Today’s Travesty
I haven’t much to say except to that what happened in Washington tonight has very probably set off a tinderbox, and we will now be in rebellion. May it be a non-violent one, but if violence is what it ultimately takes, we are a people whose nation is founded on such in the defense of human liberty.
[Monday morning update]
Professor Jacobson has a pep talk.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Paul Hsieh on the coming battles. And Victor Davis Hanson says that Obama has crossed the Rubicon. Fortunately, Julius Caesar he’s not.
[Update a while later]
Had enough?
As I have argued now for months – first, in August, here; then, in November, here and here; and, more recently, here, here, and here – a genuine political realignment may be in the offing. This has happened at irregular intervals in our nation’s past – most notably, in 1800, 1828, 1860, and 1932 – and on each occasion the political party benefiting from the upheaval was able to paint a plausible picture depicting their opponents as being parties to a conspiracy to overthrow the liberties possessed by their fellow Americans. This is what Thomas Jefferson did to the Federalists in and after 1800; it was what Andrew Jackson did to John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Nicholas Biddle, and the Whigs in and after 1828; it was what Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans did to the slave power conspiracy and its fellow travelers in the North in and after 1860, and it was what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did to Herbert Hoover and the business-minded progressives in and after 1932. When FDR claimed, at the 1936 Democratic convention, that “a small group” of his fellow Americans was intent on concentrating “into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives,” he was merely rephrasing the charges lodged in an earlier time by Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and their political allies.
Of course, one cannot plausibly advance such a claim except in circumstances where one has a great deal of help from one’s opponents. In 1800, Jefferson profited from the quarrel pitting Alexander Hamilton against John Adams, and by exhibiting secessionist propensities at the Hartford Convention, the New England Federalists destroyed their own party. Something similar can be said regarding Nicholas Biddle and the supporters of the Second National Bank. The same is true for the supporters of the slave power in and after 1860, and Herbert Hoover was in similar fashion a godsend for FDR.
If the Republicans have a comparable opportunity in 2010 and 2012, it is because of what I described in my very first blogpost as “Obama’s Tyrannical Ambition.” Barack Obama has a gift. He has told us so himself, and he is right, but he errs in supposing that his oratorical skill will enable him to fool all of the people all of the time, and over time he has, in effect, unmasked his own party as a conspiracy on the part of a would-be aristocracy of do-gooders hostile to very idea of self-government in the United States. There is no need for me to review the record of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress in the last fifteen months. It is enough to say that, in an administration that promised transparency, everything has been negotiated behind closed doors in a manner suggestive of tyranny and that, in an administration that promised to distance itself from the lobbyists, every major bill has been written by them and is loaded with special deals that give new meaning to the old phrase “corrupt bargain.” The stimulus bill, cap-and-trade, healthcare reform: with these Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have brought home to the American people, as never before, the tyrannical propensities inherent in the progressive impulse. Thanks to them, everyone now knows that there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat.
I’m not sure that everyone knows it, but enough to now to make the whirlwind that they’ll reap pretty big in the fall. And perhaps years to come.
[Update a few minutes later]
Another pep talk, from Bill Whittle:
…in terms of limiting the practical and immediate damage, holding it here — just holding it — is important and essential. Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have an IQ of 130 — that would be combined between the three of them and you can get to 150 if you throw in Biden — and so they actually believe that a few months from now, they will be able to add single-payer to this goat rodeo, this bloodbath, this circus of incompetence conducted by this museum-grade confederacy of dunces. It got them a bill that requires people to pay for private insurance — which I am, of course, utterly opposed to on every level — but that is way short of single payer and we MUST hold the line here and not an inch further until reinforcements arrive in January. And they will. In numbers that will astonish and amaze the most optimistic among us.
