patrick.net

OTS sez

>> savages need a little extra push in the right direction from the government,

And I think you are indeed one of those savages that are badly in need of some government

On the Sidelines says

Londoneyrie says

What the rest of the industrialised world realises is that health is largely a matter of luck

Most Americans do not believe they should be forced to make sacrifices in their own lifestyle for the benefit of the “unlucky” people. Especially when so many of the “unlucky” people engage in unsavory activities that range from “merely unhealthy” to “unproductive” to “felonious and antisocial”. And definitely not after we’ve gone into debt to give them trillions of dollars of welfare freebies for over 40 years. Nuhhhhh uh, homie don’t play dat.
You make do with what God gave you. Self-reliance and personal responsibility — that’s the American way.

Forgive the schoolmarm tone but a lot of this seems to defy fundamental logic.

I expected to be called an unpatriotic commie pinko for supporting the state-run system here in the UK, but the fact remains that it does for the most part an excellent job providing healthcare for all who need it and it is cheaper to run overall than the current private insurance based system in the US. The fact that my taxes here support healthcare for the 'unlucky' means that it will be there for me and mine if we are so unfortunate as to become 'unlucky' ourselves. What more 'insurance' do I need? What more 'choice' could I want? Shit can happen to anyone, no matter what their habits - clean living and even paying into your private plan may not save you from going to the wall (or gutter) financially when something serious like cancer or a car accident happens.

I certainly try to make the best of what God gave me, but see no reason in sitting on those gifts like a dog in a manger if I have enough to share, which I do. Jesus also tells us to do unto others as we would would be done by, and to show compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves. Not because this is an abstract 'good thing', but because it is ultimately in our own self-interest. Maybe Europeans understand this better than American private-insurance supporters because they experienced the randomness of personal misfortune on a grand scale and had to help each other rebuild after WWII.

In the UK I can go direct to my doctor's office, we discuss the care I need, and she'll arrange with other parts of the health service if necessary to make sure I get it. Sometimes there's a wait, but at least neither I nor my doctor do not then also have to argue with an insurance company to get them to pay up first. Sometimes there are a few rare treatments available (to the well-off) in the US not available on the NHS here, this is true, but the state in no way stands between me and my doctor, nor between my doctor and the treatments she thinks I needs in anything like the way insurance companies in the States routinely interfere.

But calling up facts seems a bit futile for some. Here is a cartoon to illustrate what I am talking about:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/cartoons/gallery/73366-a73672-t3.html

The US (and unfortunately the UK as well) has gone trillions of dollars into debt to kill hundreds of thousands in a war (at over £2 trillion - http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/slot3_20080204.html?_r=1&ref=world - twice the amount for social security and medicaid, etc) and to give freebies to the the banks (half the amount of SS so far, but with obligations to cover toxic debts which could amount to another £2 trillion an upwards). With another trillion and a half covering all the other government functions and paying interest on the debt, there's where your money goes.

if you're looking to vent on people taking the government dime who "engage in unsavory activities that range from “merely unhealthy” to “unproductive” to “felonious and antisocial" look no further than Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. They're the real welfare bums - and they're not eeking life out on food stamps, they've bought yachts with your money.

12 Alternatives to Obamacare for socialists to ignore and attack.

http://www.businessinsider.com/12-alternatives-to-obamacare-2009-8

Austinhousingbubble says

I agree with you in many ways but lets clarify.

What I abhor is forced wealth redistribution such as when I against my will have to fund a federal government program not provided for in the Constitution. Selling a product or service and making a profit is not forced wealth redistribution (unless you are forced to purchase said product or service).

This is the very thing they are doing with TARP and especially PPIP. PLEASE PLEASE do your research.

Larceny, and book cooking and any other illegal acts should be prosecuted.

Other than the odd head on a block to sate the public’s teeth gnashing, Washington can’t get out of its own way fast enough to open up a loophole here or cook up some policy there to help facilitate the exploits of Wall Street.

People are more than cogs in a machine or workers in an economy.

No, not really. Personally speaking, people are much more than mere apparatus, but compassion is a liability when it comes to industry, especially today. China’s lowered the bar on what passes for human dignity and workers rights, and our subsidizing that culture as consumers is a vindication. We accept it, on some level. Did you know that airlines refer to you as self-loading cargo? You are but one in a million leavening agents, helping keep aloft this lead balloon, and therein lies your value to society. It’s what makes you worth insuring. That is the order of the day.

Yours and my value as a human being does not come from our ability to be productive in an economic sense. That kind of thinking will lead to many undesirable outcomes.

I completely agree, and unfortunately, I think we are presently witness to many such outcomes.

Really, that is your counter-argument? I didn't support tarp, the American people called their congressmen 10 to one against tarp, in fact I don't think anyone here including Patrick supported TARP. PLEASE PLEASE Don't waste my time and yours on this.

Besides saying we are already semi-fasco-socialistic so why not become full blown socialists is like saying I already smoke a pack a day so why not smoke 2? Kinda flawed logic me thinks.

I agree with you on Wall street. They run the government and together they are parasites on our free society. The easiest way to kill the parasites is to enforce the law of the land the Constitution.

Vote third party or independent in the upcoming elections and educate yourself on Mises.com

An excellent diagnosis of America's health care written by a liberty loving physician.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=172

>>It’s so proud to have commented NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY NINE TIMES!!!

That's because I didn't just join last week, like you, but rather 3 years ago.

OTS spews

>>Chuck Baldwin. Not that it’s any of your God damned business.

Is it safe to assume that he also favor Robber Barons over "Moral busybodies"?

>>Are you coming on to me?

No thanks. Maybe you should check with Ann Coulter. I heard she gets off on racist jerks.

2ndClassCitizen says

An excellent diagnosis of America’s health care written by a liberty loving physician.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=172

I'm sorry, but anyone who gives legitimacy to homeopathy should not be listened to, and I seriously question the professional judgement of any physician who supports such utter bullshit.

The claims about the quality of medical care for the first 120 years of the united states are highly suspect (never mind that most of the practices mentioned have only been popular for the last 50 years or so). You can't just say "it was better" without offering a single fact to back up the opinion.

The campaign for liberty site actually does have some well reasoned articles on a free market approach to health care, but this isn't one of them.

tkimoro,

5 posts and already out of substance. I'm drawing my own conclusions.

For those of you who want to see how business is done in Washington, there's a good article in Business Week entitled: "The Health Care Industry has already Won".
It details how lobbying is done by the bloodsucking health insurance companies whose business it is to deny claims.
How anyone would want a profit-motivated capitalist industry to control people's health care is beyond understanding.
Is your health a right under the constitution, or is profit more important?
Wake up people!

monkframe says

For those of you who want to see how business is done in Washington, there’s a good article in Business Week entitled: “The Health Care Industry has already Won”.

It details how lobbying is done by the bloodsucking health insurance companies whose business it is to deny claims.

How anyone would want a profit-motivated capitalist industry to control people’s health care is beyond understanding.

Is your health a right under the constitution, or is profit more important?

Wake up people!

If health was a right under the constitution a lot of things would be different, you could argue that Budweiser, McDonalds and Camel are are unconstitutional IF health was a right. Health is not a right but freedom is. Including the freedom to be stupid and destroy your own health.

Really, that is your counter-argument?

More a plea to reason. I'm asking you and other highly-opinionated blowhards to learn to better aim your bluster. Save your energy for something worth hurling yourself at. The health care debate is a cock & bull show that keeps your awareness just enough diverted from the real sleight of hand.

I didn’t support tarp, the American people called their congressmen 10 to one against tarp, in fact I don’t think anyone here including Patrick supported TARP. PLEASE PLEASE Don’t waste my time and yours on this.

Where are those numbers from, by the way? 10 to one? Are you referring to first draft of TARP from September which was shit canned because it didn't have enough pork? Reality: People were effectively frightened into believing that there would be a total utter collapse of our credit/banking system leading to pell-mell, payroll freezes and blackouts. It worked. I remember talks of ammunition, water and gold, but I most certainly don't recall you or anyone else posting up a storm on here about it then or now. And again, HOWABOUT PPIP? Or Cap and Trade? The fact that you have tiptoed around all of these landmines to focus ad infinitum on the health care debate can suggest only one thing: that you have some personal/financial interest in the heath care community or branch thereof.

Besides saying we are already semi-fasco-socialistic so why not become full blown socialists is like saying I already smoke a pack a day so why not smoke 2? Kinda flawed logic me thinks.

Don't infer two dollars worth of windbaggery from my modest two-cents...

...then again, why not? Since, as you suggest, we are one rung away from full blown socialists, isn't it about time we enjoy some of the benefits that other socialist systems do - like guaranteed health care!

I agree with you on Wall street. They run the government and together they are parasites on our free society. The easiest way to kill the parasites is to enforce the law of the land the Constitution. Vote third party or independent in the upcoming elections and educate yourself on Mises.com

Yeah, an escapist vote. That'll fix everything.

Again, your intransigence on this subject seems rooted in some kind of vested interest, which makes any debate meaningless. You seem only to run interference against wholly valid but separate viewpoints. You've offered nothing, really. For example, one of your big gripes is wealth redistribution - but when when I point out how this is not a unique phenomena, and cite Trickle Down as a different model of wealth redistribution, you offer no substantive retort. You have also failed to illustrate how - as a revenue generating citizen, contributing to the GDP as you do - you are an asset NOT worth insuring? Forget grander themes of dignity and the idea that access to health care is an intrinsic human right on the most basic level. You are a valuable asset to society, and you are in better shape to spend when you are able-bodied than when you are laid up. In fact, you make up 2/3rds of our GDP. We need you. Indeed, take a break from commenting and go buy something on Amazon. Do your part, you good American!

monkframe says

How anyone would want a profit-motivated capitalist industry to control people’s health care is beyond understanding.

Is it really "beyond understanding"? The argument from rational and intelligent free marketers is easy to understand (as opposed to people shouting "socialism" who don't even know what the term means), even if you disagree with it. As many holes as there are in free market economics, the basic principal is provably better than the alternative for most applications.

monkframe says

Is your health a right under the constitution, or is profit more important?

Your health is not, and could not possibly be a "right", unless you have a very strange interpretation of the 10th amendment.

You could argue that we all have a right to health care under the fairness doctrine (as exhibited by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment), but that's a lot different from a right to "health". That's getting pretty esoteric, though, and it's a pointless argument. The constitution is a framework for our legal system. It is a document that outlines what the government can and can not do, and that's about it. Using the constitution to defend some moral argument is dumb. The constitution is just a stronger form of law, not the word of God.

If health was a right under the constitution a lot of things would be different, you could argue that Budweiser, McDonalds and Camel are are unconstitutional IF health was a right. Health is not a right but freedom is. Including the freedom to be stupid and destroy your own health.

That stupidity you so loathe is vice - a major component of wealth generation in a country in desperate need of revenues. McDonalds and Philip Morris are MAJOR industries/contributors to our GDP in the non-durable goods sector! Careful where you tread. If people are buying up ciggys and burgers, it's commerce, and good news for everybody.

...and while we're at it, quit deifying the authors of the Constitution. They were men, and as such, they were fallible. That's where amendments come in, and even repealed amendments. Think of the Constitution as the king of all boilerplates.

>> …and while we’re at it, quit deifying the authors of the Constitution.

Right on. Austin.

I find all the Constitutional Worshipping trite and counterproductive. They way some people talk about constitutional matters, you'd think Moses had descended from a mountain with the wording hacked into stone tablets, on direct orders from God.

There is no law against being a Constitutional Fundamentalist, in fact I think the constitution explicitly does the right thing and protects anyone's right to be one.

But there is a distinct limit to the usefulness of always being stuck in 1787. We have amendments for a reason, namely to provide for improvement.

OTS:

>>The one change I would make is to ban slavery. That was a HUGE mistake.

Coming from OTS, this sounded much to reasonable to be true. So I must question his motivation.
Don't leave us hanging, tell us why!

My guess: Without slavery there would be fewer Africans in the US, which is what YOU would like?

Thanks for the reality check. I left my message on my congresswoman and senators websites. None of them responded and all of them ignored me and voted for the bailouts. Hope people remember that when it comes time for re-election.

Our presidents, congresspeople, senators, soliders etc... all take this oath. (or simliar)

"will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; " ----soldier

"will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ____president

The point is not to deify the writers of these important documents. But to acknowledge, as we do with every swearing in ceremony how these documents are the most important laws of our lands. It is great we can amend them (for example the 13th). But no where in them do we find they give power to the federal government to do many of the things it claims to have authority to do today. And health care is one of them. States if they so choose could provide health care to the general public, but the federal government has not been expressly given the right to regulate or guarantee health care therefore that responsibility is relegated to the states and citizens. The fact that the courts don't recognize and enforce this should be very disturbing. Especially to those who swore an oath to defend or uphold the constitution.

Austinhousingbubble says

If health was a right under the constitution a lot of things would be different, you could argue that Budweiser, McDonalds and Camel are are unconstitutional IF health was a right. Health is not a right but freedom is. Including the freedom to be stupid and destroy your own health.

That stupidity you so loathe is vice - a major component of wealth generation in a country in desperate need of revenues. McDonalds and Philip Morris are MAJOR industries/contributors to our GDP in the non-durable goods sector! Careful where you tread. If people are buying up ciggys and burgers, it’s commerce, and good news for everybody.

Especially drug manufacturers, doctors and lawyers! Just not so much for whoever pays the health care bills.

So don't get me wrong. Use your liberty to support the economy, eat drink and be merry. Nothing makes me happier than you living the life you want to live. But just don't force me or any other taxpayer to foot the bill.

Boiled down, the essence of your argument is thus:

Government health care in any form is unconstitutional and will nudge us that last inch from precipice to complete free fall toward Socialist ruination. BUT: It's okay, as long as you don't have to pay into it.

A very insular point of view, and a dubious one to try to stage an argument around.

Sorry, just gotta stop you there, because you’re trying to rewrite history. It was actually more like 100 to 1, and many Congresspeople were getting as many as 200 to 1 phone calls against TARP. And we wrote a TON of stuff about it here on this message board. Many of us wrote to our representatives and pleaded with them not to vote for bailouts. I know I did. I’m really quite astounded that you do not remember any of this. Maybe you hadn’t joined yet? It pains me to be on the same side of an argument as 2nd Class Troll, but we need a reality check on this point.

Not out to revise history - merely reciting my memory of events, which is why I requested the source those numbers are from. I'm sorry, I just don't remember reading of mass dissent on that level. My real point was, there was not a thread on this site half a thousand deep with enraged commentary. There's a disproportionate amount of debate for the health care topic as opposed to the bailouts, PPIP, etc., and I simply find that telling.

Re TARP: Among the people I know, there was certainly a sense of both disbelief and disenfranchisement, but my recollection from the media coverage I followed was that there was an overall sense of uncertainty and even confusion among the public about what the ramifications of Too Big to Fail really were, the significance of the stress tests, and whether TARP was a loan that would be paid back with interest to the public, or a one time slush fund. I remember some backlash over the GM honcho's and their separate private jets, and some hissing over the first round of bonuses for AIG and GS, but not really for the concept of TARP itself. Kinda like the lack of backlash over Cash for Clunkers or the expanded FHA or any of the other boondoggles from the black lagoon.

The point is not to deify the writers of these important documents. But to acknowledge, as we do with every swearing in ceremony how these documents are the most important laws of our lands. It is great we can amend them (for example the 13th). But no where in them do we find they give power to the federal government to do many of the things it claims to have authority to do today. And health care is one of them. States if they so choose could provide health care to the general public, but the federal government has not been expressly given the right to regulate or guarantee health care therefore that responsibility is relegated to the states and citizens. The fact that the courts don’t recognize and enforce this should be very disturbing. Especially to those who swore an oath to defend or uphold the constitution.

Let's get out of theory and into practice; do you think we should abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, Champus Insurance (Military)? Will you yourself refuse these programs if they are still available to you at such a time when you might need them?

Especially drug manufacturers, doctors and lawyers! Just not so much for whoever pays the health care bills.

One last gasp on this: you already pay your share, trust me - it just comes out of your back pocket instead of your front.

Austinhousingbubble says

Boiled down, the essence of your argument is thus:
Government health care in any form is unconstitutional and will nudge us that last inch from precipice to complete free fall toward Socialist ruination. BUT: It’s okay, as long as you don’t have to pay into it.
A very insular point of view, and a dubious one to try to stage an argument around.

Sounds like you are having a nice conversation with yourself imagining it was me. Sorry to interrupt.

Austinhousingbubble says

The point is not to deify the writers of these important documents. But to acknowledge, as we do with every swearing in ceremony how these documents are the most important laws of our lands. It is great we can amend them (for example the 13th). But no where in them do we find they give power to the federal government to do many of the things it claims to have authority to do today. And health care is one of them. States if they so choose could provide health care to the general public, but the federal government has not been expressly given the right to regulate or guarantee health care therefore that responsibility is relegated to the states and citizens. The fact that the courts don’t recognize and enforce this should be very disturbing. Especially to those who swore an oath to defend or uphold the constitution.

Let’s get out of theory and into practice; do you think we should abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, Champus Insurance (Military)? Will you yourself refuse these programs if they are still available to you at such a time when you might need them?

End Medicare tax, FICA tax, keep the programs running for those who are already retired or close. Refund all taxes for everyone else. Pay for it by ending all foreign deployment of US military. Remove all licensing requirements for drugs and practice of medicine.

On the Sidelines says

The nature of government hasn’t changed much from 1787.

Are you fucking kidding me? When the constitution was ratified, we were more like the EU -- a bunch of independent states with some common interests. The federal government was a tiny entity, and we had no standing military. Not much changed -- really?

End Medicare tax, FICA tax, keep the programs running for those who are already retired or close. Refund all taxes for everyone else. Pay for it by ending all foreign deployment of US military. Remove all licensing requirements for drugs and practice of medicine.

Not a single question addressed, just some ten-cent clap-trap you've culled from the talking points of whatever idealogue you're currently worshiping. That you are able to take yourself seriously is remarkable.

Sounds like you are having a nice conversation with yourself imagining it was me. Sorry to interrupt.

It is beyond the bounds of even my imagination to have had anything remotely resembling a conversation with you. I'd get better counterpoint from my big toe.

Austinhousingbubble says

End Medicare tax, FICA tax, keep the programs running for those who are already retired or close. Refund all taxes for everyone else. Pay for it by ending all foreign deployment of US military. Remove all licensing requirements for drugs and practice of medicine.

Not a single question addressed, just some ten-cent clap-trap you’ve culled from the talking points of whatever idealogue you’re currently worshiping. That you are able to take yourself seriously is remarkable.

Those are some of my answers to your questions and our problems. If you can't understand them I can't help you.

Those are some of my answers to your questions and our problems. If you can’t understand them I can’t help you.

Try peddling your answers around some of the returned veterans and see how well it goes over with that bunch.

(Qouted from Patrick)
The idea as I understand it is not a subsidy, just a national insurance plan that would be funded by ongoing contributions. Yes, some people would get more out of it than others, but insurance is like that now anyway.

Like Social Security? Don't get me wrong, I'm actaully for reform for health care. But if it turns out that the government will use the surplus from the government Health Care premium to fund there defict spending, (thru purchasing government bonds) I'm strongly against it. It just become another way to the government to aviod paying for today by mortgaging tommorrow.

The whole things turned into a circus!

2ndClassCitizen says

The point is not to deify the writers of these important documents. But to acknowledge, as we do with every swearing in ceremony how these documents are the most important laws of our lands. It is great we can amend them (for example the 13th). But no where in them do we find they give power to the federal government to do many of the things it claims to have authority to do today. And health care is one of them. States if they so choose could provide health care to the general public, but the federal government has not been expressly given the right to regulate or guarantee health care therefore that responsibility is relegated to the states and citizens. The fact that the courts don’t recognize and enforce this should be very disturbing. Especially to those who swore an oath to defend or uphold the constitution.

Your interpretation of the constitution is wrong. As the supreme court has ruled in numerous cases going all the way back to the 1800s, the 10th amendment did not override the Necessary and Proper clause. You have to either:

1. Accept that the Constitution is a horribly flawed document.
2. Accept the interpretations of the constitution given by the body designated by the constitution to make such judgements (which say that the federal government does have the power to do all of those things that you're claiming that they do not).

Personally, I'm all for a constitutional convention to resolve these issues. The US constitution is the oldest working constitution in the world, and there are plenty of countries that have constitutions that protect the people far better than ours.

Hell, we don't even have a constitutional right to privacy.

What Kevin said. We have to stop thinking that our constitution is infallible and divine.

>>Personally, I’m all for a constitutional convention to resolve these issues.

I agree, but I am afraid that the wingnuts would go hog wild at the meeting. Just don't convene the meeting in Artzona or any other state that permits "open carry " of guns.

OTS is spewing crap at every opportunity.

>>you people have undermined both the words and the intent of the Constitution at every opportunity.

"you people" my ass. It is not the people that has undermined the constitution. It is the corpo-fascist elites and their lackeys in Washington.

OTS,

>>Every time you cast a vote for bigger government, you are giving the “corpo-fascist elites” fresh opportunities to grab money and power.

Nobody was talking about creating a bigger government, we were talking about the elite running roughshod over the constitution. Now, that flaming strawman aside, I said before, and I will say it again:

If somebody is hurting your arm, the solution is not to amputate the arm but to make them STOP hurting the arm.

Right Wingnuts WANT to the government to be run badly, so that they can get completely rid of it (force you to amputate the arm). And after the government is gone, they will have completely free reign for corpo-fascism.

To quote Paul Krugman ( I think ) : Aren't you glad that the government now is run by people who do not hate government?

OTS, once again you try to pass off twisted analogies and completely falsified logic as actual intellect,. Case in point:

When corpo-fascists are ruining the government, you think that this is a reason to get rid of the government!
I would say it is reason to get rid of the corpo-fascists control of the government.

When "liberals are destroying the constitution" (which they are not, but everyone else please stay with me here for the sake of exposing the flawed logic), on the other hand, you think that is a reason *to get rid of the liberals*. By your own flawed logic, it *should* be a reason to get rid of the constitution (which incidentally is what Bush and Cheney kept busy doing during 2000-2008).

Is there no limit to the amount of self-serving and illogical tripe you can produce? Wait ,do not answer that...

On the Sidelines says

ee, this is a problem with you libs. You see a minor detail like the “necessary and proper” clause and you try to use it as a loophole to ram your agenda through, despite the fact that what you want is completely inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution.

So is having a standing military. Will you apply that same standard to the military that you apply to everything else? Would you refute that a standing military is essential in the modern world?

The constitution also explicitly outlines the creation of an actual government-owned business -- the Post Office. I find it amusing every time I see some rabid capitalist complaining about the Post Office while simultaneously talking about the "unconstitutional" nature of whatever it is that they dislike.

The constitution itself only outlined how the union would be governed -- nothing more. It did not deal with the size or the role of government. It's a very small document. The bill of rights weren't even included originally, and they had to be decided upon by (you guessed it) the government itself, once it was elected.

So, it's a 200+ year old document written by flawed men who had to make flawed compromises to get everyone to accept it. It reflected the reality of the late 1700s, which is far removed from the world today