Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia
President Obama: "I didn't campaign on the public option."
You see, it all depends on what your definition of the word "campaign" is.
My definition would be the part where it says: "Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice."
Comments (208)
Of course he wants Government run health care, and centralized financial institutions, and a single payer employer (the government). The American people aren't interested in that junk. Obama will do what he can to incrementally implement his vision. It is up to the American people to actively reject this leftist ideology before it destroys the engine that made America great.— Mr. Smith
Hope- Change and GULLIBLE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC VOTERS— Manny Trillo
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
I notice that the Republics in the Senate debate are continually claiming that the health bill is not what Obama promised in his campaign, suggesting somehow that if they were in charge they would put Obama's campaign promises into law (which of course is not likely at all). Obama distanced himself from requiring a public option, although he said he would prefer to have it, a long time ago. I don't think you can get him on this one. Now on restoring full civil rights that the Bush administration took away--that may be another story.- Certainly happier than when conservatives are in office, despite Obama's centrist stances.— HandNik
- Heh, Mark Steyn: --snip-- Every Continental under the age of 40 – make that 60, if not 75 – is all but guaranteed to end his days living in an Islamified Europe --snip-- So Steyn says. In reality? --snip--Slightly more than 4 percent of Europe's population is Muslim, as defined by demographers (though about 80 per cent of these people are not religiously observant, so they are better defined as secular citizens who have escaped religious nations). It is possible, though not certain, that this number could rise to 6 percent by 2020. If current immigration and birth rates remain the same, it could even rise to 10 percent within 100 years. But it won't, because Muslims don't actually have more babies than other populations do under the same circumstances. The declining population growth rates are not confined to native populations. In fact, immigrants from Muslim countries are experiencing a faster drop in reproduction rates than the larger European population. --snip-- Mark Steyn, a liar and an Islamophobe. No wonder he's sloboat's hero.— Talking point sleuth
Actually TPS your right in the sence they are not a huge minority , what you dont know is they all live in certain areas , where they collect they become a majority , they put up their mosques and have that stupid chanting calling them to prayer and complain endlessly about the infidel church down the road that just happenes to have been there a thousand years. No point talking about the terrorist attacks , or the european muslims caught on the battlefields commiting treason or the complicit support of extremists by the majority because we all know you will try spinning the reality like you did when the Fort Hood terrorist attack took place .— PAEnglish- The Chinese called and said they won't lend us the money for this health care bill Very sorry— Tageman
- Blaming all Muslims for terrorism is like blaming all Christians for the KKK.— aj322
@ aj322: Uhhh, let's see...— baworks- Will, if you fully understand the content of the two versions, please explain it to us, without cutting and pasting from other commentaries or summaries. Bottom line, my annual costs will increase, even though my company is self-insured.— AngryWhiteMale
- Er, Mr. Smith... I'm an American person and I'm interested in the government running health care. Seems to me that there's a conflict of interest in having private insurers in the game at all: their profits come from taking in premium from as many folks as possible and paying out costs to as few as possible. Sounds like a con game to me. I'm also interested in some common-sense regulation of the financial sector so that it actually serves the engine of American economic growth rather than just its own shareholders and bonus-takers (and so that the taxpayers never, NEVER have to bail them out again, as we did towards the end of the Bush administration). But let me ask you this: can you prove that Obama is in favor of making the government a "single-payer employer" - in other words, that he is a genuine socialist? Has he made any statements or published any writings to that effect? Can you quote any socialists that approve of his plans? (A two-minute Internet search will find you quite a few who don't.) Simply shouting "Socialist" doesn't count. Simply saying that health care is the thin end of the wedge is fallacious.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Gee, Will, maybe this can be the start of a trend - you know, where you pay more attention to the transgressions of someone who is in power (Obama) than someone who is not (Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck). But you'd better be careful, if you actually start acting like a journalist instead of a DNC shill, they might take your Obama-pom-poms away from you.— db_cooper
- Fact is, even such plans lauded by the gray old folks of the GOP - Medicare and Social Security (you know, the plans the old 'nuts and 'bags want the "government to keep its' hands off....those public, government-funded plans), were nowhere near what the proponents wanted (as Dick Polman so eloquently wrote about this week regarding FDR and SS)....the magnitude of such change makes passage of such plans impossible...However, as history has shown with those plans, as they 1)succeed and 2) need to be modified, they generally end up ultimately looming more like the original plan. Don't worry - as our capitalistic system has shown over and over - the insurance companies will mess this up, as they have our existing system, and ultimately we will have a single-payer system when everyone figures out what the rest of the world already had. We're just a little slow, a little challenged, is all.....— enabler1
- The interesting thing here in your comment is in the "choice". This legislation will mandate the same type of coverage for everyone. The only thing that you can choose is higher or lower co-pays.— geoffrobinson
- The more the left wing propagandists ignore the Obama Administration, the lower he goes in the polls. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President— tr88
- I'd like to secnd DB. will, you are best when you question power, and not when you are worrying about the bloviations of Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. "their profits come from taking in premium from as many folks as possible and paying out costs to as few as possible. Sounds like a con game to me." Profits are a signal of what works well. And you need the profit incentive to control costs, which the government has repeatedly shown to be incompetant at. Past that, the profit margins on isnurance companies are very low, ~3-5%. The best way to control costs is to have the consumer aware of them. right now, most of us don't know what a routine check up costs, not to mention a minor surgery. We have no incentive to shop around by price, since a third party is picking up the tab. This promotes inefficieny and over consumption. Although I generally disagree with their methodology, I recently read that France makes consumers pay up front, then they reimburse them at a certain percentage. Even that is better than the monstrosity being passed now that is just a sop to the insurance industry. Hello 30 million new captive customers!— RG
- "and ultimately we will have a single-payer system when everyone figures out what the rest of the world" Whats that, crushing debt? Most of the rest of the world has terrible debt to GDP ratios even though they don't have the military complex we do. Entitlements are going to crush their economies as their populations age.— RG
Latest polling from CNN/OR indicates 42% favor the bill but 13% don't because it's not liberal enough. Last week NBC polling indicated 58% would favor the bill with a medicare buy-in at age 55. We may yet see Obama out-libbed on this one.- Meanwhile, Jane Hamsher of left wing Firedoglake, went on Foxx to call for its defeat. Congrats to her for not being a toady. http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/12/biggest-defection-of-day-that-you-never.html— RG
- Comment removed.
