patrick.net

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

Kevin,

Great examples.

OTS is all about situational principles and inconsistent "logic". He'll invoke one principle to support one argument, and then dispose of the same principle when it does not suit him. How very typical of Wingnut.

Patrick,
I'm sorry to hear about your parents and understand your desire for health care reform. I own a small business and I am tired of paying over $15K a year to insure my family of 4. My premiums have increased roughly 20% year-over-year for each of the last 2 years. This is a bubble that will pop at some point, perhaps not soon enough. That said, I understand your anger and frustration and it is very likely you were upset when closing your memo, but your points 2 and 3 are blanket statements that I don't think even you believe:
1. Having lost the election.
2. Having lost the election to a black man.
3. Having lost the election to a black man who is ten times smarter than Bush.
Do you REALLY believe health care opponents and/or republicans in general are that racist? Dude, that paints a very broad brush over a very large segment of society. I'm going to look to your other posts for your better work/comments/opinions. I'm disappointed to read this because I was honestly hoping that having a black president would put the race issue to bed once and for all, but it appears that it would have to be a black republican president before people on the left (or non-right) can stop pulling out race cards.
I still have a super high opinion of you and what you are doing here with patrick.net. In fact, I'm pressing the donate button right now.
Peace and happy bubble popping to all, including health care!

I think there's still plenty of Racism to go around. There are plenty of intelligent, legitimate opposition to single payer systems or a "public option", from non-racist, rational people.

There are also a bunch of dipshits who are "anti-reform". I can not fathom how any intelligent, rational person can look at the current system and say that it doesn't need to be reformed (with the exception of the people making obscene amounts of money from it).

Now the Birthers and crazy loons who are carrying nazi posters and the like are, for the most part, a bunch of racist white trash morons like OTS. Normally I'd just ignore those people, but that's hard to do when they're at every random public event (including music concerts and farmers markets) with obama hitler posters. These assholes are lucky that few people living today had to endure the horrors of nazi germany. 20 or 30 years ago, they'd be getting their asses kicked.

Patrick,
Sorry to hear of you family health issues. I can sort of relate with a twist. A few years back my mother was diagnosed with cancer. Chemo, surgeries, hospitals and doctors followed the diagnosis for over a year before she died.

Both parents had medicare, and private Blue Cross and Blue Shield. When all was said and done it still cost my father over $40,000. Thank god he had the money or it would have been the obvious, bankruptcy.

I am not sure what the best way to go with the health care bill, but what we have now does not work.

Maybe a combination with options you mentioned in other threads.

Tenpoundbass says

Racism is politically incorrect, there for racism has no political clout, there for racism is a moot point in modern politics, unless you are fear mongering to win constituents. Or B. you’re a Liberal and you’ve run out talking points, and you just can’t get the cretins to listen.

Racism is only politically incorrect in cities and on television. It's perfectly acceptable to be a racist in many areas of the country.

And just because something is politically incorrect does not mean it has no bearing on politics. There are plenty of people who are racists who will not vote for or support somebody just because they are not a member of a race that they are comfortable with.

Tenpoundbass says

that works both ways, and our political system now is not a racist majority no matter what you say. SO by this very attribute it is impossible for a racist agenda in this country.

Majority, no -- but the ignorant racist vote is a very powerful one, and simple population numbers will show you that there are far more white racists than all minority groups combined. There were far more democrats who voted for McCain because they were racist than there were Republicans who voted for Obama because they were racist (considering that less than 10% of black voters are registered Republicans, that shouldn't be such a surprise).

In my experience, the vast majority of poor people are racists -- not because they're poor, but because they're uneducated and fear anything that is different from them.

Tenpoundbass says

I mean Ebonics is America’s official language for anyone under 30.

Amongst poor people in regions with large black populations, yeah, but otherwise that's a pretty ignorant claim. Do you even know anyone under 30?

Unecudated low class people are always going to appear as a hopeless mass -- they always have. Don't worry though, they won't be "running the show" -- they'll just be the idiots screaming at whatever my generation's equivalent of the town hall protests is. Things will still be run by the people who graduate from elite private universities and are guaranteed cushy VP jobs at their dad's company just in case some scandal keeps them from their political aspirations.

Tenpoundbass says

Do you even know any white kids between the age 14 to 25?

4 siblings and dozens of cousins (and their friends), a large percentage of the people that I work with, my neighbors, various interns at work...yes, yes I do. I'm only barely outside of that age group myself.

The only ones who use "ebonics" are the really low class ones who live near Detroit and other places where they are heavily influenced by poor black people (and "ebonics" itself is just a derivative of the accents of the deep south, brought north by freed slaves and their descendants).