Public Roads, Public Parks, and the Public Health Care Option - Page 7 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

RichC · #91 08-26-2009, 01:22 AM

I do not wish to continue devolving this thread with personal comments.

If you really want to know something about me then you can PM me.

Thanks for all the horrible personal insults guys.

I hope you all find a way to be happy.

Good luck.

cmac2012 · #92 08-26-2009, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Maybe the question is, " How much public stuff SHOULD there be?"
Or maybe, " Is there a better use for the public funds that do all that stuff?". Could any of it be dome better by private enterprise?"

I've heard many times that our National Park system is the envy of Europeans. The finest land over there for that sort of thing has long since been taken care of by private enterprise.

Privatizing military force in Iraq is not looking too good. Xe guys have pulled some pretty gnarly crap. Neo-crusaders, going over to waste hajis for the glory of God. Privatizing troop maintenance has resulted in 13 soldiers dead - electrocuted in showers. Mess halls with several types of pizza and many flavors of ice cream available. All of that stuff delivered at some cost in $$ and risk to life. Not sure it's such a good thing to make it as much like home as possible for our guys over there. Might tend to get too comfortable. Starts to look like we're colonizing the place.

Universities used to be private enterprise only. Only the elite could go to such places. We see how returned vets were treated in an atmosphere of almost exclusively private enterprise after WW1. Many Daddy Warbucks types came out of that but many, many more vets languished in poverty for years. After WW2, a bonafide socialist program, the GI Bill, provided much better treatment for returned vets and ended up being one of the best public investments of all time.

I don't see the private sector ever doing something as effective and far-reaching as the GI Bill.

DieselAddict · #93 08-26-2009, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loepke72

No, what I said was government abdicated their legitimate responsibility, namely eliminating outright fraud. They should be doing that, not social engineering nonsense like encouraging banks to lend money for mortgages that any sane banker would never do. I know the regulations were relaxed under the guise of free market ideals, but it was really a group of people that wanted a different kind of unfree market, one in which they could make lots of money in a shady way. Protecting citizens from fraud is a legitimate government function; social engineering is not. Government's proper role is to insure its citizens have the maximum freedom; what exactly that is is open for debate case-by-case.

OK, that makes more sense. However this social engineering that you speak of, are you sure it's as real as you think? I remember having an intense discussion about this here about a year ago and through my brief research I found out that it was the non-CRA-affiliated lenders who engaged in the most predatory lending. The govt didn't force any lender to make loans to unqualified people. Certainly the govt did a poor job of regulating and overseeing the market, but the prevailing wisdom at the time was that the market itself knows best and govt better not interfere.

RichC · #94 08-26-2009, 03:04 AM

I am wondering what the "anti helth care reform" people think the answer is ???

What do you want to do with the 46 million Americans without health insurance ??

Let them die ?
Shoot them in the streets, before they get to the emergency rooms ?

------------

And do you guys understand that your paying more taxes now to fund emergency medical care for the uninsured than you would pay under a public option.

Almost every estimate of costs that I have seen says a public option would be cheaper for all.

------------

I dont want to take away your private insurance plan.

Why do you want to not let people have a choice of a public option if they wanted it ?

RichC · #95 08-26-2009, 03:45 AM

I just thought of something.

You guys claiming I am leaching off the system.

I already have private insurance, pretty good plan.

I am not acting selfishly, just trying to get myself insurance.

I have enough compassion for my fellow human that I do not want to see them suffer.

What is your motivation ?

Watch this clip maybe it will help you gain some compassion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3jwhLcW_c8

And realize your just one accident away from the same situation.

MS Fowler · #96 08-26-2009, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Universities used to be private enterprise only. Only the elite could go to such places. We see how returned vets were treated in an atmosphere of almost exclusively private enterprise after WW1. Many Daddy Warbucks types came out of that but many, many more vets languished in poverty for years. After WW2, a bonafide socialist program, the GI Bill, provided much better treatment for returned vets and ended up being one of the best public investments of all time.

I don't see the private sector ever doing something as effective and far-reaching as the GI Bill.

Yes, by all means LOOK at the universities.
Look how the cost of education has far exceeded the rate of inflation. They give themselves lavish payraises, and then cry to the government for subsidies.
GI Bill was/ is great.
Look how universities in the 1950s were furnished, and the life-styles of the professors, and compare to today. Everything is much more lavish.

Not to say that all schools follow this pattern--there are some schools that keep prices down, and faculty not overpaid. But the large, "name-brand_ universities have gotten out of hand.