We need to understand the great lesson we have learned about these people in this debate. Barack Obama is, to the liberal cause, a politician that comes not once in a decade, or once in a generation, or even once per century. Barack Obama is, to them, a once in history opportunity for progressives to control this country, and they will fall on a forest of swords to achieve those ends because this is the best chance they have ever had or ever will have to permanently shackle the people to the state. They know that this Health Care fiasco will cost them the House and now perhaps the Senate in November, but that new Congress will not seat until January and in the ten months between now and then they will, I predict, start an orgy of legislation that will make this Health Care circus look like a tea party.
But it seems to me that they have spent every dime of political capital in the bank and have done nothing less than awoken from it’s long and deep slumbers the American Giant, who in attempting to sit upright discovers the Lilliputian threads that have been staked into the ground with finishing nails and who looks around, blinking and disoriented, fatter and softer and much, much poorer than he was when he last opened his eyes back in 1941, but possessed now as then with a terrible anger and capable still of mighty exertions.
So, to the short term: everybody knows that Reid and Pelosi and The Lightworker himself, obviously, are all hoping to use this bill as the foot in the door for the stuff they really want: A single-payer National Health System, or at least the “public option,” which is simply single-payer on the installment plan. We can’t let them get that. Going forward, we can’t let them get single-payer, or cap and trade, or amnesty, or any of it.
We’ll see if their political tone deafness continues.
[Update mid morning]
Another pep talk, from Moe Lane: things we were told we couldn’t do.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jim Treacher says it’s not fair to call this a political Jonestown for the Democrats, because Jim Jones only killed 900 people.
March 21st, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Gentlemen, start your lawyers.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:26 pm
The ghosts of Rand and Heinlein are rising.
March 21st, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Clearly, the soap box has failed.
The ballot box is next.
I pray that we do not in my lifetime have to resort to the one that comes after that…
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:01 am
The blue and the gray fought during a time when people understood honor. This fight is with the dishonorable and will have many unexpected twists.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:27 am
Nothing substantive will happen. Americans aren’t that different from EUropeans. If an fascist EU state is acceptable to 400 millions EUropeans, it’ll be acceptable to 300 million Americans. Dark Age ahead.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:37 am
I fear that this will not end well for anyone.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:36 am
Is it paranoid to advise folks not to let their frustration and disappointment to extend to making threats or advocating acts of violence on the web? Given the fact that Homeland security has already mentioned their looking for right wing
activiststerrorists is it within the possible that they’re data mining the web for same?March 22nd, 2010 at 3:13 am
Not to mention all those new IRS agents.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:19 am
SO first this wasn’t going to pass, lots of Rand links to articles to support that position.
Now it’s “set off a tinderbox”…
Goodness me.
I’m fairly sure nothing is going to happen. Lawsuits will fizzle out. People will notice the sky hasn’t fallen in and immediately a bunch of people who previously didn’t have access to insurance and the kids of people who did will have (yes, that happens immediately not 2014)…
Repealing that in 6 months ain’t going to look that appealing either.
Next up: I wouldn’t be surprised if the Dems and Obama get a modest poll bounce out of this either. Although they’ll still get a good beating in November it probably won’t be an apocalypse.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:20 am
Oh and thanks! That was exactly the kind of over reaction I was looking forward to reading today.
And, that sensation you’re feeling? It’s the one that about half the country were feeling for much of the last decade.
Nasty, isn’t it?
Have a nice one!
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:38 am
“And, that sensation you’re feeling? It’s the one that about half the country were feeling for much of the last decade.”
Here is some inconvenient history for “Dave On”.
During that last decade, for which Dave On feels such despair, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for only four years, 2003-2006. Republicans and Democrats shared control for two years, 2001-2002. And Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the last four years, 2007-2010.
How do you think the public will answer the question, “are you better off then you were four years ago?” The Democrats can’t get away with blaming the Republicans anymore. They now own the mess.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:45 am
Not at all — I plan to follow the Duston Doctrine and forgo buying insurance altogether. Ca-ching!
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:53 am
Nasty, isn’t it?
