 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm done with this discussion. You know you're right and my position is
> stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid. We're getting
> nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
>
But we HAVE gotten somewhere. We've gotten to the point that any
discussion of a new government expansion eventually reaches: the point
where the proponents of that expansion reveal that absolutist majority
control is the true and only reason for their support of that expansion.
And as this discussion is had over and over in different places,
undecided witnesses will realize that, no matter how eloquently the
expansion proponent presents his specific case for any single piece of
legislation, the true argument is not about the allocation of resources
at all, but about their control.
We've arrived. You and I both want control of my resources. We've both
stated this explicitly. Until next time.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:51:07 -0500, Shay wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm done with this discussion. You know you're right and my position
>> is stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid. We're getting
>> nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
>>
>>
> But we HAVE gotten somewhere. We've gotten to the point that any
> discussion of a new government expansion eventually reaches: the point
> where the proponents of that expansion reveal that absolutist majority
> control is the true and only reason for their support of that expansion.
>
> And as this discussion is had over and over in different places,
> undecided witnesses will realize that, no matter how eloquently the
> expansion proponent presents his specific case for any single piece of
> legislation, the true argument is not about the allocation of resources
> at all, but about their control.
>
> We've arrived. You and I both want control of my resources. We've both
> stated this explicitly. Until next time.
I guess in a sense, yes, we have come to the crux of what the discussion
is about: (To borrow from, of all things, Star Trek) whether the needs of
the many outweigh the needs of the few, or whether the needs of the one
outweigh the needs of the many.
What it boils down to is a difference of opinion as to whether society's
needs are paramount, or whether the needs of the individual are
paramount. Or put another way, if strong individuals make a strong
society, or a strong society makes for strong individuals. You believe
the former, I believe the latter. Neither is probably 100% correct, and
the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Maybe there is something we can agree upon there. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> I'm not, because a corporation can't raise my insurance rate to
>> whatever the Hell they want and then throw me in prison for refusing
>> to patronize their business.
>
> Why would doing this at a state level be any different?
As I'm sure you've seen from this thread, there are people who see
minority rights principally as obstacles to majority benefit. The
Supreme Court was put in place to protect the minority from those
people, but it doesn't seem to be working.
The best option left to those who would protect minority rights is to
limit the power of the "tyranny of the majority" crowd. This is done by
limiting and decentralizing the power of the government. I don't like
that a state would have that much power, but any entity powerful enough
to so limit a state would itself be too powerful.
It is inevitable, however, that we will move continuously towards
totalitarianism until the next revolution.
> This, like military, police, and fire, seems like a good thing to have
> centralized. Or are you also against having the fire department a
> public/government service?
When I see a candidate stand up at a presidential convention and rally
the crowd by promising more fire protection paid for by fewer people,
then I'll worry about the fire department.
>
> How about safety standards and other such regulation? Are you of the
> opinion that paying inspectors and regulators to make sure your cars and
> buildings are safe is inappropriate?
No I am not. That's a separate issue in my mind. We'll have to discuss
that another time, I'm not ready to open up a new can of worms right now.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> No I am not. That's a separate issue in my mind. We'll have to discuss
> that another time, I'm not ready to open up a new can of worms right now.
Thanks. I just wanted to get your take on this (and the other questions)
without disputing who is right or wrong or whatever. I particularly like
your comment about state power - I hadn't thought of it that way before.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-8-2009 4:37, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:51:07 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I'm done with this discussion. You know you're right and my position
>>> is stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid. We're getting
>>> nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>> But we HAVE gotten somewhere. We've gotten to the point that any
>> discussion of a new government expansion eventually reaches: the point
>> where the proponents of that expansion reveal that absolutist majority
>> control is the true and only reason for their support of that expansion.
>>
>> And as this discussion is had over and over in different places,
>> undecided witnesses will realize that, no matter how eloquently the
>> expansion proponent presents his specific case for any single piece of
>> legislation, the true argument is not about the allocation of resources
>> at all, but about their control.
>>
>> We've arrived. You and I both want control of my resources. We've both
>> stated this explicitly. Until next time.
>
> I guess in a sense, yes, we have come to the crux of what the discussion
> is about: (To borrow from, of all things, Star Trek) whether the needs of
> the many outweigh the needs of the few, or whether the needs of the one
> outweigh the needs of the many.
>
> What it boils down to is a difference of opinion as to whether society's
> needs are paramount, or whether the needs of the individual are
> paramount. Or put another way, if strong individuals make a strong
> society, or a strong society makes for strong individuals. You believe
> the former, I believe the latter. Neither is probably 100% correct, and
> the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
>
> Maybe there is something we can agree upon there. :-)
>
> Jim
For me as an outsider this was also interesting to watch. Mainly because
both points of view do not correspond to how I think the world (should)
work. My POV is of course dominated by living in the Netherlands and
knowing where in this system the weak points are. Here we made a lot of
different choices in the past and not only do we now have a different
system, we do have different politicians and even a different ethics
than in the USA. Discussions like this help me understand both how
people reason not by fact but mainly by prejudices and at the same time
that I do too. It also does enhance my feeling that I don't want to live
in the USA, they are all completely nuts ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:51:07 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I'm done with this discussion. You know you're right and my position
>>> is stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid. We're getting
>>> nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>> But we HAVE gotten somewhere. We've gotten to the point that any
>> discussion of a new government expansion eventually reaches: the point
>> where the proponents of that expansion reveal that absolutist majority
>> control is the true and only reason for their support of that expansion.
>>
>> And as this discussion is had over and over in different places,
>> undecided witnesses will realize that, no matter how eloquently the
>> expansion proponent presents his specific case for any single piece of
>> legislation, the true argument is not about the allocation of resources
>> at all, but about their control.
>>
>> We've arrived. You and I both want control of my resources. We've both
>> stated this explicitly. Until next time.
>
> I guess in a sense, yes, we have come to the crux of what the discussion
> is about: (To borrow from, of all things, Star Trek) whether the needs of
> the many outweigh the needs of the few, or whether the needs of the one
> outweigh the needs of the many.
>
> What it boils down to is a difference of opinion as to whether society's
> needs are paramount, or whether the needs of the individual are
> paramount. Or put another way, if strong individuals make a strong
> society, or a strong society makes for strong individuals. You believe
> the former, I believe the latter. Neither is probably 100% correct, and
> the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
>
> Maybe there is something we can agree upon there. :-)
>
> Jim
We agree 100%. As a logical concept, the needs of the many outweigh the
needs of the few. If I had a magic button that could save one life or
save ten, I would of course save ten.
Great, so there we have it. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of
the few. So let's start euthanizing the handicapped and harvesting their
organs.
No? Yeah, there's something I forgot? Isn't there? Sure, those
handicapped people have rights, so closer to what we're arguing about is
whether the rights of the people outweigh the rights of the few. You say
almost always and I say almost never.
But that's still not precisely what we're arguing about. The precise
thing we're arguing about is how to decide /when/ the rights of he many
should outweigh the rights of the few. You believe the majority should
decide when the majority's rights should impede upon the minority's.
That's where I can't see your logic. I believe with the system you
propose, two people will too often (always?) elect to eat the third.
-Shay
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>
> And how did we get into that debt? Partly by skyrocketing health care
> costs. The bloody insurance companies aren't going to fix that. The
> whole friggin' system is set up to keep us SICK so the shareholders in
> hospitals and insurance companies can MAKE MORE MONEY. That's messed up.
>
>
This is one place in this debate where I grow a little confused. I
understand the idea of containing some waste, redundant tests, redundant
bureaucracies, possibly, with health insurance centralized under
government. But can you really blame the Health Insurance Industry for
everything? Afterall, the criticism they usually take is for denying
benefits so that they pay out less money and make more profit for
themselves. The allegation I hear is that this tendency (to cut
benefits) is then reinforced, even amplified, by Wall Street investors
who examine payout ratios before making their investments. I would be
interested in what you believe is the exact mechanism whereby the Health
Insurance Industry contributes to skyrocketing health care costs.
Just to be clear, I generally find myself in favor of government
involvement in health care, in particular in the health insurance side.
In particular I think that health insurance needs to be divorced from
employer compensation. So this is not a persoanl challenge to you, if
you can give me an answer that makes sense, I will use it mayself in
conversation. But currently I cannot see how the insurance industry
takes the blame coming and going.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:55:05 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
> I would be interested in
> what you believe is the exact mechanism whereby the Health Insurance
> Industry contributes to skyrocketing health care costs.
IMO a big part of it is denial of preventative care because the doctor is/
was "out of network" or some other bizzare reason. So rather than
prevent us from getting sick, they'd rather things get bad enough that we
have to go for a major visit.
On a smaller scale, I went to get my teeth and gums cleaned. The dentist
said that my gums were bad enough that he wanted me to see a periodontist
for my cleanings for the next year.
But my insurance company doesn't cover *preventative* periodontal care;
it's only covered if I've had periodontal surgery, which means I hadn't
let things get *bad enough*. So the incentive is to let things get worse
so I need surgery, then I can get my teeth cleaned.
And of course my dentist didn't know this about my plan (how could he
keep track of everyone's plan's limitations?), and my read of the plan
was that it as covered.
Now, it was important enough to me that I paid the whole cost of these
visits out of pocket, but I can afford to. Those who couldn't afford to
would've had to let things get worse in order for them to get better.
And when they get worse, that drives the costs up. I'm know the
insurance company saved about $500 by not paying out on my claim, but if
I'd let it get to the point where I needed surgery, it sure as hell
would've cost them more than $500.
This is what pisses me off when people who aren't in favour of universal
health care say "we don't want a bureaucrat dictating what we can and
cannot have" - because we already *have* that.
(Yeah, slightly offtopic there, but I think I answered your question
above)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> But that's still not precisely what we're arguing about. The precise
> thing we're arguing about is how to decide /when/ the rights of he many
> should outweigh the rights of the few. You believe the majority should
> decide when the majority's rights should impede upon the minority's.
> That's where I can't see your logic. I believe with the system you
> propose, two people will too often (always?) elect to eat the third.
Why can't we just say that, in some instances, the rights of the many
outweigh the rights of the few, and in others the rights of the
individual are paramount?
I'm not arguing for an ideal here, I'm looking at what should be done in
this specific instance.
I know moral ambiguity isn't very popular in the media (it doesn't sell
T-Shirts, for one thing) but it's rather practical and, more often than
not, a situational ethic seems to provide the best solution.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:47:41 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Why can't we just say that, in some instances, the rights of the many
> outweigh the rights of the few, and in others the rights of the
> individual are paramount?
Well said. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