MS Fowler · #97 08-26-2009, 06:42 AM

I would like to see details from the pro-national HC people about how they would avoid the mistakes of other systems. Citing some vague "cost savings down the road" I'd like to see concrete projections based on something other than wishful thinking. The pattern seems to indicate that government-run health care whether on the sate or national level always costs much more than its proponents predicted.

I seriously doubt the 46 million uninsured figure--the actual number is something less than half that. Still a significant number.
The debate has become confused ( purposefully, in my mind) by the proponents) by having too many objectives. If we argue against one pont, they switch to another of their objectives. Might be a good debate technique, but it makes for lousy communication, and even worse policy.
Aree we debating health care, or the payment for health care?
Again, those WHO ratings are bogus--many of the questions reflect a political, rather than a health care position--We lose many more soldiers in war than high-rated countries. That lowers our rating, but that does't affect your health care. War deaths should not have any place in a rating of health care.

JollyRoger · #98 08-26-2009, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

The history of man has seen individuals who do not like what the gathering of humans into a society has brought to themselves- and so they go live in the harsh woods away from others. Some make it, and say "boy that was tough but worth it", while others can't make it alone, so they suffer until they come to the conclusion that the suffering alone is worse than the work they have to do in order to be included in society. No one can ever say all suffering of man will be vanquished, and that should not be the goal. Just like the forest fires, the suffering is a inseparable part of the life experience. Pain is a teacher. More and more people are under the delusion that somehow we can all be on the "absorb" side of society. As that group grows larger, they demand more from the produce side than it can deliver. This is like the free surface effect of liquid in a boat- the more one side tilts, the more the water on the other side freely moves to the titled side, and it's very quick. In short order the boat is sunk. The hard decisions have to be made to stop the "absorb" side from getting to the sinking point, which means some people have to suffer- so that they or others learn that they have to produce. This also means we as a society have to discuss what "ailment" individuals may have and what they can do to still be a producer, and the incentives must be changed to stop more people from "absorbing". This the basis of the right saying enough is enough- the tipping point is coming quickly to sink us all. While we must be a compassionate country, we cannot be that if there are not enough producers to feed the absorbers. If the incentives to move from producer to absorber are easier and easier to get, or they are expanded so that individuals seek to find ways to become a absorber instead of a producer, ruin of all is in the future. A society simply cannot be tilted to the absorber side- it will collapse. We must understand the futurity of our acts, how they dictate what will happen, and what we must do today in order avoid this.

I agree pure socialism is a poor system, but that is not what is being proposed. We are proposing a national healthcare system, a system that is a boon for the producers of Germany, Japan and much of the rest of the Western world. I do not see Germany, a country with socialized medicine, strong labor unions and other socialistic features "collapsing", do you?

JollyRoger · #99 08-26-2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I would like to see details from the pro-national HC people about how they would avoid the mistakes of other systems. Citing some vague "cost savings down the road" I'd like to see concrete projections based on something other than wishful thinking. The pattern seems to indicate that government-run health care whether on the sate or national level always costs much more than its proponents predicted.

I seriously doubt the 46 million uninsured figure--the actual number is something less than half that. Still a significant number.
The debate has become confused ( purposefully, in my mind) by the proponents) by having too many objectives. If we argue against one pont, they switch to another of their objectives. Might be a good debate technique, but it makes for lousy communication, and even worse policy.
Aree we debating health care, or the payment for health care?
Again, those WHO ratings are bogus--many of the questions reflect a political, rather than a health care position--We lose many more soldiers in war than high-rated countries. That lowers our rating, but that does't affect your health care. War deaths should not have any place in a rating of health care.

In a world bombarded by "death panels" and "Obama is going to cut Medicare and veteran's benefits", the idea the proponents have purposefully confused the debate, is utterly absurd.

MTUpower · #**100** 08-26-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I agree pure socialism is a poor system, but that is not what is being proposed. We are proposing a national healthcare system, a system that is a boon for the producers of Germany, Japan and much of the rest of the Western world. I do not see Germany, a country with socialized medicine, strong labor unions and other socialistic features "collapsing", do you?

Why do you say it's a "boon" for Germany, Japan etc? I don't see that, because I don't have rose colored glasses on. Has it been a "boon" for Maine?

Brian Carlton · #**101** 08-26-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loepke72

Wrong.

Capitalism and deregulation did NOT get us into this mess; rather it was failure of our government to do its proper job and deal with the fraud perpetrated by certain members of Wall $treet with their Ponzi schemes, derivatives, imaginary money, and so on. What these people did was fraud, pure and simple, yet Uncle Sam has done little to bring them to justice. Unfortunately, this fraud resulted in the common folk losing jobs, houses, etc.

The free market WILL fix things, but it is merciless in doing so. That is where private charity enters the picture. Taking my hard earned money and giving it out under penalty of law is not compassion; it is robbery, no matter how noble the goal. Paying taxes to support the PROPER functions of government is not a problem with me..

You claim that capitalism and deregulation did not get us into this mess.

Were derivatives developed by the free market and implemented by those who determined they could profit from it?

Were loans made to people without credit and without the capability to pay because the government backed the loan without oversight?

It was precisely the "free market" with the blind eye of the government that put us where we are today. The free market saw the opportunity for short term profit and failed to heed the inevitable rises and fall of the real estate market.

If you with to conclude that Bernie Madoff caused the meltdown, well, good luck with that position.

MS Fowler · #**102** 08-26-2009, 09:57 AM

I fear Big governemt as much ( and no more) that I fear Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Unions. Anything that big ( as in too big to fail) has undue influence in the legislative process--thats not evil--its just good business ( ask Bill Gates).
Ideally, I'd like a balance of all the "BIG" forces that didn't crush the rest of us.

MS Fowler · #**103** 08-26-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

In a world bombarded by "death panels" and "Obama is going to cut Medicare and veteran's benefits", the idea the proponents have purposefully confused the debate, is utterly absurd.

I don't see your name calling and blame as furthering the debate. Some of us ( many of us if the polls be believed) have sincere questions. Those questions deserve honest answers. So far, I haven't seen enough of that. Oh sure--there are links to leftist spin, and rightest spin--but where is the objective info?
CBO seems to project that the current Bill will not be budget neutral, nor provide the expanded coverage that its proponents proclaim.

loepke72 · #**104** 08-26-2009, 10:37 AM

Capitalism and the free market itself did not get us into this mess, rather it was the actions of certain people that did. Saying the free market did this is like saying guns kill people, or that technology X is evil. The free market, like guns or tech X, is an inanimate object not capable of doing anything on its own. It's what people do with the object that is right or wrong. Sure, these things may make it easier for some to perform the wrong actions, but it's not a reason to outlaw them.

Bernie Madoff and others like him are fraudsters, and they should get what they deserve. Yes, those protections were weakened, and wrongfully so. No, he did not singlehandedly cause the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing. It was a perfect storm of events, mostly precipitated by Wall Street hucksters. Their schemes should have received more attention from Uncle Sam than they did because, although they were working under free market conditions, were antithetical to free market ideals. There was too much fake money floating around chasing too few things of real value. This fake money came from both our government as well as supposed paper profits from various investments. This caused things like $4.00 gas and the real estate bubble. The consumer finally reeled from this double barreled threat at a time when it was no longer possible to borrow their way out.

No, the problem was and still is too much borrowing of money.

Derivatives, as I understand them, are much like taking out a life insurance policy on someone you don't know, and therefore stand to financially benefit if they were to die. Therefore it is in your interest to make sure that person dies, or in the case of derivatives, that the company in question is run into the ditch. Whether or not this should be allowed is up for debate, but personally I think derivatives should be illegal for the reasons I stated above. That may sound like I am advocating against free market ideals, but there is not a truly free market when things like derivatives exist.

With regard to home mortgages, for some reason our government did and continues to argue in favor of home ownership. Not sure why, it doesn't make sense for everyone in all cases. They do this chiefly by using the tax code, giving tax credits and rebates. Again, like Cash for Clunkers, we have government encouraging people to get into debt. Not always a good thing, unless you are a banker making money off interest payments.

Lest anyone think I espouse these views because I am wealthy, let me assure you I am not. In fact, I would probably be better off under some form of government assistance. I choose not to, because I feel it is wrong to steal money from others (in the form of taxes) to support me and the stupid mistakes I have made in life. I am working, by myself, to learn from them and improve. That's why I come out so hard against debt. I have been through bankruptcy, due to mistakes on my part as well as situations beyond my control. I may not have all the latest glitz, but what I have is paid for (except for a student loan, the last debt I have).

tankdriver · #**105** 08-26-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I would like to see details from the pro-national HC people about how they would avoid the mistakes of other systems. Citing some vague "cost savings down the road" I'd like to see concrete projections based on something other than wishful thinking. The pattern seems to indicate that government-run health care whether on the sate or national level always costs much more than its proponents predicted.

I don't know that it's possible to provide numbers until the system is chosen. If you look in that 5 myths about other countries thread, there are cost examples. Like 20% of costs on paperwork here contrasted with 4% in France. Can we acheive 4%? If we pick the French model it's possible. But no one can know what we can acheive if we go with a different model.