Your Anti-Freedom Advocate

I’ll start out With a Post from Joe in it his local anti-freedom Advocate, Ubu52. She takes exception to Joe refering to the right to own firearms as a natural human right.

She goes back and forth a bit and then Joe essentially points out they’re in agreement…so she doubles down:

I agree that self defense is a natural right, however “access to guns” is not. I’d be more willing to agree that “access to knives” is a natural right since you can make a knife out of almost anything. “Guns” are manufactured products that have nothing to do with natural rights.

We all have a “right to travel” yet “access to sportscars” is not a natural right.

Now AntiCitizenOne points out the simplicity of many firearms for manufacture. Hell just Google “Sten Gun” or “FP Liberator 45” or even “M3 Grease Gun” and you’ll quickly see that with even very crude metal-working skills one can make a firearm. And much to soil Ubu’s britches, two of the above guns are full-auto sub-machine guns.

Linoge (who owns a sports car himself) points out that her argument is a little thin with the “Right to Travel” but people do have the right to BUY sports cars if an agreed price can be met.

I see this as similar to the Heath care debate. Do we all have a right to health care? Yep! Do we have a right to PROVIDED Health care? NO NO NO! You see one statement says that Adolph Hitler making it a crime to treat Jewish sick people was bad. I would say that somebody attempting to punish a soldier for treating an enemy soldier’s wounds (and not neglecting any other duties, and capturing the soldier as a prisoner) is commuting a greater crime.

But PROVIDED Healthcare is essentially FORCING Doctors under penalty of law to treat the sick. If they are compensated for the treatment it will be at the Government’s terms, not the Doctor’s.

The same goes to the right to keep and bear arms. I’d first point out that a knife or a club is an arm and also should be protected. That being said you must acquire those tangible goods on your own. There are LOTS of guns I would like to buy TONIGHT! But I can’t because there are laws restricting me to that. There are people living in my state who have their rights to own handguns denied. And like DC and Chicago, to get the permit to exercise this right is both expensive and time-consuming. This is a human rights crime.

But look where Ubu goes. She talks about restricting access to cars. There’s a reason why, despite guns being in the subject this post is NOT about guns. You see the people who advocate for gun control in no way see that as their benchmark goal. They will move on to knives, to cars, to the food you eat, to the booze your drink, the tobacco you smoke, to the amount of exercise you do every day.

On to the bigger one:

We have Milton Friedman taking a question from a student about the safety oversights of the Ford Pinto. The student frames it as Ford making a judgment call on risk vs. dollar value. Friedman points out that the argument is a bad one because there comes a point (which is highly subjective) at which a dollar amount is foolish to protect a human life. Would you require all people pay $30 for a helmet when they ride and escalator to prevent the very few fatalities that happen every year. Would you agree to that? NO! I ride escalators damn near every day, several times a day. I have never been injured, never seen anything more than a skinned knee. Riding crowded subways I can only assume that its fractions of 1% of all escalator riders are INJURED, let alone killed. That $30 cost to me is absurd, and the massive cost to all of society is ludicrous. Yet the student makes that claim, and becomes petulant when Dr. Friedman points out the fallacy of his argument.

Now of course better yet this skinny kid is:

Fatass


Michael Moore! Now Moore is a proponent of socialist health care regimes, yet he obviously has been making poor personal choices when it comes to his diet. His weight is a major health risk, but he won’t consider others under a national health care plan. Ford was negligent for choosing to omit a part as a cost savings for what they considered an unlikely accent…but Moore is not negligent for what will likely be a long life of health problems (that is if Obama isn’t a liar and there aren’t Death panels that will simply send Boxer the Horse to the Glue Factory once his hard work comes to an end).

You’ll also note that rather than actually thinking over what he’s being told by a respected expert in the field, Moore became petulant and angry and simply started restating his flawed argument louder. The only thing that has changed in this little boy is about 300 pounds and bad facial hair!

Last up, Also from Alan is this:

Left wing journalists, frustrated that others are presenting differing views, and rebuttals to their flawed arguments, as well as pushing stories They’d rather you not know about their idea is to have the government shut them down.

This is the face of authoritarianism, they want to control your life, and they will not stop until we are all in cages!

This entry was posted in Freedom. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Your Anti-Freedom Advocate

  1. Thomas says:

    I had a 1977 Ford Pinto I paid 700 bucks for as a college student and I drove it ALL OVER THE US without it blowing up. Put about 150,000 miles on it (it had had rings and bearings done by a mechanic co-worker who I bought it from’s dad) and did one valve job on the way, no explosions…Was a pretty good little mileage car for the time. It was a goofy colour and not a chick magnet, but it did what a car needs to do.

    “You see the people who advocate for gun control in no way see that as their benchmark goal. They will move on to knives, to cars, to the food you eat, to the booze your drink, the tobacco you smoke, to the amount of exercise you do every day.”

    Been to the UK lately?

    I liked it better when it was semi-free. Friend got married in Leeds on the tenth and I didn’t go because I’d prefer to remember it as the semi-fascist police state of 2003 (and earlier) rather than the full on 2010 version and they’re coming here on their honeymoon anyway…Farnborough Airshow potential overlap made it a close call, but I can see airshows here, so I spent the travel money on more BRENs that UKistanis aren’t allowed to own anymore instead…

    Bloody bastards at HMRC stole the knife I sent him as a birthday present as a “flick knife” when it ISN’T ONE!

    Makes me want to drive the Jensen with a Maxim in the passenger side floorboards down to the tavern to drink whisky and smoke cigars while eating bacon and egg breakfast tacos and perhaps a blood pudding, even though I quit the health related habits for MY OWN REASONS, not because anybody told me to.

  2. Nomen Nescio says:

    Do we all have a right to health care? Yep! Do we have a right to PROVIDED Health care? NO NO NO!