Sure as heck is! Especially for my house keeper. When I see her later this morning I am going to inform her that I will be laying her off on anticipation of tax increases.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:18 am
Daveon’s and the other State-fellators are happy, because there’s now more State to fellate. They like their States big, hard and rough.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:31 am
DaveOn,
watch and see how many jobs this costs, as Michael just said.
My son is a GM in a Dominos franchise. His company does not offer any insurance, but they are NOW going to close two stores, laying off people to get ahead of the taxes. His owner set that up months ago at the suggestion of his accountant and lawyer. That’s only about 18 people, which is a small number, but there are THOUSANDS of franchisees, in many companies, who will now do this.
I can’t wait for the markets to open this morning, can you say bloodbath?
.
.
March 22, 1765
The British Parliament passes the Stamp Act. It was THE biggest single item that pushed good English subjects of King George to start a war to relieve themselves of Taxation without Representation.
March 21, 2010
The United States House of Representatives passes HR 3590. Proving, once and for all, that little has been learned in the last 245 years.
This morning, I question the validity of my military oath. The country I took an oath to protect, ceased to exist last night, IMO. I don’t know about you, but I did not sleep well. And like others here, I think we’ll see rage, violence and riots soon.
Oddly, a year ago when Gerald Celente predicted just that, people scoffed. Personally, my plans of moving out into the country, just got pushed forward. Currently I live in an apt, near a university, near a police sub-station, a fire dept and two grocery stores.
It looks like ground zero for trouble.
Food and ammunition I was already stockpiling. It shall continue.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:09 am
The present rate of taxation is already beyond the point where raising taxes reduces government income as it reduces productivity more than it increments the tax rate. The present deficits are unsustainable.
I can find very little evidence in the history of man where government shrank without violence.
The combination of the three concepts is scary.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:46 am
Dudes and dudettes, ya gotta read what Mencius Moldbug has to say on the subject (if you have a spare 400 hours).
His take on things is that the problem is not that there is either an evil or a good-natured dictator in charge, but that no one is in charge of much of anything these days.
He speaks of FDR as acting as a dictator, and comments that, in his opinion, FDR was an intellectual lightweight, he had some smart people around him, and those smart people could actually get stuff done. Now, at least from an executive-branch-of-government standpoint, no one can get much of anything done, because what was once a personal fiefdom under FDR is spread out, at least, among multiple DC buildings.
I think what we see here with these bills-that-no-one-person-knows-what-is-in-the-1000-pages-apart-from-Paul-Ryan-who-even-the-Republicans-don’t-much-listen-to is that what has taken hold of the Executive branch of government has pretty much taken hold of Congress. There is a bureaucracy of Congressional staff writing enormously complex bills that their patrons, i.e. the elected officials, have no clue or even control over the content.
Mencius Moldbug’s take is that the problem here is not that bad people are now in charge, but that no one is effectively in charge of much of anything anymore.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:50 am
Nasty, isn’t it?
Yes, you are indeed.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:54 am
I’m afraid that I have my doubts as to whether there will be effective opposition to this, at least if the perceived “solution” is to elect more Republicans. Consider that the main thing that I am seeing this morning are lots of appeals for money for “Republican” and “conservative” candidates.
Anyone can claim to be a conservative, but how much scrutiny will potential donors give them as to their past voting records(where applicable) or to their statements and written records? And being “Republican” doesn’t mean a darn thing, since there is a great deal of truth in the observation that both Republicans and Democrats are just the two wings of the statist party.
I think that the main beneficiaries will be the scam artists and hucksters that make up a lot of what is described as “Conservative Inc.”
I submit as evidence of this the following article, which appeared before the vote on American Conservative’s blog:
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/03/20/freedom-scam/
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:44 am
we will now be in rebellion
The sad thing is, you probably believe this, just as you believed that Obama was unelectable, that the NJ and VA governors races were a “death blow” to health care reform, that the House would never believe Senate promises about reconciliation, etc. Your crystal ball could use some Windex.
As policy this bill is the sort of thing the Republicans were proposing (and, in MA, passing) not long ago. But as the Democrats incorporated more GOP ideas, the GOP opposition grew increasingly hyperbolic. Amping up the stakes only helps your cause if you win; now they’ve squandered their credibility and made Obama and Pelosi’s victory appear even more momentous than it would have otherwise.
As David Frum (an opponent of the bill) was saying last night, it doesn’t even matter if this bill hands the GOP control of the House in November. Congressional majorities come and go; health care reform is forever. Watching the Democrats flail after the Scott Brown election and ultimately find their backbones reminded me of Churchill’s comment on Americans: that they can be trusted to do the right thing, after exhausting all the alternatives. Those Congressmen can take pride in standing for something greater than themselves and their re-election chances.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:48 am
” Watching the Democrats flail after the Scott Brown election and ultimately find their backbones reminded me of Churchill’s comment on Americans: that they can be trusted to do the right thing, after exhausting all the alternatives. Those Congressmen can take pride in standing for something greater than themselves and their re-election chances.”
Like expanding the power of the State, with its concomitant diminution of individual liberty, is a good thing.
Tell us, Jim, on Bizarro Planet, do you celebrate the Fourth of July? If so, what is it exactly you’d be celebrating?
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:53 am
that the NJ and VA governors races were a “death blow” to health care reform
Nope. But they certainly were a death blow to single payer.
Watching the Democrats flail after the Scott Brown election
I didn’t enjoy that nearly as much as I did your week-long absence from ttm.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:04 am
We ended up with something I think is better than single-payer OR the public option: A government-mandated but privately-operated nonprofit insurer, to be part of the insurance pools that come online in 2014. I see that as a pretty ingenious way of using the power of free markets to lower premiums.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:17 am
You clearly do not understand how free markets work.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:18 am
Oh, snap.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:20 am
Like expanding the power of the State, with its concomitant diminution of individual liberty, is a good thing.
Extending insurance coverage to 32 million Americans is a good thing. Saving tens of thousands of lives lost each year due to inadequate coverage is an exceptionally good thing. Protecting people in the individual insurance market from outrageous premium hikes, rescission, denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions (including being a victim of domestic violence!) — those are good things. Giving people the freedom to change jobs or start businesses without fear of losing health coverage is a good thing. Giving the Medicare trust fund another 9 years of solvency is a good thing. Ending subsidies to politically-connected middlemen in the student loan business (and saving the taxpayers billions) is another very good thing.
Tell us, Jim, on Bizarro Planet, do you celebrate the Fourth of July? If so, what is it exactly you’d be celebrating?
The birth of an ideal of enlightened, representative self-rule. Yesterday was a step towards that ideal.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:23 am
Billwick1 wrote:
“Like expanding the power of the State, with its concomitant diminution of individual liberty, is a good thing.
Tell us, Jim, on Bizarro Planet, do you celebrate the Fourth of July? If so, what is it exactly you’d be celebrating?”
The GOP’s current strategy is to simply oppose everything the DEMS want to get done, hoping that the resulting mess will get the GOP back in the sadle. Now, that’s really helping our country….
Do you celebrate the Fourth of July?
Do you think the current mess the health care is in is good for our individual liberty? We are completely at the mercy of the companies. What liberty?
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 am
Jim,
Does ‘forever’ go past when entitlements cause the US to go bankrupt in 15 to 20 years?
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:31 am
“Extending insurance coverage to 32 million Americans is a good thing. Saving tens of thousands of lives lost each year due to inadequate coverage is an exceptionally good thing. Protecting people in the individual insurance market from outrageous premium hikes, rescission, denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions (including being a victim of domestic violence!) — those are good things. Giving people the freedom to change jobs or start businesses without fear of losing health coverage is a good thing. Giving the Medicare trust fund another 9 years of solvency is a good thing. Ending subsidies to politically-connected middlemen in the student loan business (and saving the taxpayers billions) is another very good thing.”
Very noble, Jim. You’re a regular Spartacus. Over in the pro-liberty Protein Wisdom blog there’s a discussion of “people who value liberty over dependency.” versus their opposite number–the “people who value dependency over liberty.” I guess we know which camp Jim falls in.
So, Jim, you actually think that the point of the Declaration of Independence and the war to overthrow British rule was so that one day we’d have socialism? My, you do live on Bizarro Planet. If that was the point, I think the Founders, the Minutemen, et all, would have been better off staying home in bed.
Also, on Bizarro Planet, “self-rule” apparently means “letting others rule you.” What a strange world you inhabit.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:36 am
“You clearly do not understand how free markets work.”
Businesses compete with one another, in a manner that lowers costs and improves quality of service for the consumer?
Our system to date has done this in theory, but not in practice. Now, with insurance pools becoming available to cater to the uninsured, we’ll see real competition and real improvements in quality and cost. If I’m wrong, I’ll eat my hat. Well…I’ll buy a hat and then eat it. Not big on hats.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:38 am
Obama might even sink lower than Carter. Johnson tried to have guns and butter at the same time in the late ’60s with Vietnam and the Great Society. That set the stage for the stagflation that brought Carter down. Obama is trying to have guns and butter … Afghanistan and gov’t sponsored health care … at the same time too.
You know it’s pretty bad when the democrat governor of my state pleaded with the democrat delegation to vote against it because of the unfunded mandates that it imposes on the States … which, BTW, will probably file legal action to prevent it.
It may not be the end of the world but it is the end of any American-led human exploration of Space beyond LEO. You can kiss that goodbye now. Soon the US will not be able to afford much more than a few satellites. Now we’re seeing the real reason, the one I suspected all along, behind Obama ending HSF (Human Space Flight) beyond LEO. He’ll need every penny to spend elsewhere. He’s just looking for a graceful way out.
Maybe my future grandchildren will see humans return to the Moon or go to Mars but they won’t be speaking English unless we hitch a ride with the Chinese or Russians.
For those supporters of HSR (High Speed Rail), it’ll be next on the chopping block.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:46 am
There is nothing “Bizarro Planet” over watching elected Representatives debate (ad nauseum) over a bill, and then take a vote at which the majority wins.
Regarding the Founding Fathers, one of them, Thomas Paine, proposed paying the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age. Sounds like Social Security to me.
Regarding “dependency” – we’ve had Medicare for quite some time, and I don’t see those receipients being at all bashful about criticizing the government.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:48 am
Gene Earl (a new State-shtupper to this blog, I think) writes in response to one of my posts: “The GOP’s current strategy is to simply oppose everything the DEMS want to get done, hoping that the resulting mess will get the GOP back in the sadle. Now, that’s really helping our country….” What would help our country is more liberty and less statism. Have no idea if the GOP’s strategy is as you describe; you’d better ask a registered Republican. about that. As long as the Democratic Party is dominated by Il Dufe and his anti-liberty appartchiks, then, yes, I’d say opposing every theing the Dems wnt is good for our country, since everything the Dems want seems to result in less liberty.
“Do you think the current mess the health care is in is good for our individual liberty? We are completely at the mercy of the companies. What liberty?”
You have the liberty of not dealing with the insurance companies. Try not dealing with the State. Then send us a post from prison.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:50 am
Yes, Bilwick, but “the liberty of not dealing with the insurance companies” means not getting serious, life-threatening conditions treated….or getting them treated and then having to file for bankruptcy as a result. Get real, here.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:50 am
So Chris, because Thomas Paine once proposed a plan that has parallels to Social Security, that made him and every other Found Father a proto-statist? You and Jim seemed to have both studied history and logic at Bizarro Planet University.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:55 am
“Yes, Bilwick, but “the liberty of not dealing with the insurance companies” means not getting serious, life-threatening conditions treated….or getting them treated and then having to file for bankruptcy as a result. Get real, here.”
I am real. The insurance companies can force me to give them money, or threaten me with jail if I don’t comply. If you equate not providing you with a good or service at a price or under the terms you like, with being able to initiate physical force, your ethics are seriously skewed.
By the way, just as an intellectual exercise in Bizarro Planet logic, if I own an insurance company, and I choose not to provide you with insurance at a price you like, or under the conditions you’d like, an you show me logically why you have the right to force me to do so?
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:56 am
Correction of a type: obviously I meant the “insurance companies can['t] force me to give them money” . . . although on Bizarro Planet, where these State-fellators live (in their heads), apparently they can do so. Must be hell living on Bizarro Planet.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:59 am
I’m always amused with the collectivists quote Tom Paine. Because they can find no others among the founders in the slightest sympathy with them.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:59 am
We are completely at the mercy of the companies.
No. Companies are regulated by the consumer, unless… Government steps in with mandates to screw that up. The only exception is antitrust.
Competition is good; Anti-competition is something the government can fight to the benefit of all.
You are blinded by the individual evil that a company can be. With competition, that evil is greatly limited.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:01 am
It certainly does not. Paine was a radical at heart; he was for change for the sake of change.
Of course, you won’t find that on a Social Security propaganda website (rolleyes), so that will be news to some.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:03 am
Uninsured people are a drain on the economy, and are a big reason premiums are so high. So a person who refuses to be insured SHOULD be charged a fee for doing so. It’s no different than the requirement that if you’re going to drive you have to have your automobile insured….if you’re going to live, you have to have your health insured. Private insurers are still going to be in competition for your business, only now they won’t be able to rake in profits by refusing people the services they’ve paid for.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:04 am
“I’m always amused with the collectivists quote Tom Paine. Because they can find no others among the founders in the slightest sympathy with them.”
They wouldn’t even find Paine synmpathizing with them much. If you read COMMON SENSE, it’s clear if Paine were alive today, they’d be ganging up on him for promoting “hate speech.” When it came to arguing against staism (hoever inconsistently) Paine made Rush Limbaugh look like Ned Flanders.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:07 am
Rand – there is this idea that “The Founders” all shared the same ideas about government. That’s simply not the case – they ran all the way from radicals like Sam Adams and Tom Paine to conservatives like George Washington. They all had different visions of what “good government” looked like. Since health care in their time was ineffective at best, we have no idea what they would have thought about the current plan.
Bilwick1 – you can choose not to deal with insurance companies. Unfortunately, that choice probably means “early death” since very few people can sell-insure for serious medical treatments. Freedom to get sick and die doesn’t sound like a good deal to me.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:09 am
Rand – there is this idea that “The Founders” all shared the same ideas about government.
It’s not my idea. Yet another straw man from Chris.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:10 am
Here’s my radical health-care platform: I provide for my health care as I choose, and you provide for your health care as I choose. It’s called “a free society.” Think you can wrap that Aristotelian intellect aroudn that concept, Ethan?
As for the uninsured, all the wealthy “liberals”(statists) who bankrolled Il Dufe in his climb to power ( the Beverly Hills Bolshies, the Park Avenue Pinkos, etc.) could take the money they now channel into ant-libertarian causes and candidates, they could just buy every uninsured person a decent insurance policy. Soros, Oprah and the Kennedys alone could handle that, no problem.
AND THEN LEAVE THE REST OF US THE F**K ALONE! Is that too much to ask, Ethan?
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:16 am
“Since health care in their time was ineffective at best, we have no idea what they would have thought about the current plan.” Unless you actually read what they wrote and said about liberty-versus-statism in genera; and not only that, but read the writers who inspired them (Locke, the Radical Whigs of England). Then it’s pretty easy to extrapolate.
“Freedom to get sick and die doesn’t sound like a good deal to me.” Yeah, we get it, Chris. Freedom isn’t high on your scale of values. You’d gladly take the Grand Inquisitor’s deal (see THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV.) Having Mommy and Daddy State take care of you is your highest value. Like Jim, you’re the Bizarro Planet Spartacus.
,
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:16 am
You’re a crazy-person if you really believe all that. Either crazy or damn paranoid.
Oprah should be forced to pay for covering the uninsured, but it’s fascism if your taxes have to go up by thirty cents a month!
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:18 am
Oprah should be forced to pay for covering the uninsured
What a stupid misinterpretation of what he wrote.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:19 am
“As for the uninsured, all the wealthy “liberals”(statists) who bankrolled Il Dufe in his climb to power ( the Beverly Hills Bolshies, the Park Avenue Pinkos, etc.) could take the money they now channel into ant-libertarian causes and candidates, they could just buy every uninsured person a decent insurance policy”
Yeah, Rand?
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:24 am
“Could” != “should be forced to.”
Only a mindless collectivist would so misinterpret plain English in such a way. Because they like to force people to do things. It’s called “projection.”
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:26 am
We shouldn’t regulate those good and decent folks that run the insurance industry, they can spend as much as they like on political lobbying. But wealthy private citizens should just butt out, or we’ll turn into 1970’s Russia!
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:27 am
Sweet bleeding Tu Pac, you’d think the drones would at least take one day off for their victory circle-jerk and leave the rest of us alone in peace. Their mouths open and Obama’s voice booms forth like some twisted Orwellian drive-thru clown. It’s like they must convince themselves even harder that they’re rooting for the right thing.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:27 am
“Only a mindless collectivist would so misinterpret plain English in such a way. Because they like to force people to do things. It’s called “projection.””
Your calling me a collectivist would be another example of projection.
All I did was throw his hyperbole right back at him.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:31 am
Yes, Rand, Ethan seems to have either a serious reading-comprehension disability, or like most State-shtuppers, deliberate distorts
“Your calling me a collectivist would be another example of projection.”
So Rand is a collectivist now? Judging by the Obama butt-boys posting here, things on Bizarro Planet seems to get weirder every day,
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:34 am
All I did was throw his hyperbole right back at him.
No, all you did was lie about what he wrote. It’s not “hyperbole” to say that Oprah could take care of a lot of sick people. It’s a factual statement. You really need to take a course in logic. And English.
So Rand is a collectivist now?
Apparently, like the word “could,” Ethan doesn’t understand the meaning of “projection,” either.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:37 am
Although actually, if you did force Soros, Oprah and all the rich “liberals” to pay for poor people’s insurance, what moral argument could Ethan make against that without contradicting themselves? They’re the wealthy, the poor people have needs, etc.
I like the idea Joseph Sobran jokingly proposed years ago. That the government issue script to poor peoplem reading “Good for one meal, payable by an liberal.” If you believe in icome redistribution, redistribute your own income, chief.
And then, as I proposed earlier, LEAVE THE REST OF US THE F**K ALONE!
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:39 am
My income is already redistributed, through the income, medicare, and social security taxes. So’s yours.
And Rand, I really tire of this tactic of insulting someone’s understanding of the English language. Can’t you have one comment thread that doesn’t devolve into semantics and name calling?
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:40 am
It’s like they must convince themselves even harder that they’re rooting for the right thing.
I think that’s definitely a big part of it. Looking at how this thread had disintegrated so fast… and we’ve already got “fascism” in the mix… Smells of self-doubt to me.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:43 am
And Rand, I really tire of this tactic of insulting someone’s understanding of the English language.
There’s a simple solution to that. Either stop misinterpreting the English language, or comment at a different web site. I have a low tolerance for that kind of bullsh!t here.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:44 am
“I have a low tolerance for that kind of bullsh!t here.”
Oh Boy! Here comes RANDSIMBERG, layin’ down the law like it’s his job!
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:47 am
Oh please, spare me that nonsense. I didn’t misinterpret the English language, I used a rhetorical technique to counter Bilwick’s use of a similar one. You see what you want to see when it comes to the commenters who aren’t in lock-step with you. I can’t be the loyal opposition…I have to be a collectivist pinko state-fucker, and illiterate to boot!
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:49 am
State-FALLATOR, Ethan. Not State-Fucker. Sheesