Universal Healthcare= Slavery (Libertarians Are Trolling Us)

[PLAYER57832]

#3 - I'm not saying smaller government improves education; I'm saying bigger government made education worse.

I happen to keep in contact with several of my teachers from high school, and the general consensus is that the involvement of the federal government in the public education is harmful.

I tend to agree. In particular, the No Child Left Behind Act, which was a great ideal very poorly implemented, has harmed education in my opinion. Making the standard relate to test scores is a serious problem, as it leads the poorer/lazier teachers to "teach to the test". Unfortunately, that means their students are probably going to actually make them look better than the better teachers who aren't doing that, as they shouldn't be. The big problem as I see it, though, is if not testing...then how do you define the standard? As much as I dislike testing as the standard, I don't see a good alternative.

Also, thee is no allotment for a federally funded school system. Those decisions, by declaration under the tenth amendment, should be left to the state and local governments.

It really makes sense to me, simply from a "the local community should be deciding this" perspective. Then again, the states are almost guaranteed to fill the void if the federal government steps out of it, and I'm not sure that will be a lot better (Kansas, I'm looking at you).

Not sure how we got from healthcare to education, but anyway...

The control should be less at the federal level, then to the state, then to the local.

Federal level must ensure that every child learns a minimum of math/statistics (etc), a minimum of science (absolutely including a basic understanding of geology, chemistry, physics, ecology, biology including evolution, english/literature, history --both US and world, federal government and its relationship to state governments, basic economics plus some basic skills such as nutrition, physical education, financial literacy, driving, first aid, etc.).

State level should of course specify state laws/make up, etc. But also specify a bit more of biology, gearing it more to what is appropriate for the state. States can also emphasis literature from a state slightly more.. but that should build upon the fundamental requirements laid out by the federal government, not take away from them.

Local governments should follow the above, but be allowed to modify to deal spefically with what is available locally. In northern California, they will emphasis salmon and redwoods,. In New Jersey, they probably should learn a tad more about the alonquin tribes rather than Chumash. etc. If there happens to be a wonderful artist community, then that might be encorporated... etc.

I would also love to have languages included, but right now there don't seem to be the resources for that.

[PLAYER57832]

we aren't talking about insurance, you twit.

Any time you talk about health care, you are talking about insurance because it is the insurance industry that largely created the mess we have... and because without insurance, no one who is not independently wealthy can truly afford more than the barest of health care.

This is demagoguery, plain and simple. You have so thoroughly demonized the insurance companies in your own mind that everything MUST be their fault, event though the evidence is to the contrary.

Evidence to the contrary???

I would love to see that!

Everything I have said above is fact. Just go out and verify it before you claim I am demonizing.

And, beyond that preventative care is not truly available everywhere. We just got diabetic nutritionists here in our area 2 years ago, for example. Before that, the nearest one was a good 3 hour drive.

And how is federal intervention going to help with this?

Universal health coverage will. That has to be federal because any other system would be too inefficient, even individual state-run plans.

This still doesn't help with areas that have no doctors. What? You want to import them? That way we have areas with access to one shit doctor, employed by the government?

You apparently posted before I edited or cut out the part where I addressed this.

to a point, there is no fix. I mean, we are not going to get top level nuerosurgeons in every ho-dunk town on call 24 hours a day. It just won't happen. But, people who live in hoe-dunk towns mostly know and accept that. What people don't accept is when there are 5 nuerosurgeons at the hospital down the street and they cannot go because they don't have the money (cannot go if they want to keep their house, anyway) or some insurance executive has decided that doctor is out of network

HOWEVER, this is a place where the market can and will work (to a point). If more people have the insurance enabling them to access preventative health care, the demand will help ensure more students get trained in those fields. We still have a limit in training facilities, but that IS where the government can step in and help.. either by creating facilities or arranging for US doctors to get truly equivalent training abroad, etc.

[Army of GOD]

This thread is so funny. What a bitch-fest between the left and right.

[natty dread]

This is demagoguery

I'm pretty sure that's not a real word.

[Mr_Adams]

This is demagoguery

I'm pretty sure that's not a real word.

trolling

[Army of GOD]

This is demagoguery

No, this is Sparta!!

Ficksed

[GreecePwns]

Is this the Krusty Krab?

No, this is Patrick.

Ficksed

Okay people. Let me get back into this.

First, TGD, I recall you had this same conversation with tobinov in the other big thread. After reading that, I have a strong feelign it will head in the exact same direction as it did there.

Let's ask a very important question: do we want to havet he best healthcare system in the world? Or is freedom more important than quality of healthcare?

[thegreekdog]

And I'm telling you the current US federal government, and the federal government beginning in the first half of the 20th century, is too big and too detached. I'm for limited government here, now, in the United States.

I get that you're saying that. No need for repetition. However, you do concede the point that a government is not necessarily inherently external to the people it governs?

I never made the point that government was inherently external to the people it governs. My point is that the US federal government is too big and too detached and therefore I consider it external to the people it governs. It started out a different way.

[

Ok. So who would make sure that businesses don't do immoral things, then?

Please don't say "market forces".

Society, people, other businesses would ensure that businesses don't do immoral things. WalMart treats its workers like shit, I don't shop at WalMart (true story by the way).

In other words... market forces?

Sorry, but in practice that just doesn't work. It's not working currently, why should it work with even less regulation?

You don't shop at walmart because it treats workers like shit. By your argument, walmart should be out of business by now - they do immoral things, so people shouldn't shop there. So why is walmart not out of business? Is government regulation somehow forcing people to go into walmart?

Or maybe... walmart is able to compete unfairly due to being so big it can drive it's competition out of business. Therefore people have no choice but to go to walmart, even if they don't agree with their business methods. And this is exactly the inherent flaw in a free market economy - as long as there's honest competition, it works, but it does not encourage the businesses to compete honestly! When one of the contestants gets on top, it can use it's capital to drive it's competitors out of business.

That's where government should come in - a government should ensure that no big businesses can use their leading market position to compete unfairly. The problem is that a big corporation has enough capital that it can sell it's wares underpriced, until it's competition goes out of business, due to not being able to compete, due to lack of capital.

Well, let's talk about this for a second. Yes, I basically said market forces without saying market forces. You bring up big businesses and the need for government to regulate it. There are a number of large and powerful businesses in the United States. The government has been regulating business since the late 19th century. How has the US government limited big business and their abuse of smaller businesses? In other words, I think we've proven in the last 150 plus years that big government doesn't curtail big business abuses. I mean, we had a huge financial meltdown under the auspices of a regulated financial economy... how did that happen?

It might not be a bad idea. I'm not sure. On one hand, it would be nice to have a stop to all the imperialism, like you said. On the other hand... I'm a bit worried, that it could make things worse - if corporations are able to influence the current US government, wouldn't it be easier for them to influence a smaller government of a smaller republic?

I suspect not, although I'm not entirely sure. If we look at state or local governments, we can find examples. Pennsylvania provides a nice sales tax exemption for mining companies. However, there is much uproar about this (without getting into details, companies are going to come in to Pennsylvania and mine the shit out of this shale, causing all sorts of potentially lethal environmental crap). In any event, the people of Pennsylvania know, specifically, what is going on and who is influencing legislation. That is useful information to have and easier information to get than information about who influences federal politics.

That's a good point there. However, one advantage with a federal government regulating things is that it can ensure that the same regulations apply everywhere. So a business can't just move it's business to another state/country to bypass regulations. With multiple small countries/states, it only takes one with looser regulations, and businesses will flock there, and undermine the efforts of the others.

This is true. For example, US companies have migrated more and more jobs overseas where there are less regulations. The question becomes one of balance - a balance of regulation and business. If the Tennessee government has no regulations and the Kentucky government has a crapload, all the businesses might move to Tennessee, but would all the people go too? If the water in Tennessee had lead in it, I doubt people would be flocking to Tennessee.

Numbers 1 and 2 appear to be flaws in big governments themselves (at least in my limited experience with world history).
#3 - I'm not saying smaller government improves education; I'm saying bigger government made education worse.
#4 - Taxes are burdensome because of the size of the federal government. So, not only do the people of Walla Walla, Washington have the local government, they also have the state government, and the federal government. Let's say there are 100 people in Walla Walla, 5 Walla Wallas in Washington, and 50 Washingtons in the United States... that's a whole lot of people the federal government has on their "care for" card. Smaller governments can have more specific items for their peoples' needs as well (which means less spending on useless crap).
#6 - Some would say that inflation in the United States is caused by the printing of money by the US treasury which is needed because of mounting US debt. There is not a quorum in Congress large enough to cut spending such that inflation won't continue to increase.

#3 - how did this happen exactly?
#4 - You say taxes are high due to big government... but a big government also provides lots of employment. If you reduce the government, some of those people will be out of jobs, and need to find employment elsewhere - which, at the very least, increases competition in the employment market. Not sure how this would affect the overall situation, though.
#6 - Maybe if you legalized all drugs you could get enough income to get rid of inflation.

#3 - I don't think big government is the only factor in the horrendous public education in the United States. It's just one factor.
#4 - Me neither.
#6 - Perhaps (if they were legalized and taxed). I suspect that the governments of the United States bring in some significant cash from the confiscation of drug users' and dealers' property.

Yes, but arguably big corporations have to give money to more people. And unions have as much money as big companies and don't have to pay anyone or make anything (i.e. they aren't spending their income on anything except campaigns).

I'm not exactly sure on the role of unions in USA... are they really as wealthy as big corporations? Don't they get their only income from union fees, from workers belonging in the union?

It depends on the union and the corporation. For example, in Philadelphia I'm pretty sure the electricians' union has more cash on hand than most of the other businesses in the city (except Comcast and the University of Pennsylvania). The unions do not get their cash only from union fees, they also get their cash from donations and investments and the like. Let's just say if Microsoft gives $20K to a politician, the unions will give $20K as well. The lack of cash only affects how many politicians one can give money to.

[thegreekdog]

Let's ask a very important question: do we want to havet he best healthcare system in the world? Or is freedom more important than quality of healthcare?

Right off the bat you missed the point that Rand Paul is trying to make. And I'm trying to make. You might be getting the points of PhatScotty and Night Strike correct (if that's who the post was directed to).

[Mr_Adams]

Okay people. Let me get back into this.

First, TGD, I recall you had this same conversation with tobinov in the other big thread. After reading that, I have a strong feelign it will head in the exact same direction as it did there.

Let's ask a very important question: do we want to havet he best healthcare system in the world? Or is freedom more important than quality of healthcare?

They aren't mutually exclusive.

[pimpdave]

This is demagoguery

I'm pretty sure that's not a real word.

trolling

Yeah, Natty, don't disagree with anyone because they'll accuse you of trolling. Might even call you a fuckhead.

[thegreekdog]

Okay people. Let me get back into this.

First, TGD, I recall you had this same conversation with tobinov in the other big thread. After reading that, I have a strong feelign it will head in the exact same direction as it did there.

Let's ask a very important question: do we want to havet he best healthcare system in the world? Or is freedom more important than quality of healthcare?

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I probably should have typed that. +1.

[Mr_Adams]

This is demagoguery

I'm pretty sure that's not a real word.

trolling

Yeah, Natty, don't disagree with anyone because they'll accuse you of trolling. Might even call you a fuckhead.

troll- someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

We had this discussion about demagoguery in another thread. I provided a definition and link to dictionary.com of the word Demagogue. He brought it up again here, where the only possible intent would be to take conversation off topic. with Pimpdave's help, he is doing quite well to achieve this end.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, let's talk about this for a second. Yes, I basically said market forces without saying market forces. You bring up big businesses and the need for government to regulate it. There are a number of large and powerful businesses in the United States. The government has been regulating business since the late 19th century. How has the US government limited big business and their abuse of smaller businesses? In other words, I think we've proven in the last 150 plus years that big government doesn't curtail big business abuses. I mean, we had a huge financial meltdown under the auspices of a regulated financial economy... how did that happen?

You do realize that's like saying "we have had some pretty big fires lately".. "so fire fighting obviously doesn't work".

In fact, the government HAS mitigated and limited a lot of damage. It has not prevented all of it, but limiting government further is not going to give us fewer coal incidents, fewer bank closures, fewer oil spills or fewer credit card abuses.

[Timminz]

I mean, we had a huge financial meltdown under the auspices of a regulated financial economy... how did that happen?

Ineffective regulations.

[GreecePwns]

Okay people. Let me get back into this.

First, TGD, I recall you had this same conversation with tobinov in the other big thread. After reading that, I have a strong feelign it will head in the exact same direction as it did there.

Let's ask a very important question: do we want to havet he best healthcare system in the world? Or is freedom more important than quality of healthcare?

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I probably should have typed that. +1.

The best healthcare systems in the world say otherwise, and cost less.

[Night Strike]

I mean, we had a huge financial meltdown under the auspices of a regulated financial economy... how did that happen?

Ineffective regulations.

Unenforced regulations. Plus democratic legislators telling banks they must loan money to high-risk, low-wage earners.

[thegreekdog]

I mean, we had a huge financial meltdown under the auspices of a regulated financial economy... how did that happen?

Ineffective regulations.

Some would say the regulations were purposefully ineffective (or purposefully unenforced).

The best healthcare systems in the world say otherwise, and cost less.

A couple of things with that statement: (1) There is no other country I would rather get my healthcare than the United States; (2) The US healthcare system services a lot more people than other countries in the world.

[natty dread]

I never made the point that government was inherently external to the people it governs. My point is that the US federal government is too big and too detached and therefore I consider it external to the people it governs. It started out a different way.

Ok. Moving on.

Well, let's talk about this for a second. Yes, I basically said market forces without saying market forces. You bring up big businesses and the need for government to regulate it. There are a number of large and powerful businesses in the United States. The government has been regulating business since the late 19th century. How has the US government limited big business and their abuse of smaller businesses? In other words, I think we've proven in the last 150 plus years that big government doesn't curtail big business abuses. I mean, we had a huge financial meltdown under the auspices of a regulated financial economy... how did that happen?

Big government does not curtail big business abuses... but neither does a little one. Neither does, if the government is corrupt and businesses are allowed to bribe politicians.

Ie. I don't think the size of the government matters as much as the honesty of it. A corrupt government is corrupt, big or small.

This is true. For example, US companies have migrated more and more jobs overseas where there are less regulations. The question becomes one of balance - a balance of regulation and business. If the Tennessee government has no regulations and the Kentucky government has a crapload, all the businesses might move to Tennessee, but would all the people go too? If the water in Tennessee had lead in it, I doubt people would be flocking to Tennessee.

Yes, of course a balance is important. However, how can that balance be achieved if there's not an entity that will standardize these regulations accross states, countries? That's one of the reasons EU was made for... to standardize regulations accross European countries.

#3 - I don't think big government is the only factor in the horrendous public education in the United States. It's just one factor.

Right, I'm asking how did the size of the government reduce the quality of education? What was the mechanism by which the big government made education worse?

#6 - Perhaps (if they were legalized and taxed). I suspect that the governments of the United States bring in some significant cash from the confiscation of drug users' and dealers' property.

Of course they would be taxed. Some cash is made from confiscations, but that strikes me as dishonest, frankly. And a lot more cash is wasted by prosecuting and jailing non-violent drug "criminals". I think it's fair to say that legalized (and taxed) drugs would improve the economy by orders of magnitude.

It depends on the union and the corporation. For example, in Philadelphia I'm pretty sure the electricians' union has more cash on hand than most of the other businesses in the city (except Comcast and the University of Pennsylvania). The unions do not get their cash only from union fees, they also get their cash from donations and investments and the like. Let's just say if Microsoft gives $20K to a politician, the unions will give $20K as well. The lack of cash only affects how many politicians one can give money to.

Ok... well, I don't think either (unions or businesses) should be allowed to bribe politicians.

[GreecePwns]

I mean, we had a huge financial meltdown under the auspices of a regulated financial economy... how did that happen?

Ineffective regulations.

Some would say the regulations were purposefully ineffective (or purposefully unenforced).

The best healthcare systems in the world say otherwise, and cost less.

A couple of things with that statement: (1) There is no other country I would rather get my healthcare than the United States; (2) The US healthcare system services a lot more people than other countries in the world.

As for your 1st point, that only applies if you have the ability to pay. As for your second point, I'm talking about as a percent of GDP.

[Woodruff]

I mean, we had a huge financial meltdown under the auspices of a regulated financial economy... how did that happen?

Ineffective regulations.

Unenforced regulations.

Yes, this...absolutely. I believe the regulations were effective enough...but the policing of them was not at all.

[Woodruff]

Also, thee is no allotment for a federally funded school system. Those decisions, by declaration under the tenth amendment, should be left to the state and local governments.

It really makes sense to me, simply from a "the local community should be deciding this" perspective. Then again, the states are almost guaranteed to fill the void if the federal government steps out of it, and I'm not sure that will be a lot better (Kansas, I'm looking at you).

Could it possibly be worse? State government have an excellent record stepping up where the federal government has failed.

Kansas, I'm looking at you.

[Woodruff]

we aren't talking about insurance, you twit.

Any time you talk about health care, you are talking about insurance because it is the insurance industry that largely created the mess we have... and because without insurance, no one who is not independently wealthy can truly afford more than the barest of health care.

This is demagoguery, plain and simple. You have so thoroughly demonized the insurance companies in your own mind that everything MUST be their fault, event though the evidence is to the contrary.

I would very much disagree that the evidence is to the contrary. I think the evidence very much shows that insurance companies are largely culpable for the current situation.

And, beyond that preventative care is not truly available everywhere. We just got diabetic nutritionists here in our area 2 years ago, for example. Before that, the nearest one was a good 3 hour drive.

And how is federal intervention going to help with this?

Universal health coverage will. That has to be federal because any other system would be too inefficient, even individual state-run plans.

This still doesn't help with areas that have no doctors. What? You want to import them? That way we have areas with access to one shit doctor, employed by the government?

Agreed...universal health coverage can't mandate someone into an area that they are not in.

[Mr_Adams]

we aren't talking about insurance, you twit.

Any time you talk about health care, you are talking about insurance because it is the insurance industry that largely created the mess we have... and because without insurance, no one who is not independently wealthy can truly afford more than the barest of health care.

This is demagoguery, plain and simple. You have so thoroughly demonized the insurance companies in your own mind that everything MUST be their fault, event though the evidence is to the contrary.

I would very much disagree that the evidence is to the contrary. I think the evidence very much shows that insurance companies are largely culpable for the current situation.

At the very worst, they have taken advantage of a bad system.

[natty dread]

A bad system... that should be replaced by a good system, such as universal healthcare?