
> That one is easily solved. Smokers die young so you don't have to put
> much extra tax on tobacco products to make smokers net contributors to
> the overall healthcare costs.
Smokers do not die young, their overall health degrades over many
decades.
> >> My strategy now has to be to stay healthy since I might not be able to
> >> count on government-run, government-rationed health care in my later
> >> years. There is no way for me to assure myself that I will get needed
> >> treatments,
>
> Paranoid delusions of a rightard.
Should a kidney patient emigrate to the UK for dialysis?
> Every other industrialised first world nation manages to provide
> universal healthcare to its population. Why should the US be any
> different? The arguments you are using are exactly the same ones as
> were used when the UK's NHS was formed. They are a pack of lies designed
> to scare people into paying through the nose for private medical care.
"Universal" healthcare, but maybe not the specific care you might find
you need someday. Too bad you might be too sick to fight the
government over the issue.
> >> if the government decides that patching up an
> >> irresponsible 17yo motorcycle rider who just wiped out at 120 mph on
> >> the freeway, takes priority over my needs. If I manage to increase my
> >> income to pay for private insurance (assuming that such insurance is
> >> still legal) the government will only increase my taxes to help pay
> >> for the 17yo's injuries.
>
> >> Now we all get to pretend that we all have health insurance, an
> >> illusion that will last only until the government denies us care.
>
> You really are barking.
You're the barking moonbat.
yourmommycalled
Yeah we tried your way " logical people making free and voluntary
deals and agreements with each other for health care and health
insurance," and we watched ambulances having to search to find an ER
that would accept patients you didn't have health insurance, watched
insurance policies that had been faithfully paid for more than 20
years suddenly get canceled, because a hip or knee replacement was
necessary, watched the amount of coverage drop dramatically all the
while rates were sky rocketing. Strangely while the doctors, hospitals
were being strangled with increased paperwork designed to find a way
to deny coverage the bonuses paid to executives skyrocketed.
rightard is too generous for miser like you
wsne...@hotmail.com
> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 12:36 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:51:21 GMT, "Stu Dent" <S...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
> >> It's a first, small step towards the U.S. becoming as civilized as other
> >> developed countries. Still a long way to go, however.
>
> > Now, instead of a system consisting of logical people making free and
> > voluntary deals and agreements with each other for health care and
> > health insurance, as we have now,
>
> We *don't* have that now. What we have now is people getting
> whatever their employers choose to give them (unless they have a
> decent union that got them good coverage -- which is less and
> less common), or whatever they can afford in the individual market.
Exactly, whatever they can afford. Premiums too high? Quit smoking
and spend the money on your insurance. Even if health insurance
premiums were $100 per year, there would be some people who couldn't
afford that, so where's your argument?
> And, of course, Medicare and Medicaid and the VA system, which
> actually work very well, at a lower cost and with greater
> efficiency, than the 'voluntary deals and agreements' you tout.
>
> > we are heading towards a system
> > based on mob rule. How very "progressive."
>
> You really want to go with that 'mob' image, Skippy? Take a look
> at who comprises the mob these days. It ain't the Progressives.
Mob rule pretty much sums up what "progressives" are all about. They
mistakenly assume that the mob will always decide in their favor.
Tom McDonald
> On Nov 8, 1:24 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 12:36 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:51:21 GMT, "Stu Dent" <S...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
>>>> It's a first, small step towards the U.S. becoming as civilized as other
>>>> developed countries. Still a long way to go, however.
>>> Now, instead of a system consisting of logical people making free and
>>> voluntary deals and agreements with each other for health care and
>>> health insurance, as we have now,
>> We *don't* have that now. What we have now is people getting
>> whatever their employers choose to give them (unless they have a
>> decent union that got them good coverage -- which is less and
>> less common),
No comment on this?
> or whatever they can afford in the individual market.
>
> Exactly, whatever they can afford. Premiums too high? Quit smoking
> and spend the money on your insurance. Even if health insurance
> premiums were $100 per year, there would be some people who couldn't
> afford that, so where's your argument?
My argument is that your 'system' doesn't exist. If it did, and
there were no government-sponsored option, we would have a system
where rich folks got excellent care; the middle class' quality of
care would be at the mercy of the lawyers owned by the insurance
companies; and the poor would get whatever charity was available.
>> And, of course, Medicare and Medicaid and the VA system, which
>> actually work very well, at a lower cost and with greater
>> efficiency, than the 'voluntary deals and agreements' you tout.
No comment on this?
>>> we are heading towards a system
>>> based on mob rule. How very "progressive."
>> You really want to go with that 'mob' image, Skippy? Take a look
>> at who comprises the mob these days. It ain't the Progressives.
>
> Mob rule pretty much sums up what "progressives" are all about. They
> mistakenly assume that the mob will always decide in their favor.
I think you are confusing democracy with mob rule. I wonder
whether you might have been happier with democracy when *your*
mob ruled.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 1:24 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Nov 8, 12:36 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:51:21 GMT, "Stu Dent" <S...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
> >>>> It's a first, small step towards the U.S. becoming as civilized as other
> >>>> developed countries. Still a long way to go, however.
> >>> Now, instead of a system consisting of logical people making free and
> >>> voluntary deals and agreements with each other for health care and
> >>> health insurance, as we have now,
> >> We *don't* have that now. What we have now is people getting
> >> whatever their employers choose to give them (unless they have a
> >> decent union that got them good coverage -- which is less and
> >> less common),
>
> No comment on this?
No need to dignify it with a comment.
> > or whatever they can afford in the individual market.
>
> > Exactly, whatever they can afford. Premiums too high? Quit smoking
> > and spend the money on your insurance. Even if health insurance
> > premiums were $100 per year, there would be some people who couldn't
> > afford that, so where's your argument?
>
> My argument is that your 'system' doesn't exist. If it did, and
> there were no government-sponsored option, we would have a system
> where rich folks got excellent care; the middle class' quality of
> care would be at the mercy of the lawyers owned by the insurance
> companies; and the poor would get whatever charity was available.
>
> >> And, of course, Medicare and Medicaid and the VA system, which
> >> actually work very well, at a lower cost and with greater
> >> efficiency, than the 'voluntary deals and agreements' you tout.
>
> No comment on this?
No need to dignify it with a comment, but what the hell. Most people
prefer to have and pay for private health insurance, that suits his/
her/family's specific needs. Some people want a low deductible,
others want a high deductible, some would like to choose their own
doctor, have special requirements, etc.
> >>> we are heading towards a system
> >>> based on mob rule. How very "progressive."
> >> You really want to go with that 'mob' image, Skippy? Take a look
> >> at who comprises the mob these days. It ain't the Progressives.
>
> > Mob rule pretty much sums up what "progressives" are all about. They
> > mistakenly assume that the mob will always decide in their favor.
>
> I think you are confusing democracy with mob rule. I wonder
> whether you might have been happier with democracy when *your*
> mob ruled.
Democracy IS mob rule. Think of it as two foxes and a hen voting on
what to have for dinner. The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.
Tom McDonald
Nice to know where you stand. Many of us think that we have a
democracy in the form of a republic. Must be nice to have such a
simple, cartoonish view of our nation.
Quadibloc
> Your strategy should ALWAYS be healthy no matter what ! What a silly thig to
> say...strategy is to now stay healthy..LOL
Yes, but will that be simply a normal, prudent approach to health...
or one marked by desperation and fear?
John Savard
Chris.B
mafia don't need their armies of sadistic psychopaths searching for
ways out of providing the health care their naive customers thought
they were paying for. Now the psychopaths will be out on the streets
day and night with nothing to keep them occupied. Be very afraid!! ;-)
jerry warner
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:51:21 GMT, "Stu Dent" <S...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
>
> It's a first, small step towards the U.S. becoming as civilized as other
> developed countries. Still a long way to go, however.
> _________________________________________________
will cost 50 million lives to get there. All Facist States
exact their wages.
wsne...@hotmail.com
You need to learn the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.
Only then will you be able to speak intelligently on the subject of
government.
Martin Brown
Like hell it is. US medics are far more concerned about making money
than the welfare of their patients. I knew a colleague in the US who
*had* the right insurance but had to fight tooth and nail to get the
emergency medical evacuation needed to a specialist unit.
US rightards and their newsmen make up scare stories like the one that
Stephen Hawking would not be alive today if he was British. But he is
and his life has been saved several times by NHS treatment.
>
>> And it does not make sense to have things like
>> multiple drug resistant TB in the city down and out population however
>> much you may dislike paying for its eradication.
>
> Maybe TB is a big problem where you live?
It is mainly a problem in New York (previously a serious threat).
http://www.health.state.ny.us/press/releases/2009/2009-03-24_tuberculosis_day_release.htm
Again they did a bit of socialist medicine to stop things getting
completely out of hand. London has problems with it too.
>
>> Even the US manages to screen glaucoma sufferers irrespective of ability
>> to pay so you already have some socialised medicine. The costs to
>> society of leaving them to go blind is too great to ignore.
>
> Glaucoma screening can provide plenty of bang for the buck, but is
> something that should be done during regular eye exams, which are
> reasonably priced.
Many countries make eye tests free for people with a genetic
predisposition to the condition. The testing cost is noise compared to
the huge costs incurred if you let someone go blind.
>
> Healthcare is expensive. It provides much. It is up to the
> individual to look after his/her own health care, go to the doctor
> regularly and live a healthy life. It is part of the cost of doing
> business.
Healthcare is only expensive when you need complex treatment. Routine
stuff is cheap particularly if you catch the first signs of a problem
instead of waiting until they have a major stroke or heart attack. The
majority of people lead a healthy life and have limited interaction with
health services unless they are injured or develop a chronic illness.
>>>> I think the new strategy for many Americans will be to get sick more
>>>> often, since "someone else" is paying the medical bills now. A
>>>> private insurance company might give a discount to non-smokers. Now
>>>> the non-smokers get to subsidize the smokers, who could in all
>>>> probability afford insurance if they didn't buy cigarettes.
>> That one is easily solved. Smokers die young so you don't have to put
>> much extra tax on tobacco products to make smokers net contributors to
>> the overall healthcare costs.
>
> Smokers do not die young, their overall health degrades over many
> decades.
You can still solve the problem by extra tax on tobacco.
>
>>>> My strategy now has to be to stay healthy since I might not be able to
>>>> count on government-run, government-rationed health care in my later
>>>> years. There is no way for me to assure myself that I will get needed
>>>> treatments,
>> Paranoid delusions of a rightard.
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dialysis-shortage-exposes-failings-of-nhs-601353.html
>
> Should a kidney patient emigrate to the UK for dialysis?
Probably not. But the US dialysis rate looks like any excuse for an
invasive expensive procedure to milk the insurance scheme. The 500-600
per million rate of mainland Europe looks to be about right.
The only person I have known on regular dialysis got a kidney transplant
and no longer needs it.
>
>> Every other industrialised first world nation manages to provide
>> universal healthcare to its population. Why should the US be any
>> different? The arguments you are using are exactly the same ones as
>> were used when the UK's NHS was formed. They are a pack of lies designed
>> to scare people into paying through the nose for private medical care.
>
> "Universal" healthcare, but maybe not the specific care you might find
> you need someday. Too bad you might be too sick to fight the
> government over the issue.
There is nothing stops you having private healthcare in the UK if you
want to pay for it. Many larger companies offer it as a benefit.
Regards,
Martin Brown
alli...@ignmail.com
> treatments, if the government decides that patching up an
> irresponsible 17yo motorcycle rider who just wiped out at 120 mph on
> the freeway, takes priority over my needs. If I manage to increase my
> income to pay for private insurance (assuming that such insurance is
> still legal) the government will only increase my taxes to help pay
> for the 17yo's injuries.
But the same thing could happen to you: a semi runs into you and
leaves you with serious injuries - you don't have to worry about
paying for your treatment if the goverment pays it for you. Everyone
wins. Everyone pays into the system - the lucky ones never need
hospitilization, the unlucky ones are covered when their luck runs out
(auto accident, cancer, etc.).
As for cigarettes, tax the hell out of them. Twenty dollars a pack,
fifty, whatever it takes to get people to abandon them.
> Now we all get to pretend that we all have health insurance, an
> illusion that will last only until the government denies us care.
Lots of people are pretending to have private health insurace, an
illusion that last only until the private insurer decides to drop them
for getting sick.
Thank god for Pelosi and Obama.
Tom McDonald
> On Nov 8, 3:54 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
>>> Democracy IS mob rule. Think of it as two foxes and a hen voting on
>>> what to have for dinner. The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.
>> Nice to know where you stand. Many of us think that we have a
>> democracy in the form of a republic. Must be nice to have such a
>> simple, cartoonish view of our nation.
>>
>
> You need to learn the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.
> Only then will you be able to speak intelligently on the subject of
> government.
Perhaps a little definition is in order:
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia,
from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the
people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a
system of representation usually involving periodically held free
elections
AND:
Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈpə-blik\
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from
Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of
publicus public — more at real, public
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a
monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a
political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b
(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of
citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers
and representatives responsible to them and governing according
to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of
government c : a usually specified republican government of a
political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
You appear to think that only the first definition of 'democracy'
is valid.
I think 'democracy' is the more generic term, comprising both
'rule by the majority' (or mob, in your terms); *and* 'power. . .
exercised by elected officers and representatives accountable to
them'.
As I said, the US of A is a democracy in the form of a republic.
What about that do you dispute?
alli...@ignmail.com
> will cost 50 million lives to get there. All Facist States
> exact their wages.
Oh yes, I had forgotten about how one-sixth of the population of
Britain died when universal health care was implemented. How did that
slip my mind?
wsne...@hotmail.com
Neither definition of democracy that you gave describes the US. The
people in the US do not have "supreme power." There is the
Constitution and its Bill of Rights to consider. If the people
(represented by Congress or by a local government) decide to pass a
law which violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court is there to
strike it down. Your definition of Republic is also wrong for the
reason that, again, the people don't have supreme power.
Tom McDonald
Fine. Give your definitions.
Chris L Peterson
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Like hell it is. US medics are far more concerned about making money
>than the welfare of their patients. I knew a colleague in the US who
>*had* the right insurance but had to fight tooth and nail to get the
>emergency medical evacuation needed to a specialist unit.
That's unfair, and I've seen nothing to suggest it is true. There are
terrible stories that relate to the decisions made by non-medical
(typically bureaucratic) personnel involved in deciding how health care
will be provided. But doctors themselves are seldom in it for the money
(especially not the sort of doctors providing the most needed services),
and the vast majority of doctors are concerned for the welfare of their
patients above all other concerns. Many doctors are frustrated by the
bureaucratic hurdles put in the way of their providing health care, and
no doubt that is why the majority of them favor some type of health care
reform along the lines of what is now being considered.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
>Neither definition of democracy that you gave describes the US.
The U.S. is a democracy, because power is primarily vested in the
people. It has a form of government generally called "republican",
although republics can take different forms. All republics are
democracies, but not all democracies are republics. It is possible for
most types of democracy- including our own- to degenerate to what is
usually called the tyranny of the majority (here, "mob rule"). We see
that happening here in our own country, where most politicians are
afraid to vote their conscience, and instead are pressured to vote along
strict party lines. With a two party system, that's disastrous.
Chris L Peterson
And don't forget the conversion of Britain to a Fascist State at the
same time! <g>
_________________________________________________
Thad Floryan
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 06:14:04 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Neither definition of democracy that you gave describes the US.
>
> The U.S. is a democracy, because power is primarily vested in the
> people. It has a form of government generally called "republican",
> although republics can take different forms. All republics are
> democracies, but not all democracies are republics. It is possible for
> most types of democracy- including our own- to degenerate to what is
> usually called the tyranny of the majority (here, "mob rule"). We see
> that happening here in our own country, where most politicians are
> afraid to vote their conscience, and instead are pressured to vote along
> strict party lines. With a two party system, that's disastrous.
And let's not forget the official US Pledge of Allegiance:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all."
You can thank Eisenhower for the illegal "one nation under God" in the pledge,
forgetting there's supposed to be "separation of church and state" in the USA.
Pierre Vandevenne
> Maybe TB is a big problem where you live?
Cheap shot, and idiotic to boot.
Well, despite the fact that we have cheap, poorly built houses (per
one of your previous deliriums), that we have a higher population
density (imagine all those overwcrowded tiny houses), a tragically
worse health care system, etc..., etc.... etc.... that doesn't seem to
be the case
http://apps.who.int/globalatlas/predefinedreports/tb/PDF_Files/usa.pdf
http://apps.who.int/globalatlas/predefinedreports/tb/PDF_Files/gbr.pdf
http://apps.who.int/globalatlas/predefinedreports/tb/PDF_Files/fra.pdf
Pierre Vandevenne
Well, they did and are still doing it now. ;-)
Universal health care will kill all of us, just as the lack of it.
It's just that we die more slowly when we have it. That's an essential
part of the conspiracy. <G>
uncarollo
> The hospital ERs do not turn people away. Since modern medical care
> by its nature is going to cost something then there will be a debt
> burden, UNLESS you buy insurance or have enough savings.
I understand both sides of this debate, but your above statement has
me wondering a bit. How does an emergency room handle a chronic
illness such as a slow growing cancer that could be treated with
surgery and chemo, but if left unchecked will slowly kill the patient?
Does not this person need continuing care and a way for the hospital
and doctors to get paid for their services? How does an uninsured
person pay for somethign that could cost potentially $250,000? Would
not a collective pooling of resources from all citizens, those healthy
and those not, produce a fair way to pay for the health needs of each
person should they develop an illness?
I have one example close to home. The person in question has a pre-
existing condition which may or may not develop into a long term
problem. The person is quite healthy, but cannot get health insurance
from any provider at any price, even though the condition may never
materialize. How does this person handle this situation, and what
would you do to alleviate these kinds of things?
Finally, here is a thought for you. It used to be that hospitals were
low cost or non-profit (a lot of them run by Catholic charities). They
took in anybody whether they could pay or not and treated them fully
for every condition. Of course it was not sustainable because costs
outpaced income, so hospitals got together and formed the first type
of universal health insurance - Blue Cross. Doctors were adament that
this would destroy our nation, calling it communistic (similar to what
the right wing fear mongers are doing today). Nevertheless people
signed up and the result was that hospitals were getting paid. Doctors
saw this, and decided maybe they wanted to get paid too, so they
formed their own association - Blue Shield. Guess what? It worked, and
doctors were getting paid too. Actually it worked so well that Wall
Street decided that the private insurance business would be a nice
investment and soon several private plans formed. They figured that
they could milk off the healthy (using pre-existing conditions,
screening and other new ideas), offer somewhat lower cost policies,
and make a handsome profit.
How did this work? Quite well at first, except that Blue Cross/Blue
Shield got stuck with more and more unhealthy people, and their costs
began to rise. In the end, they were bought out by a large Wall Street
insurance firm, and made into a profit driven insurance giant, and
that is where we are today. For-Profit insurance has as its main goal
investor returns, not health of the premium payer. If private
insurance was made non-profit, there would be no incentive to increase
waste and overhead in order to drive up the actual dollar profit
(after all 6% profit on an income complete with higher waste is a
higher $ number - I know this strategy quite well having worked for a
number of aerospace companies who use the same technique to get higher
pay from the US gov on cost-plus programs).
If private insurance companies were truly non-profit (i.e. no Wall
Street investors to please with ever higher earnings), then they could
concentrate on providing insurance payments to those needing it, and
government would not be needed to provide anything (except maybe tax
breaks for the indigent). As it is, private insurance will not cover
the elderly (too high a risk for investors), or anyone with a disease
or potential disease - exactl;y those who need insurance. Of course,
if I was an investor in the private health insurance business, I would
insist on maximizing profit, i.e. drop all sick people and sell
insurance only to the healthy. Kick everyone else under the bus. That
is unfortunately the way any for-profit company operates.
Rolando
Quadibloc
That America was a republic, not a democracy, was the slogan of the
John Birch Society.
In the ordinary English language, as used by most people, democracy is
what you have when you can vote and you don't live in fear of the
secret police. The United States is also a republic, in addition to
being a democracy, because:
a) it is not a monarchy, and
b) it is governed by elected representatives of the people, rather
than being a direct democracy, in which the people themselves vote on
the laws.
Note that a country can be a republic without being Libertarian: i.e.
those elected representatives of the people can pass laws to tax the
rich to support the poor.
Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic, but being a
republic wouldn't have stopped them. Being a republic certainly hasn't
stopped France from doing things that would be considered socialistic
by many Americans.
It is true that the United States is a _constitutional_ republic,
wherein the legislators are limited in what laws they can enact, and
so they cannot do certain things, even if there were broad public
support for them. It is these constitutional limitations, and not the
fact of having elected representatives, that distinguishes the United
States from a "dictatorship of the proletariat" sort of system in the
way you seem to support.
Thus, to correctly express the idea contained in the statement "The U.
S. is a republic, not a democracy", what one should really say is: The
U. S. is democratic, but it is a constitutional republic in which the
Constitution's protections of individual rights take precedence over
the popular will."
Or, more simply, "We have rights, and the Constitution doesn't let
even Congress or the President take them away." This is much plainer
than using "republic" to mean "constitutional republic" and
"democracy" to mean "[political unit under] unconstrained majority
rule".
John Savard
Stu Dent
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:406eca05-2756-46d5...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Mike Collins
>
> Should a kidney patient emigrate to the UK for dialysis?
>
> > Every other industrialised first world nation manages to provide
> > universal healthcare to its population. Why should the US be any
> > different? The arguments you are using are exactly the same ones as
> > were used when the UK's NHS was formed. They are a pack of lies designed
> > to scare people into paying through the nose for private medical care.
>
> "Universal" healthcare, but maybe not the specific care you might find
> you need someday. Too bad you might be too sick to fight the
> government over the issue.
>
> > >> if the government decides that patching up an
> > >> irresponsible 17yo motorcycle rider who just wiped out at 120 mph on
> > >> the freeway, takes priority over my needs. If I manage to increase my
> > >> income to pay for private insurance (assuming that such insurance is
> > >> still legal) the government will only increase my taxes to help pay
> > >> for the 17yo's injuries.
>
> > >> Now we all get to pretend that we all have health insurance, an
> > >> illusion that will last only until the government denies us care.
>
> > You really are barking.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Like most American right wing scare stories about the NHS this is an
old story (2004)
The perfect US healthcare system can be seen in this story:
Pierre Vandevenne
wrote:
> The perfect US healthcare system can be seen in this story:
>
> http://jatahealth.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/medical-errors-5th-leading...- Hide quoted text -
As a (non practicing) physician, I couldn't help lmao at that part
"23% never intend to adhere to hand-washing"
I can imagine
"It's my constitutional right and my freedom not to wash my hands!"
I have a suggestion, if they hate soap, why not use gun lube...
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 9, 4:50 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 3:54 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > Democracy IS mob rule. Think of it as two foxes and a hen voting on
> > > > what to have for dinner. The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.
>
> > > Nice to know where you stand. Many of us think that we have a
> > > democracy in the form of a republic. Must be nice to have such a
> > > simple, cartoonish view of our nation.
>
> > You need to learn the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.
> > Only then will you be able to speak intelligently on the subject of
> > government.
>
> That America was a republic, not a democracy, was the slogan of the
> John Birch Society.
IIRC, Benjamin Franklin also called it a Republic. So what is the
point of your statement?
> In the ordinary English language, as used by most people, democracy is
> what you have when you can vote and you don't live in fear of the
> secret police.
With the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution, we here
in the US can vote and do not live in fear of "secret police" despite
being a Republic and not a Democracy. Many or most people misuse the
term "democracy."
> The United States is also a republic, in addition to
> being a democracy, because:
>
> a) it is not a monarchy, and
>
> b) it is governed by elected representatives of the people, rather
> than being a direct democracy, in which the people themselves vote on
> the laws.
You left out the part about having a Constitution that is not subject
to change at the whim of a mob.
> Note that a country can be a republic without being Libertarian: i.e.
> those elected representatives of the people can pass laws to tax the
> rich to support the poor.
There is nothing in the Constitution that obliges the rich to support
the poor.
> Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic, but being a
> republic wouldn't have stopped them.
Stopped them from what, exactly?
> Being a republic certainly hasn't
> stopped France from doing things that would be considered socialistic
> by many Americans.
Still, the US is a Republic not a Democracy. I don't actually care
how France wants to describe itself.
> It is true that the United States is a _constitutional_ republic,
> wherein the legislators are limited in what laws they can enact, and
> so they cannot do certain things, even if there were broad public
> support for them.
You might be starting to understand, finally.
> It is these constitutional limitations, and not the
> fact of having elected representatives, that distinguishes the United
> States from a "dictatorship of the proletariat" sort of system in the
> way you seem to support.
I don't support a "dictatorship of the proletariat."
> Thus, to correctly express the idea contained in the statement "The U.
> S. is a republic, not a democracy", what one should really say is: The
> U. S. is democratic, but it is a constitutional republic in which the
> Constitution's protections of individual rights take precedence over
> the popular will."
Once again, the United States of America is a Republic, not a
Democracy. The Founding Fathers were aiming for limited government
intervention in people's daily affairs, a goal which can _never_ be
guaranteed in a Democracy.
> Or, more simply, "We have rights, and the Constitution doesn't let
> even Congress or the President take them away." This is much plainer
> than using "republic" to mean "constitutional republic" and
> "democracy" to mean "[political unit under] unconstrained majority
> rule".
Democracy is unconstrained majority rule. You are not likely to see it
in its pure form, and then most likely on a local level. Here in the
US if a local law or court decision is particularly egregious, the
Supreme Court is available to deal with it.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 8, 11:21 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > The hospital ERs do not turn people away. Since modern medical care
> > by its nature is going to cost something then there will be a debt
> > burden, UNLESS you buy insurance or have enough savings.
>
> I understand both sides of this debate, but your above statement has
> me wondering a bit. How does an emergency room handle a chronic
> illness such as a slow growing cancer that could be treated with
> surgery and chemo, but if left unchecked will slowly kill the patient?
It doesn't. The patient will need to be refered to a specialists who
do not work in the ER.
> Does not this person need continuing care and a way for the hospital
> and doctors to get paid for their services?
The patient needs care. The hospitals and doctors need to get paid.
> How does an uninsured
> person pay for somethign that could cost potentially $250,000?
Unless they have $250,000, they can't.
> Would
> not a collective pooling of resources from all citizens, those healthy
> and those not, produce a fair way to pay for the health needs of each
> person should they develop an illness?
No.
> I have one example close to home. The person in question has a pre-
> existing condition which may or may not develop into a long term
> problem. The person is quite healthy, but cannot get health insurance
> from any provider at any price, even though the condition may never
> materialize. How does this person handle this situation, and what
> would you do to alleviate these kinds of things?
What is the nature of the pre-existing condition?
> Finally, here is a thought for you. It used to be that hospitals were
> low cost or non-profit (a lot of them run by Catholic charities). They
> took in anybody whether they could pay or not and treated them fully
> for every condition. Of course it was not sustainable because costs
> outpaced income, so hospitals got together and formed the first type
> of universal health insurance - Blue Cross. Doctors were adament that
> this would destroy our nation, calling it communistic (similar to what
> the right wing fear mongers are doing today). Nevertheless people
> signed up and the result was that hospitals were getting paid. Doctors
> saw this, and decided maybe they wanted to get paid too, so they
> formed their own association - Blue Shield. Guess what? It worked, and
> doctors were getting paid too. Actually it worked so well that Wall
> Street decided that the private insurance business would be a nice
> investment and soon several private plans formed. They figured that
> they could milk off the healthy (using pre-existing conditions,
> screening and other new ideas), offer somewhat lower cost policies,
> and make a handsome profit.
In the old days, and not so long ago, Medicine was limited in what it
could do, and potential medical costs were also limited as a result.
There were still people who could not afford to pay but charities
could handle the situation more easily then.
If one is relatively healthy, one would do well to go with private
insurance, which will be able to provide lower premiums and one will
probably be able to rely on the company in the event of a catastrophic
illness.
If one is a poor health risk, things become more complicated. Why is
the person a health risk? Bad habits perhaps? A rare disease? The
bad habits are under a person's control. A rare disease is just
that, rare, and the hospital can eat the costs in the event that a
patient is uninsured.
> How did this work? Quite well at first, except that Blue Cross/Blue
> Shield got stuck with more and more unhealthy people, and their costs
> began to rise. In the end, they were bought out by a large Wall Street
> insurance firm, and made into a profit driven insurance giant, and
> that is where we are today. For-Profit insurance has as its main goal
> investor returns, not health of the premium payer.
Profit and the bottom line is a concern of all businesses, including
those that provide other important things such as food and fuel, which
are much more immediate needs for most people than is healthcare.
> If private
> insurance was made non-profit, there would be no incentive to increase
> waste and overhead in order to drive up the actual dollar profit
> (after all 6% profit on an income complete with higher waste is a
> higher $ number - I know this strategy quite well having worked for a
> number of aerospace companies who use the same technique to get higher
> pay from the US gov on cost-plus programs).
If private insurance was made non-profit???
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 8, 12:21 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > treatments, if the government decides that patching up an
> > irresponsible 17yo motorcycle rider who just wiped out at 120 mph on
> > the freeway, takes priority over my needs. If I manage to increase my
> > income to pay for private insurance (assuming that such insurance is
> > still legal) the government will only increase my taxes to help pay
> > for the 17yo's injuries.
>
> But the same thing could happen to you: a semi runs into you and
> leaves you with serious injuries - you don't have to worry about
> paying for your treatment if the goverment pays it for you. Everyone
> wins. Everyone pays into the system - the lucky ones never need
> hospitilization, the unlucky ones are covered when their luck runs out
> (auto accident, cancer, etc.).
Yes, that is why we have insurance, to cover losses we cannot sustain,
be they car accidents, catastrophic illness, house fires, etc.
I would say that my chances of getting into an accident with a semi
are far smaller than the chances that the idiot on the motorcycle will
get seriously injured. I want him to pay much more for his insurance
because he is taking a much higher risk.
> As for cigarettes, tax the hell out of them. Twenty dollars a pack,
> fifty, whatever it takes to get people to abandon them.
The children of those who smoke might suffer financial deprivation if
you tax their parents too much.
> > Now we all get to pretend that we all have health insurance, an
> > illusion that will last only until the government denies us care.
>
> Lots of people are pretending to have private health insurace, an
> illusion that last only until the private insurer decides to drop them
> for getting sick.
They don't drop you for getting sick.
> Thank god for Pelosi and Obama.
Sheesh.
Martin Brown
OK. I will agree that I was being a bit hard on the medics here. The
medically trained staff did what they could with the limited local
hospital resources they had. The high altitude didn't help.
But the administrators were complete bastards and would not order a
helicopter in to make an evacuation until they were absolutely certain
that the hospital would get paid in full by the insurers. Proving this
took a considerable time. Mother and baby were eventually moved to the
state capital for intensive care at a lower altitude and both did OK. If
the guy had not been a professional scientist well used to lecturing and
arguing his case I suspect the outcome would have been different.
It was abundantly clear that the system was prepared to see the newborn
child die of asphyxia rather than arrange air transfer to a specialist
neonatal unit until it was certain to get paid. Coming from the UK this
was a big shock and left me with a lasting impression of a callous US
health system focussed exclusively on getting paid and making a profit.
It doesn't seem to have improved either. The US still trails the rest of
the industrialised world where infant mortality is concerned. eg.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE49E9JM20081015
Regards,
Martin Brown
alli...@ignmail.com
> > As for cigarettes, tax the hell out of them. Twenty dollars a pack,
> > fifty, whatever it takes to get people to abandon them.
>
> The children of those who smoke might suffer financial deprivation if
> you tax their parents too much.
Indeed, something for the parents to think about before they buy that
next pack.
> They don't drop you for getting sick.
Good grief, on what planet have you been living to make such a
breathtakingly preposterous statement?
Quadibloc
wrote:
> There is nothing stops you having private healthcare in the UK if you
> want to pay for it. Many larger companies offer it as a benefit.
In Canada, because the *provinces* have constitutional jurisdiction
over health care, the federal government essentially banned private
health insurance for basic medical services in order to pressure the
provinces to fund health care better (once the federal government
reduced its level of funding to the provinces, which funding created
our national health care system in the first place).
But in this connection, Britain is chiefly remembered in North America
as the country whose National Health actually triaged kidney dialysis
in such a way that not every patient who needed it in order to survive
received it. It is lesser known as the country whose libel laws
allowed the thalidomide crisis to persist.
In the United States, laws intended to provide access to health care
for the HIV-positive, by preventing insurance companies from
discriminating against them, have instead had the natural economic
result of denying health insurance to the self-employed; basically,
the only health insurance there is in the United States is large
employee plans averaged over many people because of those laws. And
then there are the antics of HMOs. With the rising cost of some
available therapies as well, the old system of private medical care,
with county hospitals for the poor, is breaking down.
HMOs, like government-funded universal health care, create downward
pressure on doctors' incomes. So one loss this will entail is the loss
of the United States as an example that shows what the fair value of a
doctor's labor is, as established in a free market where doctors have
reasonable bargaining power.
A proper national health care is one that has an absolute commitment
to doing whatever is necessary to prevent any death, any suffering,
any disability that can be prevented by any existing medical
technology, and, as well, to advancing the state of medical technology
as quickly as possible. The kind of social commitment this requires,
though, will be easier to obtain when competing problems are
addressed.
Otherwise, you can have someone like Daniel Callahan arguing that it's
not just money versus human lives, because spending money on foreign
aid can save more lives more cheaply.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> On Nov 9, 2:48 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > The United States is also a republic, in addition to
> > being a democracy, because:
>
> > a) it is not a monarchy, and
>
> > b) it is governed by elected representatives of the people, rather
> > than being a direct democracy, in which the people themselves vote on
> > the laws.
>
> You left out the part about having a Constitution that is not subject
> to change at the whim of a mob.
That isn't part of the definition of "republic".
I don't support unconstrained mob rule, and I think it's a good idea
that the Constitution protects people's rights too.
But if you choose to use the peculiar vocabulary which right-wing
extremists use to refer to this, you will end up being mistaken for a
right-wing extremist as well.
John Savard
Tom McDonald
Mistaken for?
Chris L Peterson
This is because the U.S. "leads" the rest of the industrialized world in
premature births. What is interesting is that the U.S. also leads the
rest of the world in the survival rate of premature babies. This just
emphasizes that our problem is one of policy, not medicine. We have the
best doctors and the best medical care in the world, but we have a very
poor system of making it widely available to our citizenry.
Chris L Peterson
>Once again, the United States of America is a Republic, not a
>Democracy.
Republics are democracies. "Democracy" describes a large number of
different government styles, all characterized by control by the people.
Saying American is not a democracy is like saying you are human, not an
animal.
Pierre Vandevenne
> This is because the U.S. "leads" the rest of the industrialized world in
> premature births. What is interesting is that the U.S. also leads the
> rest of the world in the survival rate of premature babies. This just
The main difference was in extremely premature babies 22/23rd weeks
and before. That's also a policy issue actually. While one can always
find the "miracle baby" who survived such a premature birth without
many major sequels, now that we have some history on those kids, we
know that in most cases they probably shouldn't have been
ressucitated. We didn't know before, because they all died... Now we
know, and they haven't lived their lives in full yet. Not pretty.
That's why you'll get 1000 deaths on 1000 births in some countries in
that term range. Hospitals have "do not ressucitate" orders in place.
It's quite hard to say which medical system is "best". Overall,
probably the scandinavian countries. In terms of "best show" in
extremely hard cases, the US and France duel is probably a tie.
But the biggest issue in the US is that the same or slightly better
(this just to be polite and avoid vexing Usians for whom the concept
of not being best is deeply disturbing) health care costs way too
much.
Chris L Peterson
<pie...@datarescue.com> wrote:
>But the biggest issue in the US is that the same or slightly better
>(this just to be polite and avoid vexing Usians for whom the concept
>of not being best is deeply disturbing) health care costs way too
>much.
There is a simple and excellent solution, which was attempted by at
least one state in the past. But it is very difficult to sell
politically. You provide a system that fixes what is likely to be
fixable. You don't pay for very premature babies. You don't pay for
procedures to extend life in the last couple of months for the
terminally ill. You don't pay to sustain old people in terminal organ
failure. You don't pay for procedures which have only a tiny chance of
success. Get rid of these things and you still serve nearly everybody,
but you drastically reduce costs.
Of course, all these things can still be available to those who can pay,
or opt to obtain the appropriate insurance. But none of these things
need to be paid for by the broader insurance program that would cover
everybody.
Quadibloc
> The main difference was in extremely premature babies 22/23rd weeks
> and before. That's also a policy issue actually. While one can always
> find the "miracle baby" who survived such a premature birth without
> many major sequels, now that we have some history on those kids, we
> know that in most cases they probably shouldn't have been
> ressucitated. We didn't know before, because they all died... Now we
> know, and they haven't lived their lives in full yet. Not pretty.
How can death be considered preferable to life with a disability? This
sort of thing is not up to individual discretion. One either does
everything available to save a life, or one is guilty of negligent
homicide, when one is responsible for that life - as a direct
caregiver is.
John Savard
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>How can death be considered preferable to life with a disability?
Very easily.
>This
>sort of thing is not up to individual discretion. One either does
>everything available to save a life, or one is guilty of negligent
>homicide, when one is responsible for that life - as a direct
>caregiver is.
Hardly. In the case of a competent patient, that decision is his, not
the caregiver's. In the case of an infant, the question is certainly
more complex. Personally, I don't consider a newborn to be a "person"
yet, so there is no obligation to save an infants life, outside the
wishes of the parent or parents. Again, not a decision by the medical
provider.
Quadibloc
> Personally, I don't consider a newborn to be a "person"
> yet, so there is no obligation to save an infants life, outside the
> wishes of the parent or parents. Again, not a decision by the medical
> provider.
That, of course, is controversial. My own opinion on these matters is
also not without controversy - I would consider an embryo to be
unquestionably a person at seven weeks of gestation, if not earlier.
But I would agree that prior to 27 days gestation, as none of the
precursor cells to neurons have differentiated at that point, laws
limiting abortion would constitute the imposition of a philosophical
viewpoint, and thus they would not be legitimate.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > But if you choose to use the peculiar vocabulary which right-wing
> > extremists use to refer to this, you will end up being mistaken for a
> > right-wing extremist as well.
>
> Mistaken for?
Generally speaking, except in extreme cases (such as Oriel36), I
respond to individual posts in a stateless fashion. Thus, I really
couldn't tell you what wsnel... from Hotmail's political views are.
Except in an extreme case, I wouldn't be inclined to pass judgement on
those views either; some people would call _me_ a right-wing
extremist, for any number of reasons, and some of the right-wing views
I don't share I still respect; I accept taxation for more purposes,
and more government regulation of firearms, than many American
conservatives, but I understand their concern that these things may
have implications for liberty.
While I consider Communism to be a totalitarian system that deserves
to be considered as comparable to Nazism, though, that doesn't mean
that I am unaware that some extremists have tried to hijack anti-
communism for their own purposes. For example, to persecute those who
are artists or intellectuals, those who defend secularism, those who
worked for racial equality.
Not that there weren't Communists working to decieve artists and
intellectuals, or attempting to exploit the discontent of the
downtrodden in America. But the extremists, instead of accepting, for
example, racial equality as a desirable and necessary goal, which
would be advanced by weeding out specific individuals and
organizations that were co-opted by disloyal forces, instead used the
existence of these individuals and organizations to proceed to the
conclusion that concern for racial equality was evidence of
disloyalty.
The agenda of McCarthyism wasn't to defeat Communism, it was to use
the legitimate concern that Communism engendered as a pretext to
obtain social control.
In "I Led Three Lives", and also quoted by J. Edgar Hoover in "Masters
of Deceit", the term "white chauvinist" for someone bigoted against
black people was listed as an example of Communist jargon... and in
that glossary entry, from back in the 1950s, "male chauvinist" was
also mentioned.
The equality of women is a proper and legitimate cause, but evil
forces were trying to co-opt that struggle, and their trail was
visible.
The enemy, though, is not always on the Left, any more than it is
never on the Left. McCarthyites have their own jargon, their own
distinctive trail.
John Savard
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 10, 1:42 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > As for cigarettes, tax the hell out of them. Twenty dollars a pack,
> > > fifty, whatever it takes to get people to abandon them.
>
> > The children of those who smoke might suffer financial deprivation if
> > you tax their parents too much.
>
> Indeed, something for the parents to think about before they buy that
> next pack.
Many parents don't seem to think about things such as that. How about
some math: A pack of cigarettes a day at $5 per pack costs $1825 per
year. That is money that could be used for or towards health
insurance premiums and the parent will be healthier for not smoking.
This is but one reason why rational, responsible people are against
pooling money in a government-run healthcare system. I spend my money
on taxes, someone else spends his money on vices.
> > They don't drop you for getting sick.
>
> Good grief, on what planet have you been living to make such a
> breathtakingly preposterous statement?
They might drop you for not disclosing a pre-existing condition, non-
payment of premiums, or no longer qualifying for a group plan, but not
just for making a claim. They want your premiums each month, but it
has to make business sense.
yourmommycalled
> They might drop you for not disclosing a pre-existing condition, non-
> payment of premiums, or no longer qualifying for a group plan, but not
> just for making a claim. They want your premiums each month, but it
> has to make business sense.
Being a miser and never reading any news, you missed all the
documented cases where health insurance companies did in fact collect
premiums and once a person became ill canceled the insurance policy
and refused to make good on the CONTRACT they signed. There are
numerous documented instances where people whose contracts were
canceled when a claims for conditions the patients did not have. You
simply ignore reality to fit your own distorted self-rightous greedy
point of view
Dennis Woos
> some math: A pack of cigarettes a day at $5 per pack costs $1825 per
> year. That is money that could be used for or towards health
> insurance premiums and the parent will be healthier for not smoking.
> This is but one reason why rational, responsible people are against
> pooling money in a government-run healthcare system. I spend my money
> on taxes, someone else spends his money on vices.
>
There is no way to agree on what is irresponsible behavior - cigarettes,
alcohol, talking on a cell phone, talking on a cell phone while you drive,
driving over the speed limit, riding a motorcycle, riding a motorcycle
without a helmet, etc. Surely you can appreciate why many (most?)
intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate folks see health care as something
that a civilized society guarantees for all, regardless of your or my or
whoever's ideas of culpability or responsibility? If we are talking strictly
in economic terms, I am sure that it makes the most sense to deny everyone
over 70 any kind of insurance, and instead bankrupt them and then grind them
up for pet food (assuming that we wouldn't want to eat them ourselves).
Dennis
William Hamblen
<c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:52:11 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Once again, the United States of America is a Republic, not a
>>Democracy.
>
>Republics are democracies. "Democracy" describes a large number of
>different government styles, all characterized by control by the people.
>Saying American is not a democracy is like saying you are human, not an
>animal.
Republics are not required to be democratic. Curiously, the countries
with "Democratic Republic" in their names tend to be undemocratic in
practice.
Bud
Chris L Peterson
<william...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Republics are not required to be democratic.
That's arguable, precisely because the term isn't very rigorously
defined.
>Curiously, the countries
>with "Democratic Republic" in their names tend to be undemocratic in
>practice.
True enough. Less to do with republics, however, than the fact that
countries often self-identify in ways that have no bearing on reality.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:55:34 -0600, William Hamblen
>
> >Republics are not required to be democratic.
>
> That's arguable, precisely because the term isn't very rigorously
> defined.
A nation that is run on a system of laws is a Republic, while a
nation that is run by a majority vote of the people is a Democracy.
The first describes the US very well, since new laws must be
Constitutional and the Constitution is difficult to change, whereas in
many other nations the people, perhaps represented by members of a
parliament, can make major changes to the basic machinery of
government almost on a whim.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> > Many parents don't seem to think about things such as that. How about
> > some math: A pack of cigarettes a day at $5 per pack costs $1825 per
> > year. That is money that could be used for or towards health
> > insurance premiums and the parent will be healthier for not smoking.
> > This is but one reason why rational, responsible people are against
> > pooling money in a government-run healthcare system. I spend my money
> > on taxes, someone else spends his money on vices.
>
> There is no way to agree on what is irresponsible behavior - cigarettes,
> alcohol, talking on a cell phone, talking on a cell phone while you drive,
> driving over the speed limit, riding a motorcycle, riding a motorcycle
> without a helmet, etc.
Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is certainly irresponsible, and I
have had to take evasive action often enough to avoid drivers
preoccupied with their cell phones, that my opinion that driving while
talking on a phone is irresponsible, is no longer mere opinion.
> Surely you can appreciate why many (most?)
> intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate folks see health care as something
> that a civilized society guarantees for all, regardless of your or my or
> whoever's ideas of culpability or responsibility?
If someone wants to smoke or use/abuse alcohol, then they need to take
full financial responsibility for those decisions, as should someone
who rides a motorcycle without a helmet. And if you want to make the
argument that some people can't afford health insurance, you need to
look a little deeper into their finances to see if there are any areas
where money can be saved on items that are not needed, before forcing
others to pay their way.
> If we are talking strictly
> in economic terms, I am sure that it makes the most sense to deny everyone
> over 70 any kind of insurance, and instead bankrupt them and then grind them
> up for pet food (assuming that we wouldn't want to eat them ourselves).
No, that doesn't make sense at all. There is nothing special about
the age 70 that should make someone that old or older ineligible for
insurance. In fact, their life expectancies tend to be longer than
those of people decades younger.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 11, 5:16 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > They might drop you for not disclosing a pre-existing condition, non-
> > payment of premiums, or no longer qualifying for a group plan, but not
> > just for making a claim. They want your premiums each month, but it
> > has to make business sense.
>
> Being a miser and never reading any news, you missed all the
> documented cases where health insurance companies did in fact collect
> premiums and once a person became ill canceled the insurance policy
> and refused to make good on the CONTRACT they signed.
This is where the courts come in.
> There are
> numerous documented instances where people whose contracts were
> canceled when a claims for conditions the patients did not have.
The courts can help in that case too.
> You
> simply ignore reality to fit your own distorted self-rightous greedy
> point of view
I suspect that you are rather greedy and you are definitely out of
touch with reality.
Dennis Woos
> Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is certainly irresponsible, and I
> have had to take evasive action often enough to avoid drivers
> preoccupied with their cell phones, that my opinion that driving while
> talking on a phone is irresponsible, is no longer mere opinion.
>
>> Surely you can appreciate why many (most?)
>> intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate folks see health care as
>> something
>> that a civilized society guarantees for all, regardless of your or my or
>> whoever's ideas of culpability or responsibility?
>
> If someone wants to smoke or use/abuse alcohol, then they need to take
> full financial responsibility for those decisions, as should someone
> who rides a motorcycle without a helmet. And if you want to make the
> argument that some people can't afford health insurance, you need to
> look a little deeper into their finances to see if there are any areas
> where money can be saved on items that are not needed, before forcing
> others to pay their way.
>
Do you think it is possible to agree on what constitutes risky behavior? Do
you really believe that it is possible to analyze everyone's lifestyle
choices in order to compute what constitutes "full financial responsibility
for those decisions"? Would you allow considering genetic predispositions? I
wonder how I would rate your lifestyle, and you mine? And finally, you never
address what happens to those who simply are poor - even when we "look a
little deeper".
Dennis
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Do you think it is possible to agree on what constitutes risky behavior?
Sure, you can do it statistically. In reality, there are only two
"voluntary" factors that dominate the public health picture from the
standpoint of economics: smoking and obesity. A public health care
system based on universal insurance can deal with this by utilizing
tiered premiums. You fully cover programs for smoking cessation and
weight control under the lowest cost plan, and only extract the higher
premiums in the case of those who choose not to take advantage of those
programs.
Dennis Woos
>
> Sure, you can do it statistically. In reality, there are only two
> "voluntary" factors that dominate the public health picture from the
> standpoint of economics: smoking and obesity. A public health care
> system based on universal insurance can deal with this by utilizing
> tiered premiums. You fully cover programs for smoking cessation and
> weight control under the lowest cost plan, and only extract the higher
> premiums in the case of those who choose not to take advantage of those
> programs.
My understanding is that some of the latest research is calling into
question the obesity thing? It seems that many parts of the country are ok
with penalizing smokers, but I don't sense any support for penalizing fat
people. In any case, looking at it strictly as a statistical problem can
never work in our society, especially when we include genetic factors
predisposing folks to whatever. Considering
wealth/lifestyle/heredity/genetics can only be carried so far (and not very
far) before we start making distinctions that violate our values of
fairness, privacy and compassion. It seems like Americans are converging on
the idea that health care is a fundamental right, and should be made
available to everyone regardless of what the statistics show. Anyhow, nobody
understands (notably doctors?) or trusts statistics!!
Dennis
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>My understanding is that some of the latest research is calling into
>question the obesity thing?
I don't think so. Only that being a little overweight isn't necessarily
unhealthy for everybody. I don't think there's any question that obesity
from a public health standpoint is a huge problem.
>It seems that many parts of the country are ok
>with penalizing smokers, but I don't sense any support for penalizing fat
>people.
Why not? While there may be physical factors involved, they can be
mitigated with treatment- treatment included in the basic plan. So you
aren't penalizing anybody for being obese, only for failing to address
the problem.
>In any case, looking at it strictly as a statistical problem can
>never work in our society, especially when we include genetic factors
>predisposing folks to whatever.
That's precisely why I'm looking at statistics. You can easily choose to
ignore genetic factors because they are outside of individual control.
You only look at the statistics of voluntary behavior, and you can limit
this to factors which are significant to the cost of public health care.
Right now, I think that only applies to smoking and obesity. Next would
probably be alcohol abuse, but I don't think this actually amounts to
much real cost compared with the first two.
The point is, a public health system is trying to maximize public
health, not maximize profits. Such a system has no motive for filtering
people out based on factors outside their control, and little motive for
filtering people out based on factors that don't substantially impact
the cost to the public of operating the system.
>It seems like Americans are converging on
>the idea that health care is a fundamental right, and should be made
>available to everyone regardless of what the statistics show.
I think that is generally true, although I don't think there's anything
like a consensus that "made available" means "free", or that it means
the cost would be the same for everyone. That would only represent one
extreme- one I don't think we'll see anytime soon in the U.S. (nor, IMO,
should we).
Dennis Woos
>>with penalizing smokers, but I don't sense any support for penalizing fat
>>people.
>
> Why not? While there may be physical factors involved, they can be
> mitigated with treatment- treatment included in the basic plan. So you
> aren't penalizing anybody for being obese, only for failing to address
> the problem.
>
I see where removing the profit motive is a big part of your formulation,
but I have to wonder whether you are missing just how high-voltage these
issues are, and how difficult it is to achieve consensus on their causes and
cures. For instance, isn't there a lot of attention being given to women's
weight issues, e.g. body-image, self-worth, sexuality, with the idea being
that it is ok (or at least not bad) to be heavy? Health care is a lot more
than running the numbers - a fact that the medical profession in the US is
often faulted for ignoring.
Dennis
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Health care is a lot more
>than running the numbers...
Rationally, I disagree. There is no reason you can't use a rigorous
approach that maximizes benefits within a specified cost.
Politically, I don't doubt that you are correct. It is politics, not
money, that has prevented up from improving our system.
Dennis Woos
>>than running the numbers...
>
> Rationally, I disagree. There is no reason you can't use a rigorous
> approach that maximizes benefits within a specified cost.
>
> Politically, I don't doubt that you are correct. It is politics, not
> money, that has prevented up from improving our system.
I don't want to get too carried away with this discussion, but I do want to
suggest that the idea that "health care is a lot more than running the
numbers" is not just a political statement, but a medical one as well. I
have seen my parents and other aged folks go through the medical system, and
it is undeniable that there is disagreement and uncertainty about what
constitutes good treatment and care. I expect that it isn't news to you that
science as we understand it cannot be the sole, or maybe even primary, guide
in "healing" folks - whatever "healing" might mean to the patient and their
family.
Dennis
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>I expect that it isn't news to you that
>science as we understand it cannot be the sole, or maybe even primary, guide
>in "healing" folks - whatever "healing" might mean to the patient and their
>family.
No, I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm suggesting is that
statistics and economics should be what drives public health care. The
public should pay for works. It should not pay for procedures that have
low success rates, or for extending life for short times. It should
require that smokers and the obese get treated. These are not
complicated things, and together they could probably cut the cost of
health care in half- maybe more.
oriel36
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:38:59 -0500, "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I expect that it isn't news to you that
> >science as we understand it cannot be the sole, or maybe even primary, guide
> >in "healing" folks - whatever "healing" might mean to the patient and their
> >family.
>
> No, I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm suggesting is that
> statistics and economics should be what drives public health care. The
> public should pay for works. It should not pay for procedures that have
> low success rates, or for extending life for short times. It should
> require that smokers and the obese get treated.
Somewhere in the back of that indoctrinated brain of yours and
thousands like you,the idea that the planet is sick,people are fat and
unhealthy can be rectified by some scientific dictated agenda makes
sense to you but it is insanity by any other name.
The most successful way to stop smoking is based on not listening to
scientists,I know this after stopping a 60 a day habit 5 years ago,but
by understanding why people smoke and not because of health
concerns.The same with pollution,it does not have to be about 'climate
change' for that happens anyway,it is about reducing pollution and not
returning the planet to some silly idea that there is an ideal
temperature level which is what you cretins attempt to do because of
that stupid conclusion which turns carbon dioxide into a global
temperature dial.
http://allencarr.com/central/article/37/tell-allen-carr-you-quit-smoking
The great majority of people are forced into a belief that astronomy
is about mathematics or a magnification exercise and stay away from
it for those reasons but there is nothing more enjoyable that genuine
astronomy which requires nothing more than an effort to develop the
natural intuitive abilities which every person has in order to enjoy
what astronomers really did and should do.The indoctrination which
most here suffer from is the same which prevents people from stop
smoking,they fear something which does not exist.
Quadibloc
> The point is, a public health system is trying to maximize public
> health, not maximize profits.
Ah, but if it's run by people who believe that taxation is theft in
disguise, then of course there's every motive for minimizing
expenditures as much as possible to reduce the burden on the suffering
taxpayer. Even if that's not what most of the taxpayers would prefer.
As long as it's cheaper for fat rich people to hire their own doctors
than to pay taxes for a system where lifestyle choices are not
strongly penalized, those who support such a system will find it
easier to obtain campaign donations.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> No, I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm suggesting is that
> statistics and economics should be what drives public health care. The
> public should pay for works. It should not pay for procedures that have
> low success rates, or for extending life for short times. It should
> require that smokers and the obese get treated.
Given the context, you might be misunderstood.
Do you mean that smokers should receive treatment when they get lung
cancer, and the obese get treated when they have heart attacks...
or that smokers receive treatment to help them quit smoking, and the
obese receive treatment to help them lose weight?
Since nicotine is an addictive drug, and cigarettes have been, and
are, legal, I would recommend that rather than fighting a losing
battle, we simply:
- offer help in quitting smoking free to those who want it;
- phase out legal tobacco by having the legal smoking age increase by
one day every day; that is, after day X, only those people who were 18
years of age or older on day X may legally posses tobacco for the
purpose of personal use.
However, while I don't smoke, I've heard that some people, such as
schizophrenics, but many other clinically normal people as well, have
trouble concentrating - and tobacco is the only over-the-counter drug
that is effective in helping that. Also, it's an effective appetite
suppressant.
As for too much weight, it's all very well to say that people should
eat a healthy diet and get plenty of exercise. The demands of work,
problems with sleep, and the kinds of recreation people can afford to
engage in, however, create obstacles.
The rich go swimming, the poor do push-ups? The poor get fired for
being asleep on the job after junk food is made illegal?
Personal responsibility *is* a good idea, but not when it is handled
in a hypocritical and inequitable fashion.
John Savard
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Given the context, you might be misunderstood.
>
>Do you mean that smokers should receive treatment when they get lung
>cancer, and the obese get treated when they have heart attacks...
Yes, everybody should have access to treatment. I meant that smokers and
the obese should pay a higher premium if they opt not to take advantage
of programs to help them.
>- phase out legal tobacco by having the legal smoking age increase by
>one day every day; that is, after day X, only those people who were 18
>years of age or older on day X may legally posses tobacco for the
>purpose of personal use.
I don't believe in restricting access to any drugs by adults (which I
would define as 21 years of age). But I'd regulate the heck out of just
where people can smoke. And I'd tax tobacco to compensate for its public
cost.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> > Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is certainly irresponsible, and I
> > have had to take evasive action often enough to avoid drivers
> > preoccupied with their cell phones, that my opinion that driving while
> > talking on a phone is irresponsible, is no longer mere opinion.
>
> >> Surely you can appreciate why many (most?)
> >> intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate folks see health care as
> >> something
> >> that a civilized society guarantees for all, regardless of your or my or
> >> whoever's ideas of culpability or responsibility?
>
> > If someone wants to smoke or use/abuse alcohol, then they need to take
> > full financial responsibility for those decisions, as should someone
> > who rides a motorcycle without a helmet. And if you want to make the
> > argument that some people can't afford health insurance, you need to
> > look a little deeper into their finances to see if there are any areas
> > where money can be saved on items that are not needed, before forcing
> > others to pay their way.
>
> Do you think it is possible to agree on what constitutes risky behavior?
Yes.
> Do
> you really believe that it is possible to analyze everyone's lifestyle
> choices in order to compute what constitutes "full financial responsibility
> for those decisions"?
One avoids the need to do so by simply letting people be responsible
for their own choices.
> Would you allow considering genetic predispositions?
Predispositions are just that, predispositions. If your parents or
grand parents suffer from heart disease, that should be enough
incentive for you to follow a heart-healthy lifestyle and plan ahead,
early in life, with a good insurance policy.
> I
> wonder how I would rate your lifestyle, and you mine?
I don't smoke, drink, overeat, take drugs or do anything very risky.
I have no idea what you do, but as long as you are not expecting me to
pay for your problems, I don't care.
>And finally, you never
> address what happens to those who simply are poor - even when we "look a
> little deeper".
The very poor can be covered by Medicaid. The very rich can pay for
healthcare out-of-pocket. Those in the middle class need to make wise
choices, take care of themselves, and have catastrophic coverage.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 12, 10:08 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > The point is, a public health system is trying to maximize public
> > health, not maximize profits.
>
> Ah, but if it's run by people who believe that taxation is theft in
> disguise, then of course there's every motive for minimizing
> expenditures as much as possible to reduce the burden on the suffering
> taxpayer. Even if that's not what most of the taxpayers would prefer.
Ah, the tyranny of the majority. The US might now be close to the
point that the majority of people who can vote are not subject to
income taxes. Representation without taxation. Vote for politicians
who will tax someone else to pay for something that you don't have
enough of, whether it be healthcare, food, housing, entertainment,
etc.
> As long as it's cheaper for fat rich people to hire their own doctors
> than to pay taxes for a system where lifestyle choices are not
> strongly penalized, those who support such a system will find it
> easier to obtain campaign donations.
Or they can buy non-taxpayer votes with money taken from taxpayers,
which seems to be the real problem.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 12, 12:19 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > No, I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm suggesting is that
> > statistics and economics should be what drives public health care. The
> > public should pay for works. It should not pay for procedures that have
> > low success rates, or for extending life for short times. It should
> > require that smokers and the obese get treated.
>
> Given the context, you might be misunderstood.
>
> Do you mean that smokers should receive treatment when they get lung
> cancer, and the obese get treated when they have heart attacks...
>
> or that smokers receive treatment to help them quit smoking, and the
> obese receive treatment to help them lose weight?
>
> Since nicotine is an addictive drug, and cigarettes have been, and
> are, legal, I would recommend that rather than fighting a losing
> battle, we simply:
>
> - offer help in quitting smoking free to those who want it;
Except that offering help to quit isn't an incentive to quit. And
remember, most people don't smoke and never did.
> - phase out legal tobacco by having the legal smoking age increase by
> one day every day; that is, after day X, only those people who were 18
> years of age or older on day X may legally posses tobacco for the
> purpose of personal use.
Oh, great, now we have something else for drug dealers to sell, not to
mention the fact that the government would be treating people
differently under the law.
> However, while I don't smoke, I've heard that some people, such as
> schizophrenics, but many other clinically normal people as well, have
> trouble concentrating - and tobacco is the only over-the-counter drug
> that is effective in helping that. Also, it's an effective appetite
> suppressant.
>
> As for too much weight, it's all very well to say that people should
> eat a healthy diet and get plenty of exercise. The demands of work,
> problems with sleep, and the kinds of recreation people can afford to
> engage in, however, create obstacles.
>
> The rich go swimming, the poor do push-ups?
The poor can walk or ride a bike. Or take the stairs, not the
elevator. Snack on fruits and vegetables instead of doughnuts and
potato chips (which cost something on the order of $15 per pound when
purchased from a vending machine.) All of these things will help.
> The poor get fired for
> being asleep on the job after junk food is made illegal?
Hunger makes one sleepy??
> Personal responsibility *is* a good idea, but not when it is handled
> in a hypocritical and inequitable fashion.
One can still take personal responsibility in an "inequitable"
situation, even if other people are perceived to be "hypocritical."
Dennis Woos
> point that the majority of people who can vote are not subject to
> income taxes. Representation without taxation. Vote for politicians
> who will tax someone else to pay for something that you don't have
> enough of, whether it be healthcare, food, housing, entertainment,
> etc.
There is lots of stuff that is funded by taxes, and that
we/society/government think works better that way. I and apparently many
others would be happy to see basic health care added to the list of services
funded by taxes. There are some protections against the "tyranny of the
majority", but finally, if there is enough consensus, we get what we want
even if it means amending the Constitution. Your right to try and convince
others of your point of view is protected and hopefully always will be, but
if you are dead set against the value of taxes then I think you are in a
tough position that will only get tougher. Personally, I really appreciate
all of the benefits of living in a functioning society and think that the
cost to me in taxes is low for what I am getting. I feel very fortunate to
be living and raising a family in the "here and now", and know of no "there
and then" that was overall better. I sincerely hope that it doesn't bum you
out too badly - get yourself a really nice scope and some dark skies and
enjoy yourself!
Dennis
wsne...@hotmail.com
> > Ah, the tyranny of the majority. The US might now be close to the
> > point that the majority of people who can vote are not subject to
> > income taxes. Representation without taxation. Vote for politicians
> > who will tax someone else to pay for something that you don't have
> > enough of, whether it be healthcare, food, housing, entertainment,
> > etc.
>
> There is lots of stuff that is funded by taxes,
Too much already, in fact.
> and that
> we/society/government think works better that way.
Society works _despite_ the high level of taxation, not because of
it. Lower taxes would be better.
> I and apparently many
> others would be happy to see basic health care added to the list of services
> funded by taxes.
And others would not, a majority in fact. But don't confuse that fact
with a "tyranny of the majority."
> There are some protections against the "tyranny of the
> majority", but finally, if there is enough consensus,
Consensus was not the way the US government was designed to be run (or
science either.)
> we get what we want
> even if it means amending the Constitution.
Difficult, thankfully.
> Your right to try and convince
> others of your point of view is protected and hopefully always will be, but
> if you are dead set against the value of taxes then I think you are in a
> tough position that will only get tougher.
Unfortunately, that may be true, but that does absolutely nothing to
weaken the validity of my opinion.
> Personally, I really appreciate
> all of the benefits of living in a functioning society and think that the
> cost to me in taxes is low for what I am getting.
If you benefit from government programs, then no wonder. Many others
receive little or no net benefit, and often a "negative benefit"and so
have a different view.
> I feel very fortunate to
> be living and raising a family in the "here and now", and know of no "there
> and then" that was overall better. I sincerely hope that it doesn't bum you
> out too badly - get yourself a really nice scope and some dark skies and
> enjoy yourself!
If my taxes go up to pay for someone else's problems, that might not
be possible.
Dennis Woos
> weaken the validity of my opinion.
Your opinion is certainly "valid", but unfortunately (for you) I think that
it is a minority position and hasn't and won't carry the day here in the
USA. In fact, I don't know where you could go where it has or will, do you?