    […]

    But PROVIDED Healthcare is essentially FORCING Doctors under penalty of law to treat the sick. If they are compensated for the treatment it will be at the Government’s terms, not the Doctor’s.

    sometimes, weerd, i wonder what color the sky is on your planet.

    this time, i’m just wondering what you think this “provided health care” really is (the term is news to me) and whether anybody on my planet has ever been crazy enough to propose it. i doubt the latter.

    starting from the bottom of the quote, compensation for services is ALWAYS at the government’s terms. how else is a service provider to get their contracts enforced, hm? they can agree with a customer to provide services under such-and-so terms, but if the customer reneges, they’ll then have to convince guess who that the contract was valid and fair enough to enforce. goes for doctors just as for everybody else.

    forcing doctors to provide treatment under penalty of law? well, yes and no. you’re a doctor in an emergency room, conscious and alert, doing nothing more important, and somebody comes in with a life-threatening injury — yeah, i do believe you DO have a legal obligation to treat it. don’t like that, don’t be a doctor. analogous to how pharmacists damn well ought to have a legal obligation to fill valid prescriptions that have no medical or prescribing errors on them, even if they ARE for contraception. people in jobs where other people’s lives are at stake ought to have an obligation to do their damn jobs, or find other employment. don’t like being forced to do your job under threat of prosecution? don’t get a job with that sort of responsibility, then. wanna be a slacker who doesn’t get held to such high standards, don’t go to medical school.

    but that’s got nothing much to do with universal healthcare, or at least, not on my planet. what crazy-ass schemes are being proposed on yours? on earth, the debate is all about who supplies payment for medical services rendered the same way any other medical services would be rendered; it’s about where the money’s to come from, not about twisting doctors’ arms.

    (keep in mind, i’ve lived with universal single-payer health care. don’t try to tell me it doesn’t work, because i know from experience it damn well does. don’t try to tell me it leads to tyranny either, because it really doesn’t. been there, done that, wish i could do it here.)

  3. mike w. says:

    starting from the bottom of the quote, compensation for services is ALWAYS at the government’s terms. how else is a service provider to get their contracts enforced, hm?

    It is? That’s news to me and millions of other consumers. The government doesn’t make the terms (though they damn well try to interfere with private contracts) The government enforces the terms should their be a dispute. What’s happening under Obamacare is that the government IS now making many of the terms, thus taking free market choice out of the hands of the consumer and producer.

    And Weer’d is correct, they are enslaving healthcare professionals. If you have a “right” to healthcare then you are effectively forcing other people to provide it. That’s the problem with positive “rights” and explains why they are not actually rights in the true sense of the word.

    Sorry, but single payer does lead to at least soft tyranny. One only need look at many provisions of Obamacare for that. Hell, just look at the UK if you need an example of tyranny under government healthcare. When the government is dictating your healthcare choices and the choices of those who would provide it that is the very antithesis of individual freedom. You want it go live somewhere else. It has no place in America.

  4. Nomen Nescio says:

    look, i’ve lived a quarter century in a country with much, MUCH more comprehensive healthcare than anything that’s been even proposed for the USA. i’ve seen how it actually works and doesn’t, what it actually leads to and doesn’t. trying to tell me it leads to any kind of “soft tyranny” or that it “enslaves healthcare professionals” (hyperbole much?), or even that it involves “the governmant dictating your healthcare” — it’s about as realistic as telling me the sky where you live is purple, with big green polka dots. actually, that’d explain a lot about your claims concerning universal healthcare.

    now you might have heard other people telling you all those scare stories, and you might have believed them. but i’ve seen the reality, and those scare stories are delusional. don’t try to delude me that the sky has polka dots when i can just look out the window and see it ain’t so.

  5. Bob S. says:

    Nomen,

    compensation for services is ALWAYS at the government’s terms.

    I’m not sure about the Constitutions for other countries but I’ve studied the our Constitution a bit and except for the provide for the general welfare phrase — I see no authority for the government to be the source of funds for health care.

    Second, the entire concept of a single payer system is in opposition to the ideas of liberty and capitalism upon our country was founded on.

    I don’t see how anyone can claim “liberty” and single payer health care systems can co-exist. Or do you mean ” You can be THIS type of doctor working for the Government or THAT Type of Doctor working for the Government is freedom?

    you’re a doctor in an emergency room, conscious and alert, doing nothing more important, and somebody comes in with a life-threatening injury — yeah, i do believe you DO have a legal obligation to treat it.

    I notice you put several qualifiers on your conditions there — doing nothing more important for one — Conscious and alert for another — the reality can be far from what you describe.

    I’ve visited places where there isn’t a 24 hour, 7 day a week emergency room available. I’ve talked to doctors in emergency rooms where the people coming in for ‘life threatening injuries” have nothing of the sort — yet they still are required by law to treat them — also required by threat of lawsuit to treat people instead of sensibly turning them away.
    What do you think the situation is going to be when it’s not insurance paying the majority of the bill, when it’s not the individual responsible for the charges?

    Do you think that the frequent flyers are suddenly going to stop going to E.R.s to seek drugs, to get pregnancy tests or get a script for their colds? Or is it more likely those visits are going to greatly increase?

    And what will happen to the doctors who turn away those without ‘life threatening injuries’ — do you think the government will thank them or sanction them?

    it’s about where the money’s to come from,

    This is the crux of the argument — those that will be getting the most benefit out of the single payer system will be paying the least — IF they pay anything.

    Right now, I have to use the health system responsibly because I’m on the hook for a large portion of the money — in addition to paying for many other people’s health care by the way — I already pay taxes that support the county hospital.

    40 something percent of the citizens of the United States do not pay federal income taxes — do you think the government is suddenly going to start making them pay anything?

    The tax burden on those countries with national health care is outrageous and getting worse — can you say the health of the people is getting better also?

  6. Nomen Nescio says:

    I don’t see how anyone can claim “liberty” and single payer health care systems can co-exist. Or do you mean ” You can be THIS type of doctor working for the Government or THAT Type of Doctor working for the Government is freedom?

    working for the government is not slavery, first off.

    second, universal healthcare does not necessarily mean making all doctors government employees. it might, if you copy the British NHS — which is a very successful system that might be worth copying — but there’s no reason you’d necessarily have to.

    thirdly, doctors have a professional and ethical responsibility to work for their patients, regardless of where their actual payment might be coming from. this is already true when their payments come from insurance companies, and needs to remain true.

    fourthly, i can claim it because i’ve seen it. Finland is not a tyrannous hellhole, yet the healthcare system there is vastly more socialized than anything we’re remotely likely to ever get in the USA.

    I’ve visited places where there isn’t a 24 hour, 7 day a week emergency room available. I’ve talked to doctors in emergency rooms where the people coming in for ‘life threatening injuries” have nothing of the sort — yet they still are required by law to treat them — also required by threat of lawsuit to treat people instead of sensibly turning them away.
    What do you think the situation is going to be when it’s not insurance paying the majority of the bill, when it’s not the individual responsible for the charges?

    newsflash: the malingerers you decry there aren’t having their care paid for by insurance right now, either, nor are they paying out of their own (empty) pockets. provide universal healthcare, however, and the situation in the emergency rooms will improve, because you’ll lose the population of non-malingering poor people who currently use the ER for all their healthcare because they can afford no other. then, ER docs will be able to focus on only the real emergencies and the real malingerers, with no third group of “really ill but not really emergent” people in there as well.

    those that will be getting the most benefit out of the single payer system will be paying the least — IF they pay anything.

    yup. that’s the price of civilization. suck it up, bucko.

    part of what we live in a society for is so that those who can spare might help those who need. the reason why those who’ll be paying the least will be getting the most benefit is also the reason why those who need the most benefit are least able to pay. don’t wanna pay? tough, go live in a cave as a hermit or something.

    40 something percent of the citizens of the United States do not pay federal income taxes

    and i think this is disgraceful. increase the minimum wage, and make it easier for people to unionize; those two measures have historically worked to raise wage levels to the point people DO end up paying net taxes. provide better job security for people, and maybe they won’t have to settle for such shitty jobs that they end up living below the tax brackets.

    The tax burden on those countries with national health care is outrageous and getting worse — can you say the health of the people is getting better also?

    people in those countries tend to live longer, with fewer chronic health problems, and — just for a blatant example — have much lower infant mortality rates than is the case here in the USA. so yes, i can say that.

    high tax burden? who cares, so long as you’re getting something useful out of it? it’s not what you pay, it’s what it buys you. besides, you’re already paying through your nose — healthcare here in the USA (for those who get it at all) costs MUCH MORE per capita than it does in those other countries you speak of. that’s because our overhead is horrendous.

    oh, and hey, here’s an idea for how to fund healthcare in the USA. a bit old, but still pointful.

    • Thomas says:

      Working for the government is not slavery, it’s profiteering off of tax payers, and there’s a lot of rent seeking behavior by government employees that isn’t particularly economically healthy.

      Secondly: Friends of mine have had NIGHTMARES with NHS, like my friend who’s common law wife basically is getting palliative care for what WAS a treatable cancer because of under-staffing and delays, so by the time she was getting active treatment it had spread to both lungs. In the current US system she would have been in surgery in a few weeks, with the NHS it ended up being four months and she will die in the next 6-8 months or less because of that. NHS isn’t awell-working system.

      Thirdly: Doctors do have a professional responsibility to work for their patients as well as an ethical one but my Internal Medicine guy, who is one of the best in Texas, doesn’t take extra on call time because he’d rather spend time with his family then work significantly more for not much more money. My dentist HAS NOT DONE INSURANCE WORK for over TEN YEARS, without any govenrment involvement, because he can’t afford GOOD TOP FLIGHT STAFF and EQUIPMENT on what the insurance companies wanted to pay him. A friend of mine that was a cardiologist retired and went back to school for his MBA when it looked like the socialization iof medicine was about to happen and insurance was already enough of a hassle. Don’t tell me there aren’t follow on costs of medical care payment systems, because there ARE.

      Fourthly, the more of a safety net a civilization provides, the LESS FREE IT IS, that’s an integral part of life, you can have freedom or security and you have to trade one for the other. Some of us like our civilizations more FREE and are willing to take RISKS. SO…saying “that’s the cost of civilization” is bullshit. For what it’s worth, unless you pissed off the government, Sadaam Hussein’s Iraq was the most liberal secular arab state on the planet in function. The cost of that civilization is you might get tortured or executed if you made somebody governmental unhappy and you might get drafted to fight in a war with Iran now and then. There’s your “that’s the cost of civilization, suck it up bucko…” Lots of people in the right industries and jobs were quite happy in Saddam’s Iraq and women weren’t subjugated in the traditional arab way… Not a very good argument, Nomen. Not everybody wants the same “kind” of civilization and I believe that we should lean towards freedom and property rights because they provide better incentives.

      Every job I’ve had where I got hired to do a job (they have all been technical jobs) and I was externally directed how to do the job in a way that I thought was less efficient or intelligent than the way I wanted to do the job I eventually told the employer to go get fucked. That’s why I’m self-employed. A lot of doctors are about to do that with the .fed.gov. I know. I talk to them. There’s a bunch in the family including my dad. He taught at a number of medical schools besides his military and civil sector practices. Lots of family friends are doctors that taught at medical schools and/or have had private practices. Anecdotally, a lot of them in private practice have said, “I might just retire.” Friend’s Mom was an ob/gyn and malpractice insurance in that field is ridiculous because people will sue you over congenital defects and such, no joke. She said screw it when 80% of her gross was going to employees and overhead costs. Mom’s friend is an ophthalmic surgeon. She’s closing up shop if she doesn’t like how it goes. It’s not unethical to not treat people if you decide you don’t want to be a doctor any more because you don’t like the terms of your job. Dinner table conversations with actual physicians.

      Putting the government in charge of things has never been a good way to motivate workers or make them more efficient.

      I’ll take RISK and FREEDOM over SECURITY EVERY TIME.

      With any luck I’ll finally be dead before I see the US go the way of Argentina and Greece.
      Argentina was the third strongest economy in the world until they got carried away with printing money and entitlements.
      Then they had coups and all sorts of fun dictators.

      The US is a bastard non-republican ocholocracy sliding into european style social welfare backed up by the most powerful military in the world and one of the more heavily privately armed citizenries. It’s gonna get pretty spicy when the US implodes under the weight of all the debt it’s incurred and continues to increase. Maybe it’d be interesting to live long enough to watch it…

  7. mike w. says:

    if you copy the British NHS — which is a very successful system that might be worth copying .

    The NHS is a successful system worth copying? Please tell me you’re joking?! Either that or you and I have different definitions of the term “successful.”

    Don’t even get me started on the idiocy of raising the minimum wage. Basic economics should tell you that’s a bad idea. (not to mention it contributes to unemployment)

  8. mike w. says:

    yup. that’s the price of civilization. suck it up, bucko.

    No, that’s the price of living in a socialist state, or more accurately a “social democracy” which the U.S. is not and should never be.x

  9. Bob S. says:

    Nomen,

    thirdly, doctors have a professional and ethical responsibility to work for their patients, regardless of where their actual payment might be coming from. this is already true when their payments come from insurance companies, and needs to remain true.

    First, that system of responsibility developed because the patient paid for the services. We can see what happens when we get the government paying for services in today’s education system. The students aren’t the ones the teachers are responsible to, the parents aren’t the ones the teachers are responsible to — it is the school district and the federal government they are forced to answer to.

    Sorry your example doesn’t hold up. Yes, the doctors should have a responsibility to their patients regardless of who is paying but the simple truth is the one paying the bill calls the tune. Services will not be provided if the government doesn’t pay for them, tests will not be done if the government isn’t paying for them — and in many cases that is already happening.

    Doctors are being squeezed by decreasing medicaid/medicare payments — they are reducing services provided to those people, they are starting to not take new patients.

    his is already true when their payments come from insurance companies, and needs to remain true.

    Sorry but that isn’t exactly the case — the insurance companies aren’t paying the bill exactly — they are paying for services contracted by the patient — a major difference. I can change insurance companies (at least for a while now) if I don’t like the level of services they will provide — but when the government is the only payer, how will I be able to shop around for better services?

    provide universal healthcare, however, and the situation in the emergency rooms will improve, because you’ll lose the population of non-malingering poor people who currently use the ER for all their healthcare

    Not buying this line of reasoning at all !! NOT one Bit.

    You are right, they aren’t paying for their health care now — but how do you figure they’ll suddenly starting going to their primary care physician when they aren’t doing it now?

    Heck, there a free clinics, urgent care clinics, all manners of primary care physicians being paid by other people to take care of these frequent flyers — and the frequent flyers don’t use them!!!

    yup. that’s the price of civilization. suck it up, bucko.

    That is your price of civilization — why is it people who want to provide “universal health care for all” aren’t paying for it out of their own pockets but want to reach into mine?

    I’ll ask you, like I ask everyone else, are you donating your money in excess of the poverty line to pay for other people’s health care?

    See, we can disagree about what makes “civilization”. Your view of other people paying for health care doesn’t mean that I agree with you and I’m not civilized.

    and i think this is disgraceful. increase the minimum wage, and make it easier for people to unionize; those two measures have historically worked to raise wage levels to the point people DO end up paying net taxes.

    And all you are doing is transferring wealth under a different means. What I hear often regarding minimum wage is that people should be able to live in their own house, buy their own food, pay for their own cable; in other words have all the conveniences and luxuries of life for doing work that really isn’t worth that amount.

    Seriously, how much should we pay people per hour to sweep and mop floors? To work a fryer at a fast food restaurant?
    7 bucks an hour, 15?

    How much will it take to have everything in life that they want? Because that is what minimum wage is getting to be — the minimum amount of money that people can live alone.

    So, increasing minimum wage means the business owner (those who take the risks) have to transfer wealth to those who don’t take risks or provide equivalent benefit to the business.

    DO end up paying net taxes.

    And look at the level and trend of taxation or non-taxation — every year isn’t it going up? Where the lower end of the wages are being taxed less?

    Sorry but I don’t see that we’ll ever get to the point where 100% of the people are paying taxes….heck it will be difficult to reduce the current level.

    high tax burden? who cares

    HMM, I care. I care greatly because of what I’ve said above – Those who free ride will continue to free ride and I’ll get less and less for more and more of my money.

    who cares, so long as you’re getting something useful out of it?

    See this is where I have a major problem. I started off making minimum wage. I spent 4 years serving my country making darn less then minimum wage for the hours I actually worked.

    I spent time going to school, educating my self so that I could get “something useful out of ” my effort. Now you are telling me that all my sacrifices, all my efforts are great because they will help people who haven’t taken advantage of those opportunities not have to spend their money.

    That is really what it boils down to but most people are too polite to say it.

    Those at the lower end of the income levels aren’t being asked to give up their cell phones to pay for healthcare.
    I didn’t get my first cell phone until I was in my mid-30s (about 8 years after they became common.

    They aren’t being asked to give up their cable/satellite television to pay for their health care. I didn’t get more then the basic package for more then 10 years and I only got the basic package because reception stinks in apartments.

    They aren’t being asked to stop drinking, stop smoking, stop doing drugs, not buy cars, go to school to get a better education — nope nothing of the sort.

    We are being asked to give up more of our money so their lifestyles won’t be inconvenienced. Notice how none of those currently receiving “free health care” are required to be responsible for their health?