- More government awesomeness: FAA throws $5mil three week bender at taxpyers expense. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/party-time-faa-critics-question-million-gathering/story?id=9390933&page=1— RG
- ---} ...you know, where you pay more attention to the transgressions of someone who is in power (Obama) {----- Classic. "Transgression" = saying he would work for a public option and then later saying he didn't "campaign" on a public option. Meanwhile, look the other way, Will, the former VP candidate/likely next presidential candidate makes idiotic statements about "death panels" and someone who has 3 million viewer each day rants on his show about conspiracies, and "tea baggers" take to the streets aping his words. None of that is significant, Will. Just like RG and db cooper say. I mean it's not like they have Obama hatred syndrome, or anything like that. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Yeah - good point, RG. I mean it's not like people in the insurance industry ever spend money attending conferences, or drink in bars after hours. Clearly, a profit motivation would cure all bad behavior and eliminate all waste. Of course, private insurance companies return less health care per dollar spent on actual health care - but why should we care about that? LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "Classic. "Transgression" = saying he would work for a public option and then later saying he didn't "campaign" on a public option." Hey Toady Plus Sycophant, how about these Obama claims? "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process." http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/22/obamas-health-care-pledge-making-a-deal-trumps-making-it-open/ Or this one: "We'll allow the safe re-importation of low-cost drugs from countries like Canada." http://www.barackobama.com/2008/10/04/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_129.php— RG
- "Of course, private insurance companies return less health care per dollar spent on actual health care" Wow me with the link to this claim.— RG
- "I mean it's not like people in the insurance industry ever spend money attending conferences, or drink in bars after hours." And if my insurance company did this, I could cancel the policy. Meanwhile the faa has a government granted monopoly and zero accountability to the taxpayers. The fact that you are too dumb to see this is amusing. To sum up for the feebleminded, I can choose to shop around for insurance, I cannot do the same for the faa, they get my money no matter what.— RG
- And I love the fantasy view of private insurance profitability, RG. First, the way insurance companies make profit is by denying coverage to people who it isn't profitable for them to cover. In other words, the profit margins they have are the result of their refusal to cover people. And so people who aren't covered by private insurance wind up getting inefficient health care (at ERs) on the public dime. Second, the "profit margins" as reported by the insurance industry, and repeated over and over by apologists for the insurance industry, are misleading. Hidden in that profit margin % is the fact that the insurance industry is huge and very, very profitable. The profit is money that is siphoned off (along with other money spent on advertising and marketing) from health care provided to customers. Translate that profit into healthcare provided, and add it to healthcare denied, and what you wind up with is a far more equitable system than what we have now. But why should you be concerned about what we have now, right RG? I mean what's a few tens of millions of people without health insurance as long as you have a good policy for you and your family, right?— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
I'm not at all happy with the president right now, but I, like others, knew he was not the liberal that the right said he was. Here's more evidence of that idiocy from this very thread, which is pointing out that Obama is centrist (which now-a-days means right of center) and not a liberal: "It is up to the American people to actively reject this leftist ideology before it destroys the engine that made America great." I'm not pointing out Mr. Smith to ridicule him, on the contrary, I think his views are in line with average American Republicans (AKA, right-wing extremists). Which is why I say to grassroots Dems, keep voting, it could be MUCH worse.— Hamlet- LOL! Look up the term "medical loss ratio" RG, and get back to me. Some insurance companies retain up to 40% of their premiums taken in to pay for administration, marketing, and profits. Here's a nice link if you can use as a start if want to actually know the reality rather than spout bogus "free market" fetishist talking points. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/are-health-insurers-making-too-much-money/— Talking point sleuth
- "I want to know where all the "fiscal conservatives" were when Bush pushed through the largest expansion of "socialized medicine" in 40 years with Medicare Part D" Complaining loudly, to no avail - Bush simply formed alliances with Congressional Dems and GOP moderates to get it passed, GOP conservatives got shut out. But don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions, Gibba, because otherwise you'd have nothing to say.— db_cooper
- Comment removed.
- I've got news for you, RG. Obama is a politician. Politicians lie. I don't like the fact that he lies. I don't like the fact that he sucked up to the insurance industry and never really worked towards achieving a public option once he got into office. I would rather have a more ethical and principled president who works to achieve more left-wing goals. But in the end, I'm glad that he has worked to improve access to health insurance for tens of millions of my fellow Americans. Sorry if that makes you so angry.— Talking point sleuth
- "I mean what's a few tens of millions of people without health insurance as long as you have a good policy for you and your family, right?" There's no right to health insurance. Especially when it infringes on others rights to keep what they earn. Any other argument is an appeal to emotions.— RG
- TPS, your 9:28 post shows what a toady apologist you truly are. To paraphrase "Its a bad bill, based on lies, that benefits speical interests, but since my guy was behind it, I'm cool with it".— RG
- "http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/are-health-insurers-making-too-much-money/" I love the link. Now we can arbitrarily decide who is making too much moeny and rush head first into that industry to overregulate or control it based on some half arsed moral crusade. Meanwhile, your precious bill just guaranteed them more profits.— RG
- Yeah - I feel you RG. There is no right to health insurance. I get that you have no problem with the fact that our health care system is the most inequitable in the developed world. I do. But the fact remains that your "no right to health care" hides an inefficiency in our system, whereby the health insurance industry skims its profits off of the top of the population that doesn't cost them too much to cover. Those that they deny coverage to wind up getting treatment, inefficiently, on the public dime through tax dollars. Now I know, in your fantasy land you wouldn't have to give up any of your precious dollars to pay taxes so some little old lady or little kid might be able to get life-saving medical treatment, but the fact is that the American people have decided as a group that denying such coverage would be immoral. So, until you win your tea bag revolution and get your tax-free utopia, your "there's no right to healthcare is nothing more than an irrelevant, and EMOTIONAL statement.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- I do think there are inherent structural problems in the current health insurance system in this country, but I don't see the solution as a public option or Harrycare. The insurance companies benefit from shutting higher-cost people out of coverage, and a government option would have no inherent cost control incentives. Instead, I have long been in favor of the approach Whole Foods takes, with robust medical savings accounts and catastrophic insurance that picks up when the annual MSA contributions are exhausted. The biggest problem I see is that consumers want to go back to a time when health care seemed 'free' - when I started working in the eighties, I didn't have to contibute to my health insurance coverage, and co-pays were ten bucks. Those days are long gone. Right now, there are two opposing and perverse incentives in play - the insurance companies try to get rates as high as possible, and once the rate is paid, the consumer has little incentive to control costs. Going to MSAs would remove that dynamic - I have a non-rollover HSA now, and the insurance companies don't look over my shoulder as to how I use it (just have to have purchases confirmed to meet IRS guidelines) - but without a rollover, I end up using it all up each year (my wife bought two new pairs of glasses last year to use the balance up) - MSAs should be allowed to roll over for all consumers. And for lower-income consumers, there could be MSA matching funds akin to EITC. At the end of the day, your car insurance doesn't pay for your oil changes, and your health insurance should NOT be engaged in your basic care - because once they nose into it, the costs go up, whether it is a private company or the government who is involved.— db_cooper