It is interesting how many science fiction stories are based on the idea of
like-minded and strong-feeling folks leaving Earth and founding new
societies on other worlds. Maybe this is tapping into a real and powerful
problem, i.e. that one planet is just too small to host all of our world
views? Clear skies to you.
Dennis
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>There is lots of stuff that is funded by taxes, and that
>we/society/government think works better that way. I and apparently many
>others would be happy to see basic health care added to the list of services
>funded by taxes.
Well put. This, of course, is what the teabaggers don't get: a society
by definition exists to provide common services. And a democratic
society decides what those common services will be. There's nothing
unusual or extraordinary about health services being in this category;
indeed, it is the norm in most of the developed world. We have far too
many taxes now going to things with little or no public benefit; it's
hard to rationally argue against something so obviously beneficial as
universal access to affordable health care.
As you say, there is a tangible benefit to everyone to live in a well
functioning society. And ours could use some improvement.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>It is interesting how many science fiction stories are based on the idea of
>like-minded and strong-feeling folks leaving Earth and founding new
>societies on other worlds.
Khaaaan!
Dennis Woos
>>of
>>like-minded and strong-feeling folks leaving Earth and founding new
>>societies on other worlds.
>
> Khaaaan!
>
Thanks - I'm having my best laugh of the week!
wsne...@hotmail.com
> > Unfortunately, that may be true, but that does absolutely nothing to
> > weaken the validity of my opinion.
>
> Your opinion is certainly "valid",
My opinion that taxes are too high and that taxes should only be used
for legitimate (Constitutional) purposes is not only valid, it is the
truth. The US government should not be in the insurance business.
That is not one of its functions.
> but unfortunately (for you) I think that
> it is a minority position
Unfortunately (for you) it isn't.
> and hasn't and won't carry the day here in the
> USA.
Let's hope voters wake to the mistakes made by giving the Democrats
control of the Congress and White House.
> In fact, I don't know where you could go where it has or will, do you?
Conservatives shouldn't have to go anywhere; they FOUNDED this country
in order to get away from corruption such as that we are now seeing in
Congress.
> It is interesting how many science fiction stories are based on the idea of
> like-minded and strong-feeling folks leaving Earth and founding new
> societies on other worlds. Maybe this is tapping into a real and powerful
> problem, i.e. that one planet is just too small to host all of our world
> views?
You are welcome to pursue whatever "world view" you wish, so long as
you don't interfere with the rights of other people whose "world view"
is not to your liking.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:40:33 -0500, "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net>
> wrote:
>
> >There is lots of stuff that is funded by taxes, and that
> >we/society/government think works better that way. I and apparently many
> >others would be happy to see basic health care added to the list of services
> >funded by taxes.
>
> Well put.
Not "well put" at all. There are many thing currently funded by the US
government that are not its function, but that problem doesn't justify
adding health care, basic or not, to the list.
>This, of course, is what the teabaggers don't get: a society
> by definition exists to provide common services.
No, it doesn't.
> And a democratic
> society decides what those common services will be.
But the US is a Republic.
> There's nothing
> unusual or extraordinary about health services being in this category;
> indeed, it is the norm in most of the developed world.
The "developed world" being Europe, which needed the US to get it out
of two world wars and a cold war, and which was largely controlled by
communists for most of the 20th century?
> We have far too
> many taxes now going to things with little or no public benefit; it's
> hard to rationally argue against something so obviously beneficial as
> universal access to affordable health care.
That is an illogical statement. Existing waste of taxpayer dollars is
no reason to raise taxes even more to pay for something that the
government is not supposed to provide.
> As you say, there is a tangible benefit to everyone to live in a well
> functioning society. And ours could use some improvement.
Start by voting out free-spending, leftist politicians.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> >>It is interesting how many science fiction stories are based on the idea
> >>of
> >>like-minded and strong-feeling folks leaving Earth and founding new
> >>societies on other worlds.
It's rather amusing that freedom and responsibility are now the stuff
of sci-fi and fantasy in your rminds.
> > Khaaaan!
>
> Thanks - I'm having my best laugh of the week!
So, was Khan a leftist or a conservative?
Chris L Peterson
>Not "well put" at all. There are many thing currently funded by the US
>government that are not its function, but that problem doesn't justify
>adding health care, basic or not, to the list.
It is the business of the government to provide for the general welfare
of its citizens. Arguably, that is its only function. And in a democracy
like ours, it is the people who dictate how the government will do that.
The government is fully within its proper functions here. It is only you
who happens to disagree with the current interpretation.
>But the US is a Republic.
So?
>The "developed world" being Europe, which needed the US to get it out
>of two world wars and a cold war, and which was largely controlled by
>communists for most of the 20th century?
So? Are you living in the past? The U.S. was largely controlled by crazy
anti-Communists for half of the 20th century, and by criminals for the
first decade of the 21st century. Things change.
>Start by voting out free-spending, leftist politicians.
Well, we started by voting out free-spending, rightist politicians. Lets
see where things go from here...
Chris L Peterson
>So, was Khan a leftist or a conservative?
Leftist and conservative aren't necessarily opposites. I'm both.
As for Khan, lets see... he was an anarchist, a racist, a eugenicist.
I'd say that makes him a hybrid of an Ayn Rand libertarian and a
southern Republican.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:12:14 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Not "well put" at all. There are many thing currently funded by the US
> >government that are not its function, but that problem doesn't justify
> >adding health care, basic or not, to the list.
>
> It is the business of the government to provide for the general welfare
> of its citizens.
The business of the US government is to provide for the "general
welfare of the United States" not its citizens.
> Arguably, that is its only function. And in a democracy
> like ours,
Once again the US is not a democracy. Try to get that through your
thick skull.
> it is the people who dictate how the government will do that.
No, they don't.
> The government is fully within its proper functions here. It is only you
> who happens to disagree with the current interpretation.
NO, millions of others would agree with me.
> >But the US is a Republic.
>
> So?
You left out the part where you implied that the US is a Democratic
society:
"And a democratic society decides what those common services will be."
As I have explained to you before the US is a Republic, not a
Democracy. The framers of the Constitution well understood the
dangers of a Democracy, and took great pains to avoid forming one.
You will not find the word Democracy in the Constitution of the United
States.
> >The "developed world" being Europe, which needed the US to get it out
> >of two world wars and a cold war, and which was largely controlled by
> >communists for most of the 20th century?
>
> So? Are you living in the past? The U.S. was largely controlled by crazy
> anti-Communists for half of the 20th century, and by criminals for the
> first decade of the 21st century. Things change.
Given the evils of communism, why would someone who is anti-communist
be considered crazy? And exactly who are/were these "crazy anti-
communists" anyway? The wheeling and dealing that the Democrats
engaged in to get votes for HR 3962 was criminal as far as I am
concerned.
> >Start by voting out free-spending, leftist politicians.
>
> Well, we started by voting out free-spending, rightist politicians. Lets
> see where things go from here...
Vote out the Democrats, replace them with fiscal conservatives. Then
you won't have to worry so much about "free-spending rightist
politcians" who are much less numerous anyway.
Chris L Peterson
>The business of the US government is to provide for the "general
>welfare of the United States" not its citizens.
Well, if you think there's a difference, that explains all your
problems.
>Once again the US is not a democracy. Try to get that through your
>thick skull.
I can't believe you lack the wits to understand this. We are a
democracy. Nobody who remotely understands government would doubt this.
Again, your inability to grasp even the most basic concepts explains
much about your peculiar opinions.
>NO, millions of others would agree with me.
No doubt. There are millions of stupid, ignorant people in this country.
Fortunately, they remain a minority (although far too large of a
minority).
>Vote out the Democrats, replace them with fiscal conservatives.
If you can find any. Most of those who claim to be fiscal conservatives
are also social conservatives. And those are far worse for our country
than any spend-without-taxing Republicans or tax-and-spend Democrats.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:15:48 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >So, was Khan a leftist or a conservative?
>
> Leftist and conservative aren't necessarily opposites. I'm both.
A conservative, as the term is used in the United States, will support
the Constitution, whereas a leftist such as yourself finds the
document to be inconvenient. Now if you were a citizen of a communist
country and supported the communist regime, you could then call
yourself a conservative leftist.
> As for Khan, lets see... he was an anarchist, a racist, a eugenicist.
> I'd say that makes him a hybrid of an Ayn Rand libertarian and a
> southern Republican.
If Khan was a racist and eugenicist, that would make him more akin to
a fascist, which has nothing to do with Libertarianism. He probably
wasn't an anarchist, he just wanted to put himself in charge,
supporting the idea that he would be a fascist. Now, are you saying
that southern Republicans are anarchists? Answer carefully.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:26:39 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >The business of the US government is to provide for the "general
> >welfare of the United States" not its citizens.
>
> Well, if you think there's a difference, that explains all your
> problems.
>
> >Once again the US is not a democracy. Try to get that through your
> >thick skull.
>
> I can't believe you lack the wits to understand this. We are a
> democracy. Nobody who remotely understands government would doubt this.
No, we are not a Democracy.
> Again, your inability to grasp even the most basic concepts explains
> much about your peculiar opinions.
Nothing peculiar about my opinions.
> >NO, millions of others would agree with me.
>
> No doubt. There are millions of stupid, ignorant people in this country.
Count yourself among them.
> Fortunately, they remain a minority (although far too large of a
> minority).
>
> >Vote out the Democrats, replace them with fiscal conservatives.
>
> If you can find any.
There are plenty of them, but they are too busy working to play
politics.
> Most of those who claim to be fiscal conservatives
> are also social conservatives.
Not actually true, but what is true is that most liberals (leftists)
are not fiscally conservative, since without a method of
redistributing wealth (via taxes for social programs) they are
powerless to make many of the social changes they wish to inflict on
others.
> And those are far worse for our country
> than any spend-without-taxing Republicans or tax-and-spend Democrats.
Vote for fiscal conservatives of either party (much more likely to be
Republican.)
Chris L Peterson
>A conservative, as the term is used in the United States, will support
>the Constitution, whereas a leftist such as yourself finds the
>document to be inconvenient.
I don't accept your distinction here between "left" and "conservative".
Certainly, the (by most current definitions) conservative government we
kicked out last year had no respect for the Constitution at all. Of
course, I wouldn't consider that government "conservative" by
traditional definitions.
Personally, I support the Constitution, and find it far from
inconvenient.
>If Khan was a racist and eugenicist, that would make him more akin to
>a fascist, which has nothing to do with Libertarianism. He probably
>wasn't an anarchist, he just wanted to put himself in charge,
>supporting the idea that he would be a fascist. Now, are you saying
>that southern Republicans are anarchists?
No, the anarchist part is the Ayn Rand reference. The racist and
eugenicist part is the southern Republicans.
Quadibloc
> You are welcome to pursue whatever "world view" you wish, so long as
> you don't interfere with the rights of other people whose "world view"
> is not to your liking.
The trouble is that in an overcrowded world, respecting the rights of
others goes 'way down in priority. As Einstein - admittedly, not noted
for his conservative views - noted, "An empty stomach is not a good
political advisor".
Hungry people will tend to even support demagogues, so even more
limited amounts of economic pressure will lead to the electorate
voting for politicians who are willing to interfere with the free
market, whether by means of welfare programs, or by measures which
change the balance of market power, such as the Taft-Hartley act.
While welfare is generally accepted as leading to destructive social
pathologies (presumably the alternative isn't just letting people
starve, but private charities which would somehow be more
rehabilitative) legalizing the labor union has a considerably larger
social consensus in its favor. It is seen as helping to complete the
revolution voluntarily started by Henry Ford.
The basic problem is that the first thing everybody needs to do is
eat. Growing food by hydroponics or whatever is hugely more expensive
than conventional agriculture. Agriculture is a relatively mature
technology, even if the Green Revolution and transgenic crops have led
to improvements. Population growth changes the ratio of people to
resources, and therefore reduces the efficiency with which labor can
be converted to wealth for a given level of technology. Technical
progress has been very rapid in the area of computers, but it has been
considerably slower in many other fields.
This is why it has been a recurring theme in science fiction that the
history of America might repeat itself. Just as the colonists had to
escape from an overcrowded Europe run by dictatorships, so people
might in the future escape an overcrowded Earth to bring about a
rebirth of freedom on Mars or wherever.
Given the cost of spaceflight, this seems unrealistic.
As the Earth grows poorer and more crowded, though, it is likely that
it will not be possible to have both political liberty and economic
liberty; instead, either with political liberty, the ultimate result
will be that any Constitutional obstacles will be amended away (or
ignored by the courts) or an oligarchic rule, maintained by increasing
repression, will be needed to maintain (at least for those within the
oligarchy) economic liberty.
People _will_ attempt to take what they feel they need to survive.
John Savard
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:40:26 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >A conservative, as the term is used in the United States, will support
> >the Constitution, whereas a leftist such as yourself finds the
> >document to be inconvenient.
>
> I don't accept your distinction here between "left" and "conservative".
In the US leftists cannot be conservative. They may actually agree on
a very few issues with some conservatives, but only when it suits
their personal interests. They are still leftists.
> Certainly, the (by most current definitions) conservative government we
> kicked out last year had no respect for the Constitution at all. Of
> course, I wouldn't consider that government "conservative" by
> traditional definitions.
Compared to what we have now, it was.
> Personally, I support the Constitution, and find it far from
> inconvenient.
It does allow you some personal freedoms that you might not have in a
Democracy.
> >If Khan was a racist and eugenicist, that would make him more akin to
> >a fascist, which has nothing to do with Libertarianism. He probably
> >wasn't an anarchist, he just wanted to put himself in charge,
> >supporting the idea that he would be a fascist. Now, are you saying
> >that southern Republicans are anarchists?
>
> No, the anarchist part is the Ayn Rand reference. The racist and
> eugenicist part is the southern Republicans.
Rand was certainly NOT in favor of anarchy. Maybe being so far to the
left, you just aren't capable of telling the difference between
anarchy and the type of limited government Rand favored.
Most Republicans are not racist, and not a small number of Democrats
are. I seem to remember there being riots and demonstrations over
school busing in Boston, which isn't exactly a Republican stronghold.
We just have to hope that 0bama doesn't appoint any eugenicists to
government positions, such as Science Czar.
uncarollo
> Rand was certainly NOT in favor of anarchy. Maybe being so far to the
> left, you just aren't capable of telling the difference between
> anarchy and the type of limited government Rand favored.
I've read Rand, and I can say that I certainly do not agree with her
world view. I have friends who are dyed in the wool Libertarians to
the point where they even think Ron Paul is too soft. One can take
Libertarian ideas a bit too far. In my opinion things are more complex
than most Libertarians can understand. I will ask you to give me your
solution to this problem, using no government interference:
Up here in the Midwest we have very anti-Biggovernment farmers (who
nevertheless love crop support), who do NOT want any gubmint
interference in how they plant, what they plant and where they plant.
They'll have a stream running thru their back 40 and they plant right
up to the banks. This allows fertilizer and pesticides to run off into
the water, which gets carried off to who knows where (most of these
guys have not been out of their county ever) - out of sight, out of
mind. Of course this stuf finds its way into the nation's rivers and
eventually to the sea - again out of sight, out of mind.
Meanwhile down in the Gulf of Mexico, a giant dead zone grows. Same
thing in the Chesapeake Bay. This farm runoff pollution has now
destroyed a billion dollar fishing industry, and tens of thousands of
fishermen have lost their basic livelyhood. Sport fishing industry has
suffered, etc etc.
So how would you fix this, or do you think there is nothing to fix
here?
In my "liberal" mind, the government should spend taxpayer money to
study the problem, come up with regulations and laws to limit
environmental damage caused by improper farming techniques. The
"libertarian" farmers around here don't want no gummint angents
messing around their farms, telling them anything. If it isn't in the
Bahble or the Constitution, it's not legitimate. The only thing they
want is that farm support check, dagnabbit!!!
Dennis Woos
> In my "liberal" mind, the government should spend taxpayer money to
> study the problem, come up with regulations and laws to limit
> environmental damage caused by improper farming techniques. The
> "libertarian" farmers around here don't want no gummint angents
> messing around their farms, telling them anything. If it isn't in the
> Bahble or the Constitution, it's not legitimate. The only thing they
> want is that farm support check, dagnabbit!!!
It is not just in the Midwest, but it is the same here in Vermont and so I
suspect all over the country. What I see is that every
subsidy/support/assistance is evil, except one's own. I agree with the
farmers in Vermont when they say that agriculture is so distorted by
subsidies, supports, hidden costs and externalities, etc. that the idea of
just letting market forces drive agriculture is ludicrous, and unfairly
penalizes the farmers who can't get a teet. Unfortunately, they are unable
and/or unwilling to see that the same can be said of the economy as a whole.
Free Market Capitalism is so rare that it may in fact be extinct, at least
here in the US. Behind the rhetoric is the fact that no one wants it, least
of all business.
Dennis
uncarollo
I agree completely. I cannot see the reason for farm support of
business, or any other support. Locally we had a large car dealer get
tax abatement for 20 years so he would move into this particular
suburb. I also moved my business into this suburb, but did not ask for
or get any tax break. His business "generates" a certain number of
millions volume, mine generates less number of millions, but guess
what? His takes those millions out of the local economy and sends it
to Germany and Japan. Mine takes those millions from all over the
world and contributes to the income of local people, and local
suppliers. My payroll is actually higher than his. The politicians do
not take any of this into consideration when judging who should get a
break and who should not. By the way, since he's getting a tax break,
he is not contributing to the local taxing district at all. I say no
gov support of business. Gov should not be deciding who wins and who
loses.
Uncarollo
wsne...@hotmail.com
> > Rand was certainly NOT in favor of anarchy. Maybe being so far to the
> > left, you just aren't capable of telling the difference between
> > anarchy and the type of limited government Rand favored.
>
> I've read Rand, and I can say that I certainly do not agree with her
> world view. I have friends who are dyed in the wool Libertarians to
> the point where they even think Ron Paul is too soft.
Rand was not a Libertarian, and your Libertarian friends are entitled
to their opinions.
> One can take
> Libertarian ideas a bit too far.
That is less dangerous than taking collectivist ideas too far.
> In my opinion things are more complex
> than most Libertarians can understand.
In my opinion things are more complex than any collectivist can
understand.
> I will ask you to give me your
> solution to this problem, using no government interference:
Even a Libertarian government would enact laws under the Constitution,
so your premise of "no government interference" is utterly invalid.
Libertarians are not anarchists, even though there are probably
anarchists who call themselves Libertarians.
> Up here in the Midwest we have very anti-Biggovernment farmers (who
> nevertheless love crop support), who do NOT want any gubmint
> interference in how they plant, what they plant and where they plant.
> They'll have a stream running thru their back 40 and they plant right
> up to the banks. This allows fertilizer and pesticides to run off into
> the water, which gets carried off to who knows where (most of these
> guys have not been out of their county ever) - out of sight, out of
> mind. Of course this stuf finds its way into the nation's rivers and
> eventually to the sea - again out of sight, out of mind.
This is akin to littering, and laws are passed to regulate these sorts
of problems. This doesn't have anything to do with property rights.
> Meanwhile down in the Gulf of Mexico, a giant dead zone grows. Same
> thing in the Chesapeake Bay. This farm runoff pollution has now
> destroyed a billion dollar fishing industry, and tens of thousands of
> fishermen have lost their basic livelyhood. Sport fishing industry has
> suffered, etc etc.
>
> So how would you fix this, or do you think there is nothing to fix
> here?
Again, polluting the streams and rivers is to be discouraged and
outlawed. Of course non-point-source pollution arises in many places
other than farms. Do you have a lawn? Play any golf? Kids play
soccer on a grass field?
> In my "liberal" mind,
That seems an oxymoron.
> the government should spend taxpayer money to
> study the problem, come up with regulations and laws to limit
> environmental damage caused by improper farming techniques.
Spending relatively small amounts of money to gain knowledge about a
problem is a far cry from coercing some people to pay taxes to support
other people who are often more able-bodied than those who are taxed.
Your whole argument is nothing but a straw-man.
> The
> "libertarian" farmers around here don't want no gummint angents
> messing around their farms, telling them anything. If it isn't in the
> Bahble or the Constitution, it's not legitimate. The only thing they
> want is that farm support check, dagnabbit!!!
We don't really know if they are Libertarian or not. If they want
government subsidies, we can rightly conclude that they are not. And
farm support checks are often the end result of Democrat policies.
Democrats love to buy votes with taxpayer money. We saw it last
November. It's their job, it's what they do.
wsne...@hotmail.com
No, his customers are simply exercising their freedom of choice, a
very Libertarian idea. If he got a "tax break" and you didn't maybe
the question you should be asking is "why are taxes so high around
here?" Or open a car dealership of your own. A GM dealership of
course.
> Mine takes those millions from all over the
> world and contributes to the income of local people, and local
> suppliers. My payroll is actually higher than his. The politicians do
> not take any of this into consideration when judging who should get a
> break and who should not.
You could also run for local office and fix the perceived problem.
> By the way, since he's getting a tax break,
> he is not contributing to the local taxing district at all.
His employees pay local income tax, correct? His customers pay taxes
on new vehicles, correct? Local businesses now have one more
dealership from whom to buy, increasing competition, correct?
>I say no
> gov support of business.
He isn't really getting any government support, he's just not being
taxed quite as much.
> Gov should not be deciding who wins and who
> loses.
Under a more "Libertarian" system you would come much closer to that
ideal.
wsne...@hotmail.com
It actually does still exist, for now.
> at least
> here in the US. Behind the rhetoric is the fact that no one wants it, least
> of all business.
Businesses that are already established might not want it, but new
business owners are constantly on the lookout for a foothold, and
often find it.