    Want to fix health care — make everyone show proof of private health insurance before they can buy alcohol, cell phones, cable tv.

    Want to fix health care — break the tax benefit of company provided health insurance and make it available across state lines, make it easy for group rates to be obtained by unions, organizations like the Boy Scouts, NAACP, NRA, PTA, etc.

    — Note the federal government is the reason we have tax breaks for companies, laws against selling insurance across state lines.

    Want to fix health care — increase programs where college costs are forgiven if the people go into medical fields.

    Want to fix health care — get rid of the crap being taught in schools and get back to the basics. Increase the focus on math, science, etc — teach kids in high school so they will be ready and able to go to college.
    (without a strong education — and a desire to learn – it is harder to attract people to higher learning and therefore fewer go on to medical school).

    There are a thousand ways we can improve the health care system without going to a single payer system. It just doesn’t fit with the goals of the socialist/nanny staters who dislike inequality of outcome.

    Want to fix health care — change the laws requiring emergency room treatment or face discrimination/access lawsuits, change the laws concerning medical malpractice

  10. Nomen Nescio says:

    The NHS is a successful system worth copying? Please tell me you’re joking?! Either that or you and I have different definitions of the term “successful.”

    as compared to the U.S. system it provides better healthcare, with better outcomes, to a larger fraction of the population, for less money. how do YOU define “success”?

    but no, the NHS is not the be-all and end-all of universal healthcare either. if you’re totally rabidly dead-set against it, there are other models we can also emulate. although i’d hate to rule a system out simply because somebody was emotionally incompatible with the notion of it, but hey, that’s politics some of the time.

    […] a “social democracy” which the U.S. is not and should never be.

    needless to say i disagree, but that’s neither here nor there. out of interest, though, WHY do you think we should never go that way? do you have any concrete objections, or is it more of an emotional incompatibility?

    • Mike w. says:

      No. It’s not an emotional incompatibility, It’s a liberty incompatibility. Social democracies do not allow for the level of individual liberty that makes America great.

  11. Nomen Nescio says:

    First, that system of responsibility developed because the patient paid for the services.

    um, no. it developed because doctors take their patients’ lives in their hands. if it had developed solely because patients were the payers, then by now it would have largely changed, and i think you’d have to be raving lunatic to actually want that.

    executive summary of a much longer argument: some things are more important than money. trying to make every function of society into “whoever pays the bills makes the rules” leads to the very sorts of horrors Karl Marx had to invent communism to even try to address, no matter how misguidedly he did it. we’ve already tried totally laissez-faire capitalism, and it is a nightmare. let’s not repeat that mistake, ‘k?

    when the government is the only payer, how will I be able to shop around for better services?

    same way you do now, go on the free market and pay money to a private insurance company. what, did you think anybody wanted that outlawed? no; i for one merely want the government to provide a baseline of competition to it, a baseline available to everyone. if private insurers can provide services folks such as yourself like enough much better to keep them in business, good for them, say i. if they can’t compete with government — then they weren’t very efficient, now were they? why should we waste money propping up inefficient corporations?

    You are right, they aren’t paying for their health care now — but how do you figure they’ll suddenly starting going to their primary care physician when they aren’t doing it now?

    because suddenly THEY’LL BE ABLE TO AFFORD HAVING ONE. this particular segment of the population is using the ER as their only healthcare because THEY. CAN. NOT. AFFORD. INSURANCE. single-payer universal healthcare will cover them, so they’ll be able to go to regular checkups and preventative care, like everybody else, offloading the ER’s.

    seriously, Bob, are you living under a rock? do you not know that that is how life works for a significant fraction of your countrymen? have you no notion of what it’s like to be poor in the USA?

    is the sky polka-dotted on your world?

    And all you are doing is transferring wealth under a different means.

    yup. so what? so does our current system, except that we’re currently transferring wealth in the wrong direction.

    look, you can’t avoid transferring wealth, not if you want to have a market at all. i want to transfer wealth so as to even out social inequities and reduce class differences. i take pride in this desire. how about you?

    And look at the level and trend of taxation or non-taxation — every year isn’t it going up? Where the lower end of the wages are being taxed less?

    [checks color of sky — still blue on THIS planet]

    no, actually, in the USA taxation is becoming steadily more regressive. taxes on the upper end of the wealthy are being reduced, chiefly through reducing unearned income taxes, whereas the middle class is being shrunk (and taxed more heavily) even as the poor are seeing an almost entirely regressive tax burden. this has been going on for decades, most pronouncedly since Reagan.

    seriously, Bob, check the color of your sky. this is basic, elementary stuff.

    • Bob S. says:

      Nomen,

      Start supplying some evidence of your claims and I’ll check the color of my sky. But you might want to consider the fact that other people also know what is going on.

      t developed because doctors take their patients’ lives in their hands. if it had developed solely because patients were the payers,

      You completely ignore the fact that the payers are still the patients. Insurance is a gamble the patient takes with the insurance company — not between the insurance company and the doctor.

      If the patient doesn’t go to the doctor he doesn’t get paid. The only variable in the equation is the portion the insurance company covers and the portion the patient covers. But the payment comes from the patient regardless.

      The patient may pay for years (I know I did) without using the services of a doctor — banking up money with the insurance company — before making use of the doctor’s services. But I don’t go to the doctor and send you the bill — which is what single payer systems do.

      same way you do now, go on the free market and pay money to a private insurance company. what, did you think anybody wanted that outlawed?

      Yes, I do think people want to outlaw it. As one example

      Obama’s health-care bill “should create millions of new stakeholders in a health-care system governed by democratically established rules rather than by the fiats of private insurers,” wrote Frank Llewellyn, national director of Democratic Socialists of America.

      Writing in the latest issue of the socialist Democratic Left magazine, Llewellyn said “progressives” must use Obama’s health-care legislation “to build support for the elimination of private insurers.” -http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=172929

      Or another
      A single-payer program would, therefore, relieve this significant fiscal stress from state and local governments thereby freeing up funds for other social programs. For more information, visit Healthcare-NOW’s “Win-Win” campaign page. http://www.healthcare-now.org/campaigns/win-win/
      Single-Payer Campaigns
      A lot of political energy has gone into developing a national campaign to demand a single-payer health care system. Single-payer would abolish private health insurance companies making the government the single-payer. Single-payer does not deal with other important questions such as who owns health care facilities and employs doctors and who owns the pharmaceutical companies. However, we understand it as important steps towards a socialized system.
      http://socialistparty-usa.org/literature/healthcarepacketnov09.pdf

      we’ve already tried totally laissez-faire capitalism, and it is a nightmare. let’s not repeat that mistake

      Right, the massive volumes of laws on the books is laissez-faire capitalism. Try to pull the other leg — I ain’t buying it.

      no; i for one merely want the government to provide a baseline of competition to it, a baseline available to everyone. if private insurers can provide services folks such as yourself like enough much better to keep them in business, good for them,

      So now instead of using the fruit of my effort to pay for the best available health care — you want me to pay a portion of the 49% of people who aren’t paying income taxes health care expenses — then if I have anything left over to buy additional private insurance….is that right?

      Hey, I have an idea. Why don’t I just turn over my paycheck to you and you get to decide how much I keep?

      because suddenly THEY’LL BE ABLE TO AFFORD HAVING ONE.

      They still won’t be able to afford a primary care physician because doctors will leave the field. Haven’t you seen the numbers of doctors who aren’t taking new medicare/medicaid patients? The number of doctors who say they will quit rather then work for a single payer system?

      If a single payer system is so good, why are the average wait times longer for countries with socialized medicine?

      yup. so what? so does our current system, except that we’re currently transferring wealth in the wrong direction.

      A transfer wealth isn’t happening in the wrong direction if I voluntarily choose to buy something or purchase a service. I have to feel I got the better end of the deal or I wouldn’t buy!! That is basic transactional theory.

      i want to transfer wealth so as to even out social inequities and reduce class differences.

      You want to equalize outcome and I want to equalize opportunity — and that is a huge difference.

      There will always be inequalities because people are different. Look I would love for you to find a way for me to throw a baseball like Nolan Ryan, Sing like Usher, paint like Da Vinci, be as smart as Stephen Hawking, etc — but you can’t equalize the fundamental nature of people.

      As long as there is a difference people, there will be inequality — and any effort at taking away the results of people’s abilities, efforts or dedication reduces their reason to use those things.

      Why should I have gone to school for as long as I did, serve my country as I did, work the hours I did if my effort is going to earn my no more then the person who skipped much of high school, barely works at a job, etc?

      i take pride in this desire. how about you?

      I take pride in my desire to better myself and help others better themselves. I take pride in donating my time, energy and money to people, causes and beliefs that I choose — not ones you and a majority of people will decide that I should.

      I take pride in my efforts to provide equal opportunity to people — and to help those that are taking advantage of those opportunities. It’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All 3 must be a part of it or we loose the fundamental nature of our country. We loose our diversity.

      Have you ever thought of the result of reducing diversity, of reducing the outcomes? Where will the next life saving drug or medical device come from if the person inventing it doesn’t see a way it will better his/her life?

      no, actually, in the USA taxation is becoming steadily more regressive. taxes on the upper end of the wealthy are being reduced, chiefly through reducing unearned income taxes,

      See this is a fundamental difference in philosophy here — you see income earned by others not being taxed as regressive because the percentages of taxation are being reduced.

      The upper tax brackets still pay a higher net and gross percentage of taxes. The upper brackets still pay a higher net amount of taxes then the lower brackets.

      Would you support a simple flat tax rate? No deductions on earned income, no credits, breaks or lower limits?

      Why not have everyone pay, say 10% of their income?

      • Nomen Nescio says:

        So now instead of using the fruit of my effort to pay for the best available health care — you want me to pay a portion of the 49% of people who aren’t paying income taxes health care expenses — then if I have anything left over to buy additional private insurance….is that right?

        yep, that’s exactly right. same way things work with every other social service; fire, police, whathaveyou. you support the common good, then when that’s covered, you get to set yourself up with extra luxuries over and above that common baseline.

        If a single payer system is so good, why are the average wait times longer for countries with socialized medicine?

        because those averages include the wait times of people who, under our system, would never get healthcare at all. you know, the ones you don’t give a shit if they ever do get care.

        They still won’t be able to afford a primary care physician because doctors will leave the field.

        except this doesn’t happen in any of the countries that, you know, ACTUALLY DO HAVE universal healthcare.

        color of the sky, once again.

        you see income earned by others not being taxed as regressive because the percentages of taxation are being reduced.

        *sigh*. no, bob, “regressive taxation” is a term of art with an actual definition. it’s nothing to do with my subjective opinion, nor yours.

        Would you support a simple flat tax rate? No deductions on earned income, no credits, breaks or lower limits?

        Why not have everyone pay, say 10% of their income?

        because that would wipe out the middle class and quite possibly lead to an actual armed revolution.

        • Bob S. says:

          Nomen,

          First, you don’t know me or my beliefs to make this statement:
          would never get healthcare at all. you know, the ones you don’t give a shit if they ever do get care.

          I consider that to be a base lie or misstatement of my beliefs and it is very offensive.

          social service; fire, police, whathaveyou. you support the common good, then when that’s covered, you get to set yourself up with extra luxuries over and above that common baseline.

          The problem with that model is that health care isn’t a social service that can be shared, except in a few narrow cases — plague, for example.

          What you want me to do is pay for other people’s police services –knowing full well that they will consume all the available resources and then pay for private security out of my own pocket.

          Roads are another example, I pay in taxes for roads and expect those who use them to also pay instead of saying — hey pay for the roads but if you really want to get anywhere, pay for a toll road.

          How does that make sense?

          except this doesn’t happen in any of the countries that, you know, ACTUALLY DO HAVE universal healthcare.

          How about some proof? Show the average ratio of doctor to citizen, diagnostic machine to person ratios for various countries?

          You also completely disregard the current and documented statements of doctors leaving because of decreasing payments for national healthcare — medicare and medicaid.

          It is happening and projected to get worse.

  12. Nomen Nescio says:

    overlooked this:

    why is it people who want to provide “universal health care for all” aren’t paying for it out of their own pockets but want to reach into mine?

    I’ll ask you, like I ask everyone else, are you donating your money in excess of the poverty line to pay for other people’s health care?

    i am a net taxpayer. if the universal healthcare i want enacted were enacted, i fully expect my taxes would go up. i would happily pay them, because they would purchase me a little more civilization — and no, i have no reason at all to expect they would reduce me to poverty, nowhere even near it. i’d make less net money than i do now, but i’d get better healthcare, and so would lots of other people, and i would happily pay for that.

    for that matter, i AM donating money to help fund other people’s healthcare right now. so are you, Bob. those ER trips the indigent take to fix their abscessed jaws because they couldn’t afford dental care while their problem was a mere toothache come out of our tax moneys and insurance premiums, even now. all i’m proposing is to pay the little extra so those people won’t have to lose their whole jaws before an ER will deem their problem “emergent enough” to treat.

    what’s YOUR proposed solution? do you have one?
    do you even realize there is a problem?

    • Bob S. says:

      Nomen,

      You didn’t answer the question.

      Are you donating all your money in excess of the poverty level wages to pay for other people’s health care?

      You are right that I’m already paying for their health care — yet you state that isn’t good enough – you want to vote more of my money to the cause.

      Yet, from what you say, you don’t seem to be living your values. If you want to reduce- what was that phrase — even out social inequities and reduce class differences why aren’t you living on what the least of the people make and putting everything else toward their care?

      How many of your fellow socialists are doing that? I see millionaires claiming we need a single payer system, yet they still have millions.

      Before you vote money out of my pocket, shouldn’t you be giving all for the cause?

    • Jake says:

      what’s YOUR proposed solution? do you have one?
      do you even realize there is a problem?

      You obviously missed his earlier comment (July 21 @ 4:47).

      Notice how none of those currently receiving “free health care” are required to be responsible for their health?

      Want to fix health care — make everyone show proof of private health insurance before they can buy alcohol, cell phones, cable tv.

      Want to fix health care — break the tax benefit of company provided health insurance and make it available across state lines, make it easy for group rates to be obtained by unions, organizations like the Boy Scouts, NAACP, NRA, PTA, etc.

      – Note the federal government is the reason we have tax breaks for companies, laws against selling insurance across state lines.

      Want to fix health care — increase programs where college costs are forgiven if the people go into medical fields.

      Want to fix health care — get rid of the crap being taught in schools and get back to the basics. Increase the focus on math, science, etc — teach kids in high school so they will be ready and able to go to college.
      (without a strong education — and a desire to learn – it is harder to attract people to higher learning and therefore fewer go on to medical school).

      There are a thousand ways we can improve the health care system without going to a single payer system. It just doesn’t fit with the goals of the socialist/nanny staters who dislike inequality of outcome.

      Want to fix health care — change the laws requiring emergency room treatment or face discrimination/access lawsuits, change the laws concerning medical malpractice.

      As you can see, he gave several proposed changes to help solve the problem, so he obviously knows there is a problem.

      this particular segment of the population is using the ER as their only healthcare because THEY. CAN. NOT. AFFORD. INSURANCE. single-payer universal healthcare will cover them, so they’ll be able to go to regular checkups and preventative care, like everybody else, offloading the ER’s.

      You should re-read the paragraph immediately following the one you wrote this in response to.

      Heck, there a free clinics, urgent care clinics, all manners of primary care physicians being paid by other people to take care of these frequent flyers — and the frequent flyers don’t use them!!!

      If they aren’t taking advantage of the FREE services that are being offered to them, why do you think they’ll take advantage of them just because someone else is paying for those services? They still won’t have to pay anything.

      of course not. poverty is part of the problem; how would reducing myself to it help?

      I’ll rephrase his question to put it a little better: Are you donating all your money beyond what you need to pay for your own food, shelter, and health care to pay for other people’s food, shelter, and health care?

      If not, then stop trying to give my money away until you are.

      i want to transfer wealth so as to even out social inequities and reduce class differences. i take pride in this desire.

      Good. Start with your own.

  13. Nomen Nescio says:

    Are you donating all your money in excess of the poverty level wages to pay for other people’s health care?

    of course not. poverty is part of the problem; how would reducing myself to it help?

    but nor do i shirk my taxes, nor will i if and when they get raised to pay for the programs i advocate. i don’t just want to vote YOUR money into this cause, i’m more than happy to vote my own money into it on an equal basis.

      • Weerd Beard says:

        hehehehe, that’s funny, but hardly sporting! Nomen does not see eye to eye with most of us, but he’s also smart, respectful, and a good sport!

        No need to break out the power tools and the Trees! ; ]

        • bluesun says:

          SOmetimes someone says something and it just makes me angry (Scotch-Irish background, doncha know). Then I direct them to those pictures instead of using unseemly profanity.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I doubt you actually would, as ‘i’m more than happy to vote my own money into it on an equal basis.” would be claiming a flat tax rate, as well as ignoring the ever shrinking tax base in proportion to the population.

      To be fair, I know very little about you, Nomen, despite us being internet acquainted for some time, so you could be at a much higher tax bracket than my family, so you could be asking to pay MORE than I into the system.

      But as it stands there is no equality in that system so that’s a strawman right there. And frankly I trust our individual judgments with our money FAR more than the government when it comes to distributing tax monies.

  14. Bob S. says:

    Nomen,

    You want to reduce social inequalities, right?
    Poverty is part of the problem — now if it is because inequality of outcome if you donate your money you’ll help reduce that poverty, right?

    As you make more and more money, you’ll have more and more money you’ll contribute more further reducing that inequality you talk about.

    i don’t just want to vote YOUR money into this cause

    The problem is you shouldn’t be able to vote my money into YOUR CAUSE. PERIOD. STOP. END OF EFFING STORY.

    It doesn’t matter if you want to contribute to on an equal basis — which seems to flatly contradict what you say about taxes by the way!!!!

    If you want to contribute on an equal basis, why are you for raising taxes on the higher brackets? That hardly seems to be an ‘equal basis’ now does it?

    Voting my money for your causes is an easy way of saying majority lead slavery. Where do you draw the line? 50% of income, 70% of income? 99% of income over a certain point?

    Why should the majority get to decide how much of my money gets spent on charity and support that I don’t agree?

    This is an especially galling idea when you aren’t willing to put your money where your values lay.

    You want to reduce social inequalities but you don’t want to do it personally without everyone else being forced to do it.

  15. Thomas says:

    One of Jeff Cooper’s favorite Poems, as Col. Jeff liked FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY AND RISKS:

    Edmund Vance Cook
    HOW DID YOU DIE?

    Did you tackle that trouble that came your way

    With a resolute heart and cheerful?

    Or hide your face from the light of day

    With a craven soul and fearful?

    Oh, a trouble’s a ton, or a trouble’s an ounce,

    Or a trouble is what you make it.

    And it isn’t the fact that you’re hurt that counts,

    But only how did you take it?

    You are beaten to earth? Well, well, what’s that?

    Come up with a smiling face.

    It’s nothing against you to fall down flat,

    But to lie there — that’s disgrace.

    The harder you’re thrown, why the higher you bounce;

    Be proud of your blackened eye!

    It isn’t the fact that you’re licked that counts;

    It’s how did you fight and why?

    And though you be done to death, what then?

    If you battled the best you could;

    If you played your part in the world of men,

    Why, the Critic will call it good.

    Death comes with a crawl, or comes with a pounce,

    And whether he’s slow or spry,

    It isn’t the fact that you’re dead that counts,

    But only, how did you die?

  16. NightPaws says:

    I hate that particular argument of how natural knives are. In that case, other projectiles are natural as well- bows, spears, atlatls (spear throwers), slings, blow guns, what ever projectiles with natural poisons on the tips etc etc. OR are we just limited to hand to hand combat?
    If it’s only knives- I call total bull shit. To EFFECTIVELY be able to fend off a knife attack, you really need years of training and practice. I know someone who can and it’s flat out amazing to watch him demonstrate. Granted, the man is a student of multiple kinds of martial arts, self defense, and holds a few black belts in addition to writing a basic safe restraining program that is still used in a program for adults dealing with troubled youth.

    My point: I’m all of 160 lbs. I’m pretty strong, for a woman, but I KNOW someone could easily overpower me even if I had a knife. Sure, I could probably do some damage if I had to; however, I’m not betting my life on it if I have to defend myself against a 200+ lb male attacker. At most if someone really wanted, I’d be dead. At least, I’d be highly f-ed up and possibly sexually assaulted too. With the simple sight of a sidearm worn, I have a feeling most attackers will think twice and beat feet away before I’d even get a chance to pull it. For a lot of attackers, realizing that their “prey” is suddenly not so helpless will most likely bail. If not, fine. I can defend myself it all else failed.

    On the whole health care kerfuffle:
    I’m most concerned what will be covered and what will not. My heart goes out to women if options end up being unavailable for female health care. I’d also be seriously angered if prenatal care and pregnancy gets a ton of support, but options of birth control and sterilization become harder and harder to afford. Same idea as people who choose unhealthy life styles having plenty of support as others who make the effort to live well end up paying for it. That’s a huge issue I have with health insurance as is- my rates are sky high and I see the doc maybe twice yearly when others are in and out multiple times monthly. Yeah, it’s nice to have as insurance in case- but I end up feeling like I am at the short end of the stick for years now with premiums and stupidly high deductibles. I’m YET to meet a deductible since I’m rarely sick or injured.
    It’s beyond frustrating. I think the public would better benefit by some sort of medical price caps rather than being forced to have health insurance. (Yeah, I KNOW why it’s expensive, I’m not reading the rundown of medicine development and why the doctor’s malpractice insurances are high. I GET it. It still frustrates me to no end since I’m the one paying for it in blood.)

  17. mike w. says:

    i want to transfer wealth so as to even out social inequities and reduce class differences. i take pride in this desire.

    This is a lie. What Nomen actually desires is to force others to transfer weath to “even out social inequities” which is a despicable thing to desire. It’s one thing to want to even out those inequities, man up, and and donate your own time and money to do so, but something tells me Nomen’s not doing that nor is that what he was getting at with his statement.

    That’s the problem with Socialists, they always want to even out inequities through government force and using other people’s money. You don’t see them leading by example and leaving the rest of us the hell alone to make our own choices.

    look, you can’t avoid transferring wealth, not if you want to have a market at all.

    Apparently Nomen is missing the major distinction here, and that is that the transfer of wealth via the market is entirely different than forcible transfer of wealth via the government.

    i for one merely want the government to provide a baseline of competition to it, a baseline available to everyone. if private insurers can provide services folks such as yourself like enough much better to keep them in business, good for them, say i. if they can’t compete with government — then they weren’t very efficient, now were they? why should we waste money propping up inefficient corporations?

    The government does not “compete” in the marketplace under the same terms as the private sector. No private company can compete in the market against the government. Not one, no matter how deep their pockets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *