 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
Anyone who's followed this thread should know how I would answer these
questions. But, "what the Hell?".
>
> What if the slaves are in the majority?
A voting majority? History leads me to believe that a voting majority of
slaves would likely just foolishly try to vote the non-slaves into
deeper slavery than their own rather than free themselves, but they
would at least have the means to free themselves. That's all we should
offer them.
> So, doctors and insurance companies are powerless, and the little old
> lady with cancer is powerful?
Yes, a little old lady with a terminal and expensive condition is very
powerless. Nevertheless, she does have the means to purchase what health
care she can afford, and we should aggressively fight against any
corruption which raises her costs.
Might sound cruel, but we've got to accept that there is only so much
money to go around for treatment just like there are only so many
livers. Doesn't matter how you mix it, organize it, whatever.
There are things that could be done on the preventative side. We could
discuss whether a State would benefit by providing publicly funded,
preventative *only*, communicative disease *only* care; whether AIDS
testing is a violation of privacy; and whether we should go even further
and offer publicly funded screenings. But not today, please!
>
> No amount of rules will make the enforcers of those rules obey
> the rules.
True, but they do still require the complicity of the voters. The less
money and power to be handed-out, the less complicit the voters are
likely to be.
>
> In any case, you seem to be alternating between "don't take my money to
> fund this" and "it'll hurt people because it's uncompetitive", unless
> I'm misremembering. I've been trying to get your take on a "public
> option" that's neither required nor funded by those not taking advantage
> of it, but I didn't actually get an answer.
A bad idea for the reason mentioned above. There would be nothing to
stop the government (Remember that the stated goal of our President is
single-payer) from engaging in illegal business practices to destroy the
competition. The government might, for instance, operate at a loss until
the free market alternatives were destroyed. This is illegal for a
reason. The voters *could* stop it in the same way consumers *could*
stop a private entity from using similar means to destroy the market,
but they wouldn't. The voters would only see *temporarily* lower prices.
Going from a private to public system only changes the people at the
top. Executives would be replaced by equally fallible and much more
powerful people.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> Anyone who's followed this thread should know how I would answer these
> questions. But, "what the Hell?".
>
>>
>> What if the slaves are in the majority?
>
> A voting majority?
Is that relevant?
> Might sound cruel, but we've got to accept that there is only so much
> money to go around
Are you sure? What do you mean by "money" here?
> Doesn't matter how you mix it, organize it, whatever.
Of course it does.
>> No amount of rules will make the enforcers of those rules obey the rules.
> True, but they do still require the complicity of the voters.
Not really.
>> In any case, you seem to be alternating between "don't take my money
>> to fund this" and "it'll hurt people because it's uncompetitive",
>> unless I'm misremembering. I've been trying to get your take on a
>> "public option" that's neither required nor funded by those not taking
>> advantage of it, but I didn't actually get an answer.
>
> A bad idea for the reason mentioned above. There would be nothing to
> stop the government (Remember that the stated goal of our President is
> single-payer) from engaging in illegal business practices to destroy the
> competition. The government might, for instance, operate at a loss until
> the free market alternatives were destroyed.
It has already happened.
> This is illegal for a reason.
No it isn't. Not for the government, at least.
> The voters *could* stop it in the same way consumers *could*
> stop a private entity from using similar means to destroy the market,
> but they wouldn't. The voters would only see *temporarily* lower prices.
True, it's unlikely to stop things that are working.
> Going from a private to public system only changes the people at the
> top. Executives would be replaced by equally fallible and much more
> powerful people.
First, no, it would change more than that, because we're talking about
something that becomes *more* "fair" and *more* valuable the bigger it gets.
And two, people who are already participating in the government-run
processes (both here and all over the world) of this type express much
greater contentment than those participating in private American insurance.
And three, most people have little or no choice about what insurance they
buy, since it's usually through the employer. Not only is the insurance
company making for-profit decisions for the insured, but so is the insured's
employer - and any time you get a whole chain of people making choices like
this for someone other than the beneficiary, you get inefficiency and
generally bad results.
Sure, possibly over time it will get bad, at which point private industry
can come back into play.
But look at it this way: there's no profit motive for the government to
overcharge you premiums. The government can already take all the money they
want from you. There's no need to overcharge your premiums to get more money
to fund the government.
However, I'm guessing from both your tone and your earlier posts that you're
completely closed to considering the situation on its own, so...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Assumption, yes. Those are made when setting policy. Unsubstantiated,
> no. I lock my front door because I make the assumption that my getting
> robbed is more likely than some kind stranger entering my house and
> leaving a bag of gold coins on my pillow.
You have to include not just people's proclivity for an activity, but
their ability to perform it.
You having an unlocked door makes it easy for someone to walk in and
take something, but their leaving a bag of gold coins requires that they
first have that bag.
Assuming that everyone around you had plenty of gold coins, but that you
yourself had none, I wonder how many people would be inclined to give
you some.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:45:26 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmail com>
> wrote:
>
>> Cool, I didn't know all that. Thanks for the info :)
>>
>
> I would say British history 101 but it is not even that. It is high school stuff
> and much condensed. There is quite a bit of confusion about British history,
> abroad. Because of England being the dominant country.
Even our own US history is relatively unknown to most of the people over
here :(
Fun link for anyone so inclined:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/stuff-you-missed-in-history-class-podcast.htm
Great podcast :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Great podcast :)
Wow. The only thing I have less patience for than youtube talking-head
videos is talking-head videos without the video.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:38:30 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>Even our own US history is relatively unknown to most of the people over
>here :(
Well that the youth of today, for you :)
I doubt that if I were English I would know so much about what I wrote. We Scots
tend to be a bit touchy about it ;)
That and the fact that I have worked abroad a lot means that I've had to explain
the difference between England, Britain, Great Britain and the UK.
If you asked most people in the UK about the history of say, the Netherlands,
which is only just over a hundred miles away at the nearest point. They would
not be able to tell you very much.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Well that the youth of today, for you :)
> I doubt that if I were English I would know so much about what I wrote. We Scots
> tend to be a bit touchy about it ;)
> That and the fact that I have worked abroad a lot means that I've had to explain
> the difference between England, Britain, Great Britain and the UK.
Well, I understand the difference between the different kingdoms and the
UK, I just don't know the history of how it got to be the way it is.
What I know amounts to the Magna Carta being signed 800 years ago, and
then a bunch of people got married (and one of them divorced). OSLT :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:36:39 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>Well, I understand the difference between the different kingdoms and the
>UK, I just don't know the history of how it got to be the way it is.
>
Did I miss out the bit where the Romans came and their part of Britain was
called Britannia? Then the Norwegians, Danes and Germans settled to form England
usw.
>What I know amounts to the Magna Carta being signed 800 years ago, and
>then a bunch of people got married (and one of them divorced). OSLT :)
That's about right :)
Although there is a little bit before the Magna Carta as well :P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Did I miss out the bit where the Romans came and their part of Britain was
> called Britannia? Then the Norwegians, Danes and Germans settled to form England
> usw.
>
>> What I know amounts to the Magna Carta being signed 800 years ago, and
>> then a bunch of people got married (and one of them divorced). OSLT :)
>
> That's about right :)
> Although there is a little bit before the Magna Carta as well :P
Right, with the Romans ;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> This is why discussion of what the majority might do with some newly
> granted authority is of less importance than discussion of whether the
> authority should be granted at all.
By the way, what makes you think establishing a public universal health care
option needs any new authority? The feds have had from day one the
authority to take some of your income and spend it however they like. The
16th amendment confirmed this. So what authority are they usurping by
collecting some of your income as premiums and distributing that to those
providing health care as necessary?
How does this differ from taking parts of your income and using it to pay
for police, judges, fire fighters, etc?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
