Thursday, March 25, 2010

3 Reasons Healthcare Reform Won't Cut Deficit


From Reason.tv.

58 Comments:

At 3/25/2010 9:27 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Healthcare Reform has NEVER been about healthcare, insurance, or anything else people whine about, its all about control...

Just ask Rep. John Dingell about it...

Network news fails to examine high cost and proven failures of government-run health care

 
At 3/25/2010 9:40 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

To be fair, Juandos, most journalists don't know the difference between "loose" and "lose". I know you expect them to understand basic economics as much as you expect the earth to reverse the direction in which it spins next Monday.

 
At 3/25/2010 9:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The insurance companies need to have more controls on them.



"Democrats are the enemy. We should not compromise with them, nor should we leave a trace of their policies when we take back our government."

Alan Gardner


Now, how am I supposed to have any sympathy with your argument that Democrat supported policies are all about control, in the face of an argument like Gardner's, which is obviously about Republicans taking control.

Nice gun logo, too. What makes Republicans think that such imagery of anger and violence will attract the Independents they will need to win at the polls, let alone any of "THE ENEMY".

If you want me (and my gun) on your side, you will need to engage me instead of dissing me or threatening me, however obliquely.

 
At 3/25/2010 9:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be fair, lets make a pejorative and unfounded generalism.

 
At 3/25/2010 10:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What makes Republicans think that such imagery of anger and violence will attract the Independents they will need to win at the polls ...

You're the ones who will have to worry about attracting Independents:

The poll finds that 62 percent want Congressional Republicans to keep challenging the bill, while 33 percent say they should not do so. Nearly nine in ten Republicans and two in three independents want the GOP to keep challenging. Even 41 percent of Democrats support continued challenges.

CBSNews

If you want me (and my gun) on your side, you will need to engage me instead of dissing me or threatening me, however obliquely.

We don't want, or need, you on our side. And we have our own guns.

 
At 3/25/2010 10:07 AM, Blogger The Grouch said...

Caterpillar $100M hit, Deere $150M hit, I've already been informed by my employer premiums are going up and coverage is going down as a result of this legislation. I don't know how to "fix" the healthcare system, but giving politicians power over my medical care doesn't help me sleep better at night. I expect this program to go the way of Social Security and Medicare.... spending will be through the roof.

 
At 3/25/2010 10:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What makes Republicans think that such imagery of anger and violence will attract the Independents ...

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed ... The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation ... Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.

Rasmussen

What makes you think you can win back Independents with your arrogant nanny-state, leftists know best bullshit?

 
At 3/25/2010 10:14 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"I know you expect them to understand basic economics as much as you expect the earth to reverse the direction in which it spins next Monday"...

Well Methinks you're absolutely right about the lamestream media and basic economics...

Still I think that 'professionals' in the media would at least take some interest in basic economics if they think factual reporting is a good thing...

I know, I'm dreaming...
================
"The insurance companies need to have more controls on them"...

Says what credible source anon @ 3/25/2010 9:42 AM?

"Now, how am I supposed to have any sympathy with your argument that Democrat supported policies are all about control, in the face of an argument like Gardner's, which is obviously about Republicans taking control"...

Apparently YOUR inability to understand the spoken English language by Rep. Dingell could be excused...

It was rather mangled...

Anyway Gardner said nothing about 'controlling people' if your quote is accurate...

"What makes Republicans think that such imagery of anger and violence will attract the Independents they will need to win at the polls, let alone any of "THE ENEMY""...

I don't know that the Republicans do but why don't you go ask one like R.I.N.O. McCain...

"If you want me (and my gun) on your side, you will need to engage me instead of dissing me or threatening me, however obliquely"...

What makes YOU think I want someone so clueless anywhere near me?

BTW anon are you really Cynthia Tucker in real life?

 
At 3/25/2010 10:56 AM, Anonymous Benny The Man said...

Let's see--in the next 10 years, we will spend about $15 trillion on "national defense." Pehraps more--we are, in factm, still engaged in open-ended wars in not one, but two crap-hole Mideast nations.

Obama's new health plan will add somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion in federal outlays in the same period.

Bring on the the deficit hawks.

 
At 3/25/2010 10:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not a leftist.