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "but the fact is that the American people have decided as a group that denying such coverage would be immoral." When did this vote happen? Have you seen the polls recently? And if there is a scarcity of resouces, I guess this means we can force peopel to become doctors then, huh? Your childish notions of rights and equality are laughable. You simply want to pick the pockets of those better off than you.— RG
- ----} I love the link {----- Classic response. You can't deal with the facts the link provides, so simply denigrate the link. The link show the other side of your claims about the 3.5% profits. Get back to me with evidence that ANYTHING contained at the link is inaccurate. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Or, TPS, you can look up the case of Debbie Hirst, a British woman with breast cancer who was denied a life saving drug by the NHS because it was too expensive. She then tried to pay for it herself, and was told by the NHS that if she did so, it would make her ineligible for the prgram, cause it violated the idea of equality. And these are the types of systems you want to emulate, all so you can punish "fat cats".— RG
- TPS, from your very own link: ""All that statement says is, if you eliminated all our [insurance company] profits, national health spending in America would be 1 percent lower. It has meaning only in that context," Reinhardt says." Wow. 1 percent.— RG
- Good. I'm glad to see that you're reading the link, RG. Now, continue reading - to the part where you'll read about "medical loss ratio." In fact, private insurance company "profits" measure up to relatively little of the entire amount of money spent on healthcare in this country. But the point is that those profits come (1) after insurance companies have rejected people because of preexisting conditions, (2) come after they never even considered covering people that can't afford premiums, and (3) come after they have spent millions of marketing and higher administrative costs than public sector insurance. That explains why private health insurance is inefficient in an operative and allocative sense, RG.— Talking point sleuth
- ---} And these are the types of systems you want to emulate {---- We have greater inequity in our health care system than in any system in any other developed country on the planet. I realize that doesn't bother you, RG, but I believe that is an issue that can effectively be addressed.— Talking point sleuth
- "That explains why private health insurance is inefficient in an operative and allocative sense, RG." Ah yes, but meanwhile the bill you support just gave them 30 mil new customers and offers to pay for it by cutting the humongous waste and fraud out of Medicare, the inefficient government run health care program. Keep looking past those wild inconsistencies.— RG
- "We have greater inequity in our health care system than in any system in any other developed country on the planet." Ah the heart of the matter, after all these long winded posts on inefficency, we find out it is about your foolish notions of legislating equality. Even if it means not letting people pay for additional care that they could afford.— RG
- This excerpt pretty much sums it up, RG. It combines problems with health care operation with problems related to access to health care insurance, but it will still suffice: --snip-- The U.S. health system has been described as the most competitive, heterogeneous, inefficient, fragmented, and advanced system of care in the world. In this paper, we consider two questions: First, is the U.S. healthcare system productively efficient relative to other wealthy countries, in the sense of producing better health for a given bundle of hospital beds, physicians, nurses, and other factor inputs? Second, is the United States allocatively efficient relative to other countries, in the sense of providing highly valued care to consumers? For both questions, the answer is most likely no. Although no country can claim to have eliminated inefficiency, the United States has high administrative costs, fragmented care, and stands out with regard to heterogeneity in treatment because of race, income, and geography. The U.S. healthcare system is also more likely to pay for diagnostic tests, treatments, and other forms of care before effectiveness is established and with little consideration of the value they provide. --snip-- http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/35365285/Is-American-Health-Care-Uniquely-Inefficient— Talking point sleuth
- And this is, RG, the money quote: --snip-- and stands out with regard to heterogeneity in treatment because of race, income, and geography. --snip-- The point is this, RG, my main problem with the current system is that "heterogeneity in treatment," because it amounts to "rationing" based on the ability of someone to pay. Claims that there is "rationing" in other systems but not in ours are bogus. As for the questions related to efficiency, the point is that the notion that our system as it stands is "fiscally conservative" are bogus, bogus, and bogus. Oh, and they're also bogus. Only someone with stars in their eyes every time they hear "free-market" could think that the role of the "profit motive" makes our system efficient as compared to alternatives.— Talking point sleuth
- ---} Even if it means not letting people pay for additional care that they could afford. {---- Having a system that is less "heterogeneous" and that also allows people to pay for additional coverage are not mutually exclusive. There you go with that binary thinking again. You really ought to work on that, RG.— Talking point sleuth
- ---} waste and fraud out of Medicare, {--- Indeed, there is waste and fraud in Medicare. And only a free market fetishist could believe that there isn't waste and fraud in the private insurance industry.— Talking point sleuth
- "The U.S. healthcare system is also more likely to pay for diagnostic tests, treatments, and other forms of care before effectiveness is established and with little consideration of the value they provide." Answered this many times, it is because the end user is removed from the cost decision via a third party system. The current bill does nothing to change this, but rather continues to promote it.— RG
- "And only a free market fetishist could believe that there isn't waste and fraud in the private insurance industry." And only a nitwit can fail to udnerstand that one affects people who are volunatrily associated, and the other affects all people who are mandated to particpate, ie the taxpayers.— RG
- "because it amounts to "rationing" based on the ability of someone to pay." Its how scarce resources are rationed. Better it that way than by government fiat.— RG
- Comment removed.
- RG, thank you for bringing up Debbie Hirst's case. It's important to note the principle she is advocating - that her medical care, as provided by the state, is a human right. Furthermore, her case also illustrates that democratic societies can address bureaucratic injustices the old-fashioned way - via freedom of speech, the courts, and the ballot box.
- "It's important to note the principle she is advocating - that her medical care, as provided by the state, is a human right." No its not, since it infringes on others rights. Here's a good summary: http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/23/there-aint-no-such-thing-as-a— RG
- RG, explain that to Ms. Hirst and her lawyer. I'm not impressed by the editorial's assumptions about health care as a human right. Even primitive cultures had their "medicine men", their high position in the tribe's political hierarchy unquestioned, and their services available to everyone in the clan.
- "Even primitive cultures had their "medicine men", their high position in the tribe's political hierarchy unquestioned, and their services available to everyone in the clan." Great counter argument, since this is highly anecdotal, allowing me to make similar claims about primitive clan's OTHER laws, such as forced marriage or human sacrifice. But hey, if they recognized the right to health care, good for them.— RG
- Talk about rolling back the clock! The Congresspeople seem to have forgotten that Americans LIKE to be independent and don't want government control. It was true in 1776 and, for the most part, is still true today.— Mark Glaeser
- Talk about rolling back the clock! The Congresspeople seem to have forgotten that Americans LIKE to be independent and don't want government control. It was true in 1776 and, for the most part, is still true today.— Mark Glaeser
- RG: your response to my post was a while back, but I thought it raised a good point and I want to address it: "The best way to control costs is to have the consumer aware of them. right now, most of us don't know what a routine check up costs, not to mention a minor surgery. We have no incentive to shop around by price, since a third party is picking up the tab. This promotes inefficieny and over consumption." For me, this is a major reason why our current system cries out for reform. If you want to buy a car, you can go to several different car lots, get brochures, read Consumer Reports, etc. How do you shop around for a doctor or a procedure - better yet, for an ER? What is the information source that allows you to do this? And if we had access to such information, would we really want to use it the way you're suggesting? I can't see actually wanting to go get an operation done at the doctor who advertises that he won't be undersold. Beyond that, I understand what you're saying about the profit incentive - that it theoretically forces firms to operate efficiently - but given the consolidation in the market for health insurance and the fact that even most insured people are more or less locked into the plan their employer chose to pay into, I'm not convinced that the profit motive actually operates that way in practice. Besides which, the fastest way to increase profits is always going to be to cut the loss ratio by denying care where possible and by then it's too late for the consumer to shop around for a different plan. That said, I too share your worry that pushing all the healthy people and their premiums into the risk pool is just going to inflate profits rather than make health care more affordable for the sick and the poor.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- RG: one more point for which I wanted to attempt a rebuttal. "After all these long winded posts on inefficency, we find out it is about your foolish notions of legislating equality. Even if it means not letting people pay for additional care that they could afford." Even Britain with its NHS has a private medical sector operating alongside. Those who can afford it are at liberty to use it.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "I can't see actually wanting to go get an operation done at the doctor who advertises that he won't be undersold." I'd mostly agree, but a) Look at Walmart, that sells food, a vital necessity to people at low costs and b) if it is the lowest price point that one could afford, then they would have to make the personal choice between going w/o surgery or paying for it. "but given the consolidation in the market for health insurance and the fact that even most insured people are more or less locked into the plan their employer chose to pay into, I'm not convinced that the profit motive actually operates that way in practice. Besides which, the fastest way to increase profits is always going to be to cut the loss ratio by denying care where possible and by then it's too late for the consumer to shop around for a different plan." I steadfastly argue that this cartelization is due to state legislation. You can't buy insurance outside of your state, states mandate that non critical stuff like in vitro and accupuncture be covered, raising the costs of entry. It also doesnt allow for a bare bones catastrophic coverage plan. Insurance was tied to employment by a WW2 law, so you could be lumped in with a bunch of sick people w/o choice. In theory, when an industry experiences outsized profits, competitors rush in to capitalize, see the dot com boom. Here we don't see new insurers popping up, showing that either insurance isnt as profitable as it is made out to be, or there are high costs to entry, established via law at the behest of the big players to protect their cartel.— RG
- "Talk about rolling back the clock! The Congresspeople seem to have forgotten that Americans LIKE to be independent and don't want government control." Sure, can't disagree with that, but you make it sound like the people shop for healthcare like they're buying pajamas. The current system is extremely constraining and far from the beacon of freedom you seem to be implying!!!— pagoda
- Comment removed.
- "Even Britain with its NHS has a private medical sector operating alongside. Those who can afford it are at liberty to use it." The Hirsch case makes it seem that its a way to get banned from NHS. Either way, it shows you can't achieve equality, the same goes for Australia, France, Canada etc. All have similiar private public tiered structures. If the government wanted to provide affordable access to the most amount of people (utilitarian argument), then it would use the interstate commerce clause to free up competition and allow for high deductible, catastrophic coverage plans, and provide vouchers based on income, to those who can't afford it. Unfortunately, that doesn't allow for vote buying schemes, expansion of power, or lobbyist money.— RG
- "But hey, if they recognized the right to health care, good for them." . . . . . . . Then we've answered one of Jacob Sullum's silly rhetorical questions, haven't we? The USA has even formally signed onto the idea as an original signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, see Article 25.
- RG: I'd love to know the legislative history of the law you mentioned that tied health insurance to employment - did it stem from a healthcare proposal that was originally much more far-reaching but was turned into the half-@rsed monstrosity it became because of legislative compromises? That said, I propose that whatever reforms might be advocated by either side, their main goal would have to be to undo the ill effects of that decision. Single-payer insurance for all seems best and fairest to me, but I wouldn't mind living in a world where I actually had a choice among relatively affordable health plans that weren't chosen for me by my employer (a system that to me has always resembled a Soviet election). That said, deregulation can't possibly be an unmitigated panacea. Is some regulation not necessary in markets in general and in health insurance especially to ensure product quality and corporate adherence to some kind of social compact?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "I'd love to know the legislative history of the law you mentioned that tied health insurance to employment" My understanding is that it came about in WW2. The government felt that those not at war shouldn't be getting raises, so the raises were hidden as benefits, like health care insurance.— RG
- "Then we've answered one of Jacob Sullum's silly rhetorical questions, haven't we?" Nope, if its a true universal right, then it existed in every culture at every time and not created arbitrarily by a country signing a treaty. Not some anecdotal one you created. You can also check out the second link I provided for a more detailed thought exercise.— RG
- Love the Lew Rockwell link, RG. He had me until the fourth paragraph: --snip-- Faced with this proposition, libertarians generally point out that government-run health care is inefficient, debt-ridden, coercive, unsustainable, slow and subject to pressure-group influence – and that is all true, but the sad fact is that these arguments don’t work because people just don’t care about efficiency. --snip-- Great reasoning - ignore all the problems with private health insurance, and on that basis, make the incorrect assertion that it is more "efficient" than government provided health insurance, based on some delusional religious devotion to the "profit motive." Oh, and just in case you're interested in knowing more about Lew Rockwell, RG, (not that it inherently weakens his health care argument, which is laughable on its own merits) you might want to take a gander: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33159 -- and-- http://tomgpalmer.com/2004/09/25/gary-north-lew-rockwell-and-the-politics-of-stoning-heretics-and-homosexuals-to-death/— Talking point sleuth
- "Great reasoning - ignore all the problems with private health insurance, and on that basis, make the incorrect assertion that it is more "efficient" than government provided health insurance, based on some delusional religious devotion to the "profit motive."" Medicare, $56 trillion dolalr hole in the budget. Only a progressive can call this efficient. And, BTW, Rockwell didn't write the article, showing once again you don't bother reading any opposing viewpoints.— RG
- RG, first of all, LewRockwell's blog? Secondly, if I understand the flawed argument therein, then there can't be any human right to bear arms, either, if no one has a duty to manufacture them.
- "ignore all the problems with private health insurance" Once again, voluntary, not compulsory. As much as you'd like to force everyone into your worldview, people should have the freedom to choose who they associate with and sign contracts with. I'd think most people would find this more of a universal right than government run health care that exists by taking from others.— RG
- Re your comment, RG: "If the government wanted to provide affordable access to the most amount of people (utilitarian argument), then it would use the interstate commerce clause to free up competition and allow for high deductible, catastrophic coverage plans, and provide vouchers based on income, to those who can't afford it." I agree that you'd have more insurance providers entering the market, but even if that market began operating on a nationwide basis, doesn't that end up subdividing the risk pools? The chronically ill then find themselves even worse off than before with fewer healthy people to help reduce their premiums. Plus, tight competition will increase the urge among insurers to cherry-pick the most profitable people. And there's the reason why I'm for some sort of government solution to the problem of healthcare in particular. You're always going to have people whose need to consume healthcare exceeds their ability to pay, particularly if health problems curtail their ability to work, and quite often (though not always) that's not their fault. Our current system, so it seems to me, is set up to fail those people. I don't advocate a government takeover of every industry (since, like our current president, the rumors that I am a socialist are greatly exaggerated), but healthcare to me is not an area in which reliance on the private sector produces tenable results.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Wow! That next link is even better. Yup. Providing health insurance to millions who can't pay for or who are denied coverage by private insurers equals, exactly, establishing a federal agency of prostitution. LOL! Hilarious, RG. Thanks for the link.— Talking point sleuth
- "RG, first of all, LewRockwell's blog?" Attack the messanger, huh? "can't be any human right to bear arms, either, if no one has a duty to manufacture them." Coorrect, but the government created this right, however it never forced people to manufacture guns, unlike healthcare. And it never forced people to buy insurance, unlike this monstrosity. However, if your anecdotal tribe carried weapons, then by your logic the right to bear arms stands.— RG
- "Providing health insurance to millions who can't pay for or who are denied coverage by private insurers equals, exactly, establishing a federal agency of prostitution. LOL! Hilarious, RG." Ahhh, your mental migetry shows. Tts about a group of people who don't have access to something claiming that their rights are being abridged and demanding that those who have said resource provide it to them. Epic logic fail, TPS.— RG
- ---} Once again, voluntary, {----- Voluntary for those who can afford it, or who aren't rejected due to preexisting conditions. You'll still be able to voluntarily pay your dollars to companies that you believe to somehow be magically more efficient than government provided health insurance, despite the obvious fact that some 30% of their revenue in premiums goes to higher administrative costs, marketing, and profits. That's your choice if you want to be delusional. Meanwhile, pass the box of tissues, because I'm just weeping so much that your tax dollars will go to providing decent health insurance to those left out of the private insurance market and who then go to the ER to get health care, inefficiently, on the public dime.— Talking point sleuth
- Right, RG. Because lack of access to prostitution is, exactly, the same thing as lack of access to health insurance. Why didn't I realize that sooner?— Talking point sleuth
- "The chronically ill then find themselves even worse off than before with fewer healthy people to help reduce their premiums." That will ahppen under the current bill. The fines are laughably low, so if you don't want to pay the outrageous premiums, you pay the fine, and if you get sick you can't be denied coverage. It promotes adverse selection. Another example of government making a problem worse. Even past that, you cannot force people to buy insurance simply because they exist.— RG
- "Meanwhile, pass the box of tissues, because I'm just weeping so much that your tax dollars will go to providing decent health insurance to those left out of the private insurance market and who then go to the ER to get health care, inefficiently, on the public dime." Actually, I'm laughing as this most cerainly will lead to the Dems losing seats in Congress, a more divided gov that can't accomplish anything, and its liberal supporters to realize what a failure this bill is when premiums continue to skyrocket. http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/ben_heineman/2009/12/the_cancer_of_health_costs.php Past that, it'll worsen our deficit figures and expediate the collapse of our currency.— RG
- ---} Medicare, $56 trillion dolalr hole in the budget. {---- $56 trillion?— Talking point sleuth
- "Because lack of access to prostitution is, exactly, the same thing as lack of access to health insurance." Still can't handle the actual argument can you? Neither are rights that can be forced on providers or other citizens to pay for, no matter what you bleeding heart progressives say. Both are what are called positive rights, in which the government creates them and takes from others.— RG
- Comment removed.
- "$56 trillion?" "As of Sept. 30, the federal government carried $56.4 trillion in liabilities and other commitments. Although challenged by Mr. Kuttner, this total is based on the official consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government. It accounts for not only our public debt but also our unfinanced Medicare and Social Security commitments to future beneficiaries. The figures for these programs are based on the Social Security and Medicare trustees' "best estimate" assumptions, which, contrary to Mr. Kuttner's assertions, have proved to be more optimistic than reality has shown. The $56.4 trillion figure also does not include Medicaid." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302550.html— RG
- "Health care should not be sold as a commodity despite what sleazy Republicans and conservatives think." Yes, doctors and nurses should be forcibly coerced into providing these services for free. And if we run out of 'em, we can force kids into medical school!— RG
- Secondary source: "Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined. Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest. This hidden debt is the amount taxpayers would have to pay immediately to cover government's financial obligations. Like a mortgage, it will cost more to repay the debt over time. Every U.S. household would have to pay about $31,000 a year to do so in 75 years." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm?csp=34 Efficency at its finest. Promise the world to the voters, just don't tell 'em how it'll be financed.— RG
- First source on $56 tril: "As of Sept. 30, the federal government carried $56.4 trillion in liabilities and other commitments. Although challenged by Mr. Kuttner, this total is based on the official consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government. It accounts for not only our public debt but also our unfinanced Medicare and Social Security commitments to future beneficiaries. The figures for these programs are based on the Social Security and Medicare trustees' "best estimate" assumptions, which, contrary to Mr. Kuttner's assertions, have proved to be more optimistic than reality has shown. The $56.4 trillion figure also does not include Medicaid." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302550.html— RG
- The argument is that there's no difference between providing access to healthcare and providing access to health insurance. If you think there's no difference, more power to you, RG. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "The argument is that there's no difference between providing access to healthcare and providing access to health insurance." either way you are staking a claim on others resources. Its fair to say that food is more important, why doesn't the government take over farms and supermarkets? Why should they profit off of such a vital necessity?— RG
- ---} why doesn't the government take over farms and supermarkets? {---- First, very few people are talking about the government "taking over" health care, or even health insurance. Secondly, the government does subsidize farming and essentially subsidizes supermarkets through such programs as food stamps. The reason being the absurd notion that the government should help provide for the health and welfare of its citizens. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Oh. Sorry, RG. I thought when you wrote this: --snip-- Medicare, $56 trillion dolalr hole in the budget. --snip-- You were saying that Medicare itself is a $56 trillion hole in the budget. I didn't realize that you were listing Medicare and $56 trillion as COMPLETELY DIFFERENT entities, with a comma between them instead of an "and" in a thread where we've been talking about Medicare, in a paragraph where you were discussing comparisons to private health insurance. Now I get it. Your mention of the $56 trillion hole in the budget was completely unrelated to the topic of discussion. Now I get it. Carry on. I love hearing about what an awful country we have because we provide medical care to the elderly, and because we education our population.— Talking point sleuth
- The jury is in: true liberals are a minority in this country. We have a liberal president and a full democratic congress, and the uber-lib policies still can;t pass.— tjm333126
- Comment removed.
- RG, so your Lew Rockwell author is merely a messenger conveying someone else's flawed logic? Of course the government doesn't have to manufacture guns as long as the demand is met by the private But there is still the common law of posse comitatus that gives law enforcement the power to recruit citizens to bear arms for the community, whereby government is in fact providing self-defense - the human right implicit in the right to bear arms.
- Not to mention, Gibba, that all along it was clear that to the extent that Obama might publicly advocate in favor of the Iranian opposition, the Iranian government would be able to attack the dissidents for being associated with the American government. Members of the Iranian opposition said so at the time - but of course, that was deemed irrelevant to the Obama-haters.— Talking point sleuth
- Oh, and also, RG, the "argument" is that there's no difference to providing access to health care and providing access to prostitution. Seriously, bro - you can do better than that. I mean, at least I think you can.— Talking point sleuth
- "Oh, and also, RG, the "argument" is that there's no difference to providing access to health care and providing access to prostitution." Nope, they are arbitrarily determined as rights and therefore allow claims to others resources.— RG
- Comment removed.
- "Your mention of the $56 trillion hole in the budget was completely unrelated to the topic of discussion." Only if you are a toady apologist. "Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest." The point was expanded entitlements. entitlements you claim are "efficient", even though they leave a $56 tril unfunded liability. but heck, you ain't paying for it. Tax the rich!— RG
- "RG opposes healthcare reform, but never said a peep over the trillions spent for a war of choice." Yes, I'm pro war, moron. And do you udnerstand "war of chocie" and that Obama is waging two right now? He has the choice to end both, but actually escalated one. Keep whinign about the last idiot, that'll play in elections going forward.— RG
- Say - where's db cooper? Apparently his buddies over at the Free Republic are going to boycott CPAC. Must be because CPAC is being cosponsored by the lunatic conspiracy group, the John Birch Society? Oh. No. Sorry. The FR is boycotting CPAC because it is being cosponsored by a group of gay Republicans. LOL! John Birch society = AOK. Gay Republicans = "Run for your lives!!!! Save the women and children!!! Those gay people will destroy us all!!!!!!— Talking point sleuth
- "RG, so your Lew Rockwell author is merely a messenger conveying someone else's flawed logic?" Or they posted their thoughts on a blog? My goodness, and you are a lawyer?— RG
- Actually, Gibba - RG was very consistent in his criticism of Bush's war in Iraq. He's not a Republican toady like so many of Attytood's "conservatives."— Talking point sleuth
- ---} Nope, they are arbitrarily determined as rights and therefore allow claims to others resources. {---- "Arbitrary." LOL! Yeah, it is purely arbitrary to make a distinction between providing a sick person with healthcare and providing someone with prostitution. Purely "arbitrary." Hilarious, RG.— Talking point sleuth
- Why just look at all those "progressives" demanding government provided access to prostitution. At least as many as there are demanding government provided health insurance for the poor and sick people who are rejected by private insurance companies. Maybe even more. There's your proof of "arbitrary" right there.— Talking point sleuth
- "Yeah, it is purely arbitrary to make a distinction between providing a sick person with healthcare" Oh, we're only providing health care to those who are sick? Wasn't aware of that. I thought we were expanding coverage to many people who aren't sick, aren't citizens, and who have actively chosen to not buy insurance. Pat that, yes it is arbitrary. We havn't had universal coverage throughout the ages, neither has Europe. How'd it all the sudden become a universal right?— RG
- "There's your proof of "arbitrary" right there." Thanks for proving it, rights are whatever progressives say they are.— RG
- I dunno TPS, I say the right to food is universal. Currently, I'm hungry but have no money. I'm gonna stop by and either take your food or money. If you object, I'll get the government involved, since its my "right".— RG
- ----} How'd it all the sudden become a universal right? {---- I love this, RG. Now you're moving along the menu of arguments against "progressives" as provided by your website. Now that we've dismissed with the ridiculous comparison between health care and prostitution, you're moving on to the logical fallacy that since it hasn't always been considered a "right," it can't now be considered a "right." Ok. Let's see. Nothing that hasn't always been considered a right can now be considered a right? LOL! Great argument, RG. Let's see if you can think for yourself how completely ludicrous that argument is, and if so, we can move on to the next "argument" on your list. (btw, thanks for providing a link to the recommended arguments. LOL!)— Talking point sleuth
- "Nothing that hasn't always been considered a right can now be considered a right?" Yes, the government creates rights all the time. The Wall sTreet fat cats had the right to leverage 40-1.— RG
- Comment removed.
- And TPS, since you are asking for my money, the burden of proof is on you to prove that health insurance is a right.— RG
- "Last time I checked, he has a plan to end Iraq." Yeah, he followed the blueprint that was left by Bush and has done nothing else significant. Might want to read every once and awhile. "But then again, let's leave Afghanistan in ruins like '87. That worked out well for us, right?" Or the British before that, may be we should take a cue from the history books and learn that Afghanistan isn't ripe for nationa building? Or you can remain a partisan hack. Either or.— RG
- ---} Currently, I'm hungry but have no money. I'm gonna stop by and either take your food or money. If you object, I'll get the government involved, since its my "right". {---- Here's the point, RG. When you need to create completely bogus arguments that no one but a lunatic would support, and attribute those arguments to anyone who disagrees with you, that's when you can know that you've jumped the shark. Just because you think that the distinction between access to prostitution and access to health insurance is "arbitrary" doesn't mean that anyone else - not in a libertarian stupor that is - feels the same. I realize that you think that you'd be better off if the government didn't help feed poor people - but the American public disagrees. If they didn't, programs such as food stamps wouldn't exist.— Talking point sleuth
- "Here's the point, RG. When you need to create completely bogus arguments that no one but a lunatic would support, and attribute those arguments to anyone who disagrees with you, that's when you can know that you've jumped the shark." I'll switch the words. Currently, I'm uninsured and can't buy insurance. I'm gonna stop by and either take your money or your coverage. If you object, I'll get the government involved, its my "right". Sound better now?— RG
- "Just because you think that the distinction between access to prostitution and access to health insurance is "arbitrary" doesn't mean that anyone else" umm, thsi post was about food. You can't even follow simple arguments, but want to declare what you consider rights?— RG
- ----} And TPS, since you are asking for my money, the burden of proof is on you to prove that health insurance is a right. {---- Classic. First you present laughable arguments about why it isn't a right, and then, after we're all laughing hysterically at those arguments, you tell us that it's our responsibility to prove to you that it is a right. So, you demonstrate that you are willing to base your conviction that it isn't a right on completely bogus arguments, and then you demand of us to "prove" that it is.— Talking point sleuth
- And gee, TPS, if the right to insurance were oh so important, how come expanded coverage doesn't kick in until 2013? Could it have to do with gaming the CBO scores?— RG
- ---} Currently, I'm uninsured and can't buy insurance. I'm gonna stop by and either take your money or your coverage. {---- Here - I've got a better idea, RG. I'll give up a tiny percentage of my discretionary income so that you can have access to health insurance, because I know that denying you such access in the long run will just cost me more money in tax dollars anyway. If you don't accept that, or I'll join RG in the "tea bag" revolution to overthrow this oppressive government that educates its population and helps old, poor, and sick people get healthcare, because the current system we have is the least desirable: my tax dollars go to an inefficient system that also denies equal access based on race, income, and geography.— Talking point sleuth
- "First you present laughable arguments about why it isn't a right" Only a child-like progressive can't understand that its not a right when it involves taking from others, ie stealing. Your right to freedom of speech does require stealing from others or infringing on their rights. Your right to insurance does. Its a sad state of affairs that you actually educate others.— RG
- I'm not defending any particular components of the proposed plan, RG. There are many, many aspects that I disagree with. I simply feel that it is an improvement over the existing system which combines inefficiency with rationing based on ability to pay and on whether you're sick to start out with. In the end, it would be a marginal improvement.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- "I'll give up a tiny percentage of my discretionary income so that you can have access to health insurance, because I know that denying you such access in the long run will just cost me more money in tax dollars anyway." Guess you're still ignoring that $56 tril in unfunded liabilities that you were blissfully unaware of. Or the basic notions of freedom and property rights that say its wrong to take from others without their permission. But then again, no one expects you to possess a moral compass.— RG
- "Ever look in the mirror, probably not, that seems to be the problem with folks like you." Riddle me this, what "side" do I play for?— RG
- ----} Only a child-like progressive can't understand that its not a right when it involves taking from others, ie stealing. {---- LOL! Good point, RG. Slaves claimed that they had a right to be free - yet they really didn't have that right since their freedom meant that they would have to be paid for their labor!!!! Those dang "progressive" civil rights activists - stealing from slave owners because of their arbitrary definition of "rights."— Talking point sleuth
- "In the end, it would be a marginal improvement." Wait, wait, wait, realizing the right to insurance, irregardless of costs, is only a marginal improvement for you guys?— RG
- ----} Guess you're still ignoring that $56 tril in unfunded liabilities that you were blissfully unaware of. {----- LOL! "Blissfully unaware of." RG - it was easy enough to google $56 trillion to get a hit on multiple libertarian websites. The point I was making was that you were ridiculously confusing arguments about healthcare with arguments about $56 trillion. And laughably, you're continuing to do so.— Talking point sleuth
- Slavery was allowed by the government, even though it infringed on their rights. Showing, once again, that the governments definition of rights is indeed quite arbitrary. And the progressive led civil rights movement did not end slavery.— RG
- "was easy enough to google $56 trillion to get a hit on multiple libertarian websites." Or the article was from the Washington Times and the USA Today. Proof once again that you don't read opposing views. "The point I was making was that you were ridiculously confusing arguments about healthcare with arguments about $56 trillion." Universal health care is an entitlement, or a right as you'd call it, along with SS and medicare, additional rigths you support. These "rights" make up 85% of the unfunded liabilities. Maybe you should think about how these rights will be met?— RG
- ----} Wait, wait, wait, realizing the right to insurance, irregardless of costs, is only a marginal improvement for you guys? {---- I don't know who "you guys" are, but I said at the beginning of this thread that while I was disappointed with many aspects of the proposed legislation, I see it as a marginal improvement over the current system. And I love the "irregardless of costs" (careful, a grammar nanny might get on you about that one, RG). I have been talking about "costs" all along, RG - and don't disregard them in the slightest. I'm sorely disappointed that the proposed plan doesn't tackle significant cost reduction. But the current system costs us plenty. Our current system is inefficient, and it returns less medical care per dollar spent. We can compensate that to a certain degree by spending multiple dollars per capita on healthcare, but that only works for the wealthy, and the poor are left being rationed.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- "the side that got everything wrong for 8 years but, NOW, miraculously, has all the right answers." you got me, I'm a card carrying GOPer. Shows how limited and posioned your thinking is that anyone who opposes what our progressive betters want is clearly a Republican.— RG
- sorry - that should read "paying multiple times greater per dollar returned in medical care as compared to other countries"— Talking point sleuth
- Well, if any of you have had a hospital stay in, say, EVER, you'll agree that it's pretty expensive. How do you think those emergency room visits by the uninsured are paid? Add the huge profits that the insurance companies make and you'll understand why we get so little for each health dollar compared to the rest of the civilized world. Not that any of that matters when you have an ideology to defend. Liberals are bad, Bad, BAD.— Hamlet
- Comment removed.
- "How do you think those emergency room visits by the uninsured are paid?" Estimated at 2% of total health care spending. "Uncompensated care represents 2.7% of the projected total personal health care spending for 2004 of $1.5 trillion." Page 2, http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/The-Cost-of-Care-for-the-Uninsured-What-Do-We-Spend-Who-Pays-and-What-Would-Full-Coverage-Add-to-Medical-Spending.pdf. Past that, the AMA claims that only 17% of ER visits are by the uninsured. http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/dont-blame-the-uninsured-for-emergency-room-visits. "Add the huge profits that the insurance companies make" 1% of total health care spending, as covered earlier.— RG
- RG, article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that there is a "human right" to health care, just as it recognizes that there's a human right to own property. Just letting you know in case you ever have to meet a burden of proof to show you're entitled to government protection of your property from trespass.
- $56 trillion? Hey, since we are trying out arbitrary numbers can you give me the nation debt in googleplex’s? I’ve never seen anyone use that number in print.— Hamlet
- The first google hits were from libertarian blogs, RG. And that's all I needed to read to understand that the $56 trillion number was the total debt of all government liabilities, projected decades into the future, based on worst-case scenarios, presuming that no adjustments would ever be made to any of the revenue/cost balancing variables. It is not, as you laughably implied, and still seem to be confused about, the amount of debt represented by government-funded health care.— Talking point sleuth
- "RG, article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that there is a "human right" to health care, just as it recognizes that there's a human right to own property. Just letting you know in case you ever have to meet a burden of proof to show you're entitled to government protection of your property from trespass." So its a contradictory document that isn't followed consistently? It apparently allows property, but can also justify taking property to promote some vague "quality of life" article. Have any presidents or politicans been tried for not providing universal care up until now? Do you realize that eminant domain violates Article 17? Or that we are currently in violation of article 16 by denying gay marriage? Article 10 via holding suspected terrorists w/o trial?— RG
- "It is not, as you laughably implied, and still seem to be confused about, the amount of debt represented by government-funded health care." Yes it is, depsite your claims on efficency. Unless you don't understand the definition of unfunded. Are you surprised to see equality costs so much? Wait til foreign nations stop lending to us and we have to hyperinflate, we'll all be equally poor!— RG
- Oh, this UDHR is a hoot, part 2 of article 25 "Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection." Hey, have a kid, even if you can't afford it, society will cover it. Guess someone gave a compy of this to Octomom.— RG
- Oooooo, sorry MSL, the current reform bill violates part 2 of article 20 since it forces people to buy insurance. "No one may be compelled to belong to an association"— RG
- "So its a contradictory document that isn't followed consistently?" . . . . . . . Contradictory in what sense? If we were to follow your apparent logic, and assert that a right is not a right unless it is absolute against all others' rights, then it would be a practical impossibility to enforce any rights. The balancing of rights is a constant function of jurisprudence and the political process, a classic example being the tension between libel laws and free speech (my property interest in my reputation vs. someone else's right to talk about it). If consistency is what you seek, then welcome to the struggle.
- Libel laws are ridiculous. They are simply the "right" to not be offended.— RG
- "Libel laws are ridiculous." . . . . Wow, from a believer in property rights? Apparently, a business's reputation for fair dealing has no legal value and shouldn't be protected from say, some liberal newspaper's "agenda"? Have it your way.
- "Apparently, a business's reputation for fair dealing has no legal value and shouldn't be protected from say, some liberal newspaper's "agenda"?" Correct, if a paepr writes it, the people have the choice to beleive it or not. Should Andrew Sullivan be charged with libel, as some believe, for questioning the legitmacy of Trig Palin's birth?— RG
- "I’ve never seen anyone use that number in print." of course you haven't but it did come from the previous comptroller amd is based on the Treasury's numbers. http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08446cg.pdf— RG
- "No one may be compelled to belong to an association" . . . . . Well, unless the USA is merely an association too, I'd say that's a good argument for a public option.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Correct, if a paepr writes it, the people have the choice to beleive it or not." . . . . Exactly the point. After all, you can't penalize the reader for choosing to believe it. So, if Sullivan stated as fact that Sarah Palin isn't Trig's mom, and the truth is that she is, it's libel (at least Sarah's children would have a claim as private figures by simply showing Sullivan's carelessness; Sarah, as a public figure, might have to prove actual malice to sustain a case)
- Comment removed.
- "So, if Sullivan stated as fact that Sarah Palin isn't Trig's mom, and the truth is that she is, it's libel" Yeah, this is courtroom worthy.— RG
- MSL, are boycotts wrong if they can hurt a companies reputation?— RG
- "Hey, have a kid, even if you can't afford it, society will cover it." . . . . RG, the alternative is abortion you know.
- "RG, the alternative is abortion you know." And, although I belive it is morally wrong, I'm far from certain it should be illegal.— RG
- "MSL, are boycotts wrong if they can hurt a companies reputation?" . . . . No. However, if they were prompted by libelous information, they can be viewed as an element of damages to be assessed against the party who published the libel.
- "Yeah, this is courtroom worthy." . . . . . . LOL, which is probably why it ain't gonna happen.
- Comment removed.
- "they can be viewed as an element of damages to be assessed against the party who published the libel." But ehy? I'll borrow Walter Block, in arguing that one can't own their reputation, since your reputation is made up of others thoughts about you. You cannot own their thoughts, and therefore cannot own your reputation. If someone prints libel and changes a persons thoughts about you, nothing you owned was actually taken from you.— RG
- "one can't own their reputation, since your reputation is made up of others thoughts about you." . . . . . Nor can one own their property, since property is made up of others recognition of your claim to it.
- "Nor can one own their property, since property is made up of others recognition of your claim to it." Homesteading. If someone else has a claim to your property, they need to produce it.— RG
- To clarify further, if someone doesn't think you own your property, thats fine (same as libel). But they do not have the right to resort to aggression in order to take said property from you.— RG
- "You can renounce your citizenship any time you want, with no penalty." . . . . . . . . . Indeed. Being born in Canada, I renounced Canadian citizenship in the US District Court in Camden when I was 11 years old, to becme a citizen of the USA. Just another right I have under the UDHR.
- "If someone else has a claim to your property, they need to produce it." . . . . . . Why? I work hard to earn my reputation, but you say I don't own it. Why is it different for some chattel I produce?
- "I work hard to earn my reputation, but you say I don't own it" Your reputation exists solely in the minds of others, and you cannot regulate thought. Your chattel are a tangible good that can be traced directly back to you, and for someone to take them, would require aggression, unlike libel.— RG
- "I work hard to earn my reputation, but you say I don't own it." Furthermore, you can't sell your reputation (I know, there are some accounting gimmicks that account for "goodwill"). However, you can sell your chattel.— RG