I'm just telling you that such talk is pushing me away from my usual conservative position.

I'm one small voice, but I think the far right is ruining the Republican Party, and the Far Left is ruining the Democratic Party, the Eco-Terrorists are ruining the Green Party.

I don't think smashing windows gets you many votes. Recent events are not krystallnacht, but some people will see it that way.


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

Anyway Gardner said nothing about 'controlling people' if your quote is accurate...


It came right off of your citataion.

You are technically correct, but in my experience the difference is trivial: Democrats want one kind of control and Republicans another. Democrats want big government now, and Republicans later.

My local government is Republican, and "controls" they have imposed on me and my business have cost me plenty.

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


Apparently YOUR inability to understand the spoken English language by Rep. Dingell could be excused...



I made no reference to anything Dingell said.

Based on nothing, you assume I'm unable to understand him, and you assume I'm somehow on his side.

Therefore I have to seriously discount your credibility and powers of observation.

Like my local government it appears to me that partisanship and dogma has clouded your ability to reason.

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

What makes YOU think I want someone so clueless anywhere near me?

What makes you think you can win back Independents with your arrogant nanny-state, leftists know best bullshit?

We don't want, or need, you on our side. And we have our own guns.



How to win friends and influence people. My business would close in a heartbeat if I talked to potential customers that way.

 
At 3/25/2010 11:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The insurance companies need to have more controls on them"...

Says what credible source anon @ 3/25/2010 9:42 AM?

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

Well, its not an exact quote, but it is pretty much what my state insurance commissioner told me after I was dropped from one insurance plan, refused by several others, and had a policy rescided retroactively.

It's also pretty much what the judge said after I sued another inurance company and "won". If that's what you call getting what you paid for, eight years later.

 
At 3/25/2010 11:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW anon are you really Cynthia Tucker in real life?


You got something against black women, too?


nah, I'm more like Tilli, who responded : "...do you actually think the lunatic fringe on either side of this debate are rational?"

or SouthernGal who would like to see both parties dismantled.

Then maybe we will see some self determination and self responsibility.

 
At 3/25/2010 11:43 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

I'm just telling you that such talk is pushing me away from my usual conservative position.

You can't please everyone.

The answer, of course, is to get both Republicans and Democrats out of the business of economics and let companies compete for their customers and let customers make their own decisions. But, other than that, we're stuck with this...

 
At 3/25/2010 11:47 AM, Anonymous diz said...

Polls show about 10% of Americans say they believe this bill will reduce deficits.

I suspect at least half of those are lying to the pollster.

Maybe the other half are journalists.

 
At 3/25/2010 1:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and let customers make their own decisions.


Based on what?

 
At 3/25/2010 1:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The answer, of course, is to get both Republicans and Democrats out of the business ....


Thats why both the Dems and Pubs have made me anti-partisan.

 
At 3/25/2010 1:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The more you spend the more you save."

Zales Commercial

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

The More You Spend, The More You Save At La Grande Dame!
January 23, 2010

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

The More You Spend, The More You Save!

AutoAccessories4Less Coupon

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

Consumers saved $7 billion by shopping on eBay in 2003, according to a study released Monday.

The research measured the money shoppers were willing to pay for a product versus what they actually paid. On average, users paid $4 less, the study found.

Given the huge number of auctions on the site, the savings added up into the billions of dollars.

The study, to be published in the forthcoming issue of Information Systems Research, was conducted by University of Maryland's business professors Wolfgang Jank and Galit Shmueli.

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

Either the Democrats are in good company (that of a lot of business owners) or the economists should get out of the business of eonomy.

 
At 3/25/2010 1:39 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Anon @11:15 said:

>"You got something against black women, too?"

Say I think you may be right. Thanks for pointing that out. Cynthia Tucker DOES appear to be a black woman. I hadn't noticed that until you called it to my attention. I was more interested in her message, which I DO have something against.

She says: "I’m not at all sure why legislation that extends health care benefits to all Americans would incite some people to frothing, red-faced anger."

Well, I'm just guessing, but maybe they are upset at the idea of having more money ripped out of their pockets against their will, by government action, despite their very vocal opposition, to pay for health care benefits for people who don't pay for it themselves, and who may or may not want it or need it.

Bricks through windows are the wrong response, but the anger is very understandable.

 
At 3/25/2010 1:43 PM, Anonymous Rand said...

Obama adding 16500 new IRS agents is like Hitler adding 16500 agents to the Gestapo.

 
At 3/25/2010 1:51 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

>"Still I think that 'professionals' in the media would at least take some interest in basic economics if they think factual reporting is a good thing..."

This deficiency is translating to declining relevance and viewership/readership of main stream news outlets.

The market at work!

 
At 3/25/2010 2:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...for people who don't pay for it themselves, and who may or may not want it or need it.

Or pay for it themselves when they do need it.


Take a systems view. Your premiums may go up and other costs go down. We can hope, even if we do not believe, that other reductions will be higher than the increased costs.

Considering that we already have some of the highests costs in the world there ought to be plenty of room for them to come down.

With our deficits so high already, costs cannot go up much more. This is the "can't lose" card in the Republican strategy.

Only problem is that someone will have to make some hard priority choices as BennyTheMan points out.

Neither party is going to like that, and if you think people are angry now, wait till you try to take back their "entitlements".

 
At 3/25/2010 2:19 PM, Blogger OA said...

How did "cutting the deficit" ever get to be a prominent part of the discussion?

If that's a reason to do it, why don't they just cut short the stimulus bill by 15% and have those 10 years worth of reduction today?

Or just trim a fraction of that 11% increase in core government spending from last year? Or cut Medicare fraud by 5% or so each of the next 10 years?

It's bizarro world. Let's raise taxes and steal Medicare funds, then spend the money with a tiny projected surplus, and tell the people what a good job we've done.

There were any number of ways to turn the tiny projected savings into a farcical claim, but all we heard was "the bill isn't bipartisan". Republicans didn't get slapped down 2 elections in a row for nothing.

 
At 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama adding 16500 new IRS agents is like Hitler adding 16500 agents to the Gestapo.

Not to worry, we all know the government is incompetent, right?

 
At 3/25/2010 2:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to the GAO there is no reason for any legislation thaqt does not produce an net public benefit.

What we should do is hold them to their word.

We pass these bills on a projection from GAO, but there is very little follow-up, quality control, or after-the-fact studies.

We need better accounting, so we can back test the government projections. Then we need to put riders on the legislation so that it expires if it does not live up to its promises.

The procedure to do this should be rigorous enough so that it applies equally to Republicans and Democratic proposals.

We can call it the Economists Full Employment Act.

 
At 3/25/2010 2:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think smashing windows gets you many votes. Recent events are not krystallnacht, but some people will see it that way.

Republican Rep. Eric Cantor addresses leftist claims of threatened violence.

Perhaps you should read this before you start lecturing us about violence: “They mixed gasoline with oil so it would stick to clothing and skin and burn longer”

By the way, Krystallnacht was perpetrated by leftists. You can hear the echoes of their hatred in the left's current attacks on the state of Israel.

 
At 3/25/2010 3:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't say anything about left or right, just that smashing windows gets no votes.

History is history and current events are current.

Maybe we can learn from the past.

You are welcome to ignore my opinion. I think such behavior is rude and boorish. I prefer not to be associated.

In either direction.

 
At 3/25/2010 3:30 PM, Anonymous Lyle said...

Re Anon at 2:41 so the Nazi's were leftists, that would be news to Joe Stalin? Totalitarian yes, but rather extreme rightists unless you believe that there is a circle where the far left and far right come back together. All indications is that that Nazi's pushed Krystallnacht, by that time most of the left in Germany was already in the concentration camps or abroad.

 
At 3/25/2010 3:44 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

>"The research measured the money shoppers were willing to pay for a product versus what they actually paid. On average, users paid $4 less, the study found."

I'll be interested in reading the study when it's available, but it sounds flawed.

Think about it. At auction, the final bid is the most anyone is willing to pay. If someone valued the item more, the bidding would continue higher. So. saying that people valued items at $4 more than they paid, on average, makes no sense.

If the study refers to the difference between maximum bid amount that can be entered by the bidder and actual winning bid, then it should be realized that this is merely an artifact of the Ebay auction format. the maximum bid would HAVE to be equal to or higher than the winning bid, or that bidder would not have won.

I'm not sure I would characterize that amount as "savings".

In fact, the winning bidder could be said to have overpaid by the amount their bid was higher than the next highest bid.

If the report is the result of a survey, then I would expect such results. IMO People are likely to claim they paid less than the "value" of something, because they consider themselves to be shrewd shoppers. Few will admit they paid more than they had to for something.

In my limited experience with online auctions, I have sometimes observed that when there is a lot of bidding activity on something, there may be a frantic last minute flurry of bidding, where egos appear to get in the way, and bidders drive the price higher than the item costs at retail stores. Winning becomes the goal, instead of buying at a low price.

In any case, the SELLERS at auction will always get as much as, or more than , the amount they are willing to sell at. That would be an interesting study also.

 
At 3/25/2010 3:49 PM, Blogger Marko said...

It won't cut the deficit, it will raise health insurance premiums and it does absolutely nothing to lower health care costs. The reason health insurance premiums have risen in most recent years is that health care costs are up. Insurance companies make 100 dollars in profit a year per plan. They aren't the problem. Government regulation is the problem, and more government regulation is not the solution.

It is my opinion that this plan is not designed to solve the problem - it is designed to make things worse so that people will accept universal coverage administered by the government. They will claim the only way to control costs will be for the government to set the costs and pay the doctors and take over the whole system.

Don't fall for it!

 
At 3/25/2010 3:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice article about brandon Darby. especially this part"


“Everybody else .... remained with this protest, ‘fight the power’ deal but I started developing relationships with people in the power structure....."

Pretty much the same advice I gave above.

Republicans might have learned something from this before they wasted the last year, achieving zero and trying to make sure no one else does either.

There is better stuff to mix gasoline with than oil, depending on what kind of damage you want to accomplish.

Eric Cantor is a disgrace as a speaker and a master of the empty sentence. Republicans would do well to put a muzzle on him.(My Worthless Opinion)

 
At 3/25/2010 3:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it does not work, the Republicans can sell their ideas: tort reform and cross state sales of insurance.

Good state's right issue there.

 
At 3/25/2010 4:23 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Anon @1:17 quoted:

>>"and let customers make their own decisions."

Then asked:

>"Based on what?"

Well, I suppose based on whatever they wish to base their decisions on. As it should be. I must not understand your question.

 
At 3/25/2010 4:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, absent any government "interference" you will be pretty much stuck with whatever informaton the vendor gives you. And those highly reliable internet "testimonials"

No ingredients, no strength or mileage info, etc.

For example, when I bought my insurance policy (ignorance of the law is no excuse) I should have known that they were allowed to rescind it retroactively, and that this is in fact pretty common.

The insurance company ddn't go out of its way to disclose that, and since it is a matter of law, I doubt it was even in the contract.

Had I known about this "universal prior condition for up to two years" trap, then I might have had a backup plan until the policy "matured".

Even I don't know everything, so I got burned, and then I complained bitterly to every official I could find. So did a lot of other people, for a very long time and the eventual result is what we have now.

Along with the rules that say a 2x4must be 1.5 inches by 3.75 inches and a lot of other crazy stuff.

Some of it works and some doesn't.

 
At 3/25/2010 4:57 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Obama dares Republicans to seek healthcare repeal
Thu Mar 25, 2010

Designed to revamp the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry, which accounts for one-sixth of the country's economy, the law will extend health insurance to 32 million Americans who lack it. It will bar practices like insurers' refusing coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, expand the Medicaid government health insurance program for the poor and impose new taxes on the wealthy.

Obama acknowledged the bill was "not perfect"...

My comment: That's an understatement.

Also, so much for Obama saying he wanted to work with the GOP:

"If they (the Republicans) want to have that fight, we can have it." "Well, I say go for it."

Looking relaxed and upbeat, Obama mocked Republicans for acting as if the bill would lead to "Armageddon."

"After I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling, some cracks opening up in the earth."

Support for the law seems to be growing, according to a poll released by Quinnipiac University on Thursday. Before the House passed the bill, 54 percent of Americans surveyed disapproved of it, while 36 percent supported it, the poll found. After the vote, the disapproval rating dropped to 49 percent versus 40 percent.

 
At 3/25/2010 5:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama mocked Republicans for acting as if the bill would lead to "Armageddon."

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

Both sides oversold their position.

The result is that citizens cannot trust the numbers on either side.

My guess is it will take ten years before we have any real basis for deciding if this is an improvement or not.

What the Republicans shoulod have been demanding for this bill is an agreed upon set of metrics by which it can be examined over time.

 
At 3/25/2010 5:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe that if Obama had gone to the Republican leadership and said I will sign any health insurance bill you want, they still would have voted against their own ideas.

They can't stand for the other party to "succeed" at anything, whether it is a good idea or not.

On the other hand, the Dems should have jumped on the ideas of cross state sales, insurance co-ops, and some kind of tort reform.

They would have made almost no difference, so why not include them?

 
At 3/25/2010 6:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

... so the Nazi's were leftists, that would be news to Joe Stalin?

So, if one leftist hates another leftist, that makes him right-wing? The fact that Stalin was further to the left than Hitler doesn't mean that the National Socialists were not socialists. I suggest you read some of Hitler's writings. Many of his policies - not his racial views - are indistinguishable from those of the modern left.

 
At 3/25/2010 6:14 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

It looks like Marxism and capitalism don't mix well.

 
At 3/25/2010 6:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe that if Obama had gone to the Republican leadership and said I will sign any health insurance bill you want, they still would have voted against their own ideas.

How do you explain all the Democrats that voted against it? And just who did Obama and the Democrats "succeed" against? The American people? The people were against this bill by a large margin. If they were not, then the Democrats would not have had to resort to lies, bribes and gimmicks to get it passed.

I believe that no matter what the Republicans had done, people like you would have found a way to condemn them.

 
At 3/25/2010 6:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The people that support this bill are scared. Freedom can be scary. It requires accepting responsibility for yourself. Learning to provide for your own needs and the needs of your family. If things don't go well, you have no one to blame. Leftists are constantly looking for a father figure. They love the idea of the "strong leader", like Castro, Chavez or Obama. They want someone who can take charge of their lives and tell them what to do. Someone to provide for them. Someone to assure them, that if they're a failure, it's not their fault. So, they surrender their freedom to the state, empowering it to steal the wealth of their neighbors. And in confiscating their neighbor's wealth, they seek to make him a slave. It's a selfish and greedy act, but they insist that it's noble. That it's necessary for the greater good - it's for the children. Who knew that slavery could be so wonderful? There's just one problem, some of us will not be slaves.

 
At 3/25/2010 7:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a business owner with 28 employees, I've had much to contemplate after the passage of the "historic" bill. I cannot possibly provide health insurance to my workers as my payroll exceeds 55 percent of total revenue. I consulted with my crew leaders and have given them the choice of a 12 percent pay cut or we must eventually release three men. Our $1.2 million payroll translates to around $100,000 in annual penalties added to our tax burden because we cannot afford to provide health insurance. We have decided to proceed with firing three men and will do so within the next few months. We will take shortcuts on the service for our customers to somehow make up for their loss. Our business will survive this setback. I'm sure the three men who will lose their jobs as a direct result of this bill will be comforted in knowing they now have health insurance.

Alan Orfi, wizbang

 
At 3/25/2010 8:19 PM, Blogger W.E. Heasley said...

At 3/25/2010 6:38 PM Anonymous said...

“Leftists are constantly looking for a father figure. They love the idea of the "strong leader", like Castro, Chavez or Obama. They want someone who can take charge of their lives and tell them what to do. Someone to provide for them. Someone to assure them, that if they're a failure, it's not their fault.”




The insidious undercurrent of progressives/socialists leaders is that they merely want to be the perceived power brokers that they vilify within a capitalistic system.

Its merely a replacement process of one set of power brokers with another set of power brokers through a class warfare argument based upon envy.

The difference being that in a socialist scheme the individual and hence freedom are removed from the equation in favor of authoritative rule by the anointed/intelligentsia. Individual freedom is remove in favor of an authoritative nanny state that the anointed/intelligentsia create in their own self image.

The only economic system that matches individual freedom leading to self determination is the capitalistic system. Its by no means a perfect system but its historical result/track record is head and shoulders above all other economic systems. Yet anytime capitalism falters the anointed/intelligentsia are waiting in the wings with a basket of full of panacea.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy-Winston Churchill.

 
At 3/25/2010 10:18 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Hey pseusdo benny I see you're making it up as you go along: "Let's see--in the next 10 years, we will spend about $15 trillion on "national defense." Pehraps more--we are, in factm, still engaged in open-ended wars in not one, but two crap-hole Mideast nations"...

You still haven't answered, 'is the sky blue on your planet when the sun shines?'...
=========================

"I'm not a leftist"...

Yeah Cynthia, I believe you... ROFLMAO!

"I'm just telling you that such talk is pushing me away from my usual conservative position"... LOL!

"My local government is Republican, and "controls" they have imposed on me and my business have cost me plenty"...

You mean your alledged local government is just as conservative as you claim to be?

"the Eco-Terrorists are ruining the Green Party"...

How about a dose of reality?

Eco-Terrorists = Green Party

"Based on nothing, you assume I'm unable to understand him, and you assume I'm somehow on his side"...

Based on the fact that what Dingell said didn't scare you silly which means you either agree with him or grip on reality is tenuous at best...

"Well, its not an exact quote, but it is pretty much what my state insurance commissioner"...

I asked for a credible source, not some socialist hack occupying a taxpayer financed office...

"How to win friends and influence people. My business would close in a heartbeat if I talked to potential customers that way"...

I guess its back to the ranks of the SEIU then, right?

"You got something against black women, too?"...

Only if you're Cynthia, Cynthia...

 
At 3/26/2010 9:07 AM, Anonymous Lyle said...

The only way Hitler was a leftist, is if you redefine the left wing as community over individual, and right wing as individual over community. (Indeed that is the whole crux of the basic argument here which is more important). In that sense then it does follow, as Hitler said you need to sacrifice for the Fatherland, and Stalin for the Motherland. This is of course a new definition, but perhaps does need a new term the communitarian and the individualist. Interestingly of course all religious traditions are on the communitarian side however. Really individualism is a product of the enlightenment and post enlightenment trends, as before it you served the state and the church unless you ran them and that was that.

 
At 3/26/2010 10:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You mean your alledged local government is just as conservative as you claim to be?

There is nothing alleged about my local government. It IS my government for better or worse.

They were all elected as Republicans, so locally, Republicans are not my friend. If there was an opposition or an alternative, it might be worse, but it is hard to see how. Anyway, there is no opposition because the Republicans have effective control.

In this environment, you would have to be a fool to invest in a campaign as a Democrat. If they existed, I imagine they wouod be worse, but Dems and Pubs both want power. The way that power is exeercised is by taking things from you and limiting opportunity.

You don't display power by saying "yes".

Conseqently, I remain anti-partisan, not liberal.

I asked for a credible source, not some socialist hack occupying a taxpayer financed office...

That socialist hack is part of a Republican administration fulfilling its usual role of supporting business interests over individual interests. I fail to see how that is a socialist position.

From my position it was a "credible" source since it was one I could not overcome: sometimes you have to face facts, something you seem to ignore in your conservative fervor.

It appears to me that for you, the only credible sources are those you agree with.



Based on the fact that what Dingell said didn't scare you silly ..

There you go again, making assumptions about facts you know nothing about and cannot prove.

I'm unable to get video on my dial-up connection, I never saw what he said.

Rhetoric, from either side, seldom scares me to death. I've seen real fright scare people catatonic: such an event changes your perspective, so I doubt his words would have much effect: show me the metrics not the emotion.


Its merely a replacement process of one set of power brokers with another set of power brokers through a class warfare argument based upon envy.

Yep, that is why I am antipartisan and anti Republican. Don't confuse that with being a liberal. If a Republican can convince me to a scientific standard of proof that he has a good idea, I'll accept it until proven otherwise. If he can't, he is an opinionaqte bag of hot air, same as a Democrat.

I don't see Democrats as the Enemy or Republicans as the Enemy: I see people who are wrong, unrealistic, and unable to see things as they are as the enemy. Partisanship on either side increases the probability that you will be wrong.

In our conversation here, out of apparent zeal, you have twice made assumptions about me that are outside of the known facts. Consequently I am suspect of your judgement.

Everyone deserves equal protection of their person and their property. To that end we have a government, which must be paid for.
Equal protection does not mean that government has NO right to take anything from you, ever.

If you think that equal protection for everyone is a socialist position, then you and I will probably never agree on anything.

If you don't support equal protection then you must support the idea that some can gain advantage at the expense of others by exerting power.

 
At 3/26/2010 10:46 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Ahhh, anon says: "There is nothing alleged about my local government. It IS my government for better or worse"...

No, I'm questioning your honesty...

"That socialist hack is part of a Republican administration fulfilling its usual role of supporting business interests over individual interests"...

Hmmm, so you don't think Republicans can't be socialist hacks, eh?

"sometimes you have to face facts"...

So when are you going to start?

"There you go again, making assumptions about facts you know nothing about and cannot prove"...

No, your replies have settled those assumptions for me...

"If you don't support equal protection then you must support the idea that some can gain advantage at the expense of others by exerting power"...

Oh dear! How so very Darwinian of me...

 
At 3/26/2010 10:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I cannot possibly provide health insurance to my workers as my payroll exceeds 55 percent of total revenue.

I'm in the same boat, but my revenue is a function of competition, my competiton also keeps costs low by not offering healthcare.

If we all raise our prices to cover the costs of health insurance we still have equal competition, and I am still in business.

However, at higher prices we can each expect to sell a little less. and that will result in fewer workers, or they can trade some pay for benefits.

 
At 3/26/2010 10:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, I'm questioning your honesty...

It's been nice talking to you.

 
At 3/26/2010 12:26 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Anon, it seems, some U.S. firms, and their domestic competitors, will find it more profitable to offshore more jobs than pay for health care insurance.

 
At 3/26/2010 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, your replies have settled those assumptions for me...

You made assertions based on those assumptions. My argument is that this is typical of partisans, who argue for their advantage over others.

Consequently, I am anti-partisan as a starting point. I'll accept some partisan ideas based on proven merit.

Our Constituion is based on the idea we have a right to life, and presumably that means we all have an equal right to life, for the equal protetion of which we have instituted government, which must be paid for.

How so very Darwinian of me...

Precisely.

The animal kingdom has no constituion, no right to life, and very little in the way of civilization. Each species is partisan to their own agenda.

You seem to argue for unlimited individual liberty, and extremely limited government, which is different from liberty subject to equal pretection.

Unlimited personal liberty would include the Darwinian right to kill others to get what you want. Most humans categorize that as uncivilized and barbarian behavior.

 
At 3/26/2010 12:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, it seems, some U.S. firms, and their domestic competitors, will find it more profitable to offshore more jobs than pay for health care insurance."

Absolutely, same as with environmental regulations, which are allegedly based on health considerations.

Of course, that choice is would exclude the other industrialized nations which already require/pay for health care, except to the extent that those places already cost less thaqn the US.

[Some] US companies voluntarily pay for health insurance. I do not know of any of them that have voluntarily left the US to avoid those costs or get similar benefits at a lower cost.

A third of the US economy is government, muchof which is outsourced to business. Much of the rest is tied to the land, housing, minerals, logging, farming; or to services to those groups.

That leaves only those manufacturors who think they can locate elsewhere and still sell here.

I believe your argument has some truth to it, but does not paint the whole picture.

 
At 3/26/2010 12:54 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Anon, more jobs can be offshored than you may believe:

If work is highly repetitive (accounting)

If work is predictable and well defined (customer service)

If work can be broken down into small manageable projects (software development)

If work can be turned into a routine (Tele-marketing)

Proximity to the end customer is not important (phone based tech support of consumer products)

If end customer has already moved offshore (semiconductor sales)

 
At 3/26/2010 1:20 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Anyway, it looks like job growth will be slow, tax rates will increase, interest rates will rise, inflation will accelerate, and it's just a matter of time before major government programs go bankrupt, unless half the population is in slavery. The future has been spent. All that's left is to collect the bill.

 
At 3/26/2010 2:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm, so you don't think Republicans can't be socialist hacks, eh?

"sometimes you have to face facts"...

So when are you going to start?

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

I started when I concluded that Republicans are not necessarily looking out for my interests, as you partly indicate.

To get this back on topic, as I understand it, you argue against this bill because it impinges on your liberty (requires you to purchase insurance), because it unfairly takes money from you (denies you the right to the fruits of you labors, and therefore your right to life), because your money then benefits others (socialism), and because socialism government)is never as efficient as private interests, the result of which wil be higher costs and increased deficits.

I would argue that the reason we have deficits is because we spend more than we take in, regardless of what we spend it on.

Maryland expects to save money on this bill because it already subsidizes insurance, and now it won't have to. Virginia expects to pay a lot more because it will be required to do what it does not do now.

A Maryland taxpayer will stop paying the state and start paying the feds and his protection will remain more or less the same.

A Virginia Taxpayer will pay more, but they will get more protection (at least on paper).

As individuals we buy insurance to protect our other assests and we have differnt views as to how much our asstes need protection. The Virginia nnd Maryland example show the same arguments holds for the states: they value their assets differently and they take risks differently.

As a citizen of the US you have the liberty to move to any state you desire, but as long as Virgina and Maryland manage insurors differently you cannot expect to have equal protection of your life and your property as a result of exercizing your liberty.



Therein lies the conundrum: the goal of equal protection for individual life and property says nothing about how much protection, or how equal the payments for it. Except that, if the protection costs more than what we are protecting is worth, we have no business demanding it.

By that line of reasoning 100% protection would be true socialism, and there would be nothing wrong with it as long as everyone's protection was equal.

Obviously, in the face of our Constitution, that argument is just as silly as the one for total Darwinian freedom and no proetection.

Which leaves us only with the argument of how much protection is worthwhile, how the costs of prtection are distributed, and at what limits on freedom.


If one dollar of my property gets equal protection as one dollar of yours, then I should expect to pay more for protection if I have more dollars to protect, but I do not expect to pay a dollar fifty to protect one dollar.

For certain, that leads to deficits for me, and most likely for the country as well.

 
At 3/26/2010 6:11 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Anon, your argument using equal protection is nonsense, because health care is not a right.

Government not only spends more of our money than it takes, it spends it inefficiently, unlike individuals, households, and private firms.

 
At 3/26/2010 6:22 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

I would argue government has taken away your rights, because it squandered your future.

Also, what business does Congress have in micromanaging an economy? It doesn't understand economics.

 
At 3/26/2010 8:59 PM, Anonymous tom said...

WE need to elect Glen Beck as our President and Savior.

http://watchglennbeck.com/

Glen Beck Not Obamacare, we don't need blacks trying to run our country. !!!!!!!!

 
At 3/27/2010 2:20 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Anon @ 2:11

>"To get this back on topic, as I understand it, you argue against this bill because it impinges on your liberty (requires you to purchase insurance)..."

YES

"...because it unfairly takes money from you (denies you the right to the fruits of you labors..."

YES

"... and therefore your right to life..."

NO

I haven't been denied my life, however my QUALITY of life may be reduces because I may be unable to get timely, adequate, and appropriate medical treatment under the new system. My life may end sooner than I would choose, due to limits on "non cost effective" treatments.

"...because your money then benefits others (socialism)..."

YES

In that context only. I argue against being FORCED to pay for other peoples benefits. What I am willing to do VOLUNTARILY in ways of my own choosing is an entirely different story.

"...and because socialism government)is never as efficient as private interests, the result of which wil be higher costs and increased deficits."

YES

I might not use the word "never", but I have yet to see a government program operate as efficiently as a private one. Can YOU think of a good example?

"I would argue that the reason we have deficits is because we spend more than we take in, regardless of what we spend it on."

Well, duh, That one is pretty obvious. NO ONE is arguing against that idea. However, this health care bill will quite obviously add to deficits, not reduce them.

If you keep in mind that this bill has very little to do with improving health care, and makes absolutely no economic sense, but instead is a blatant power grab by elite statists who wish to increase control of our lives by the Federal government, then it will all make sense.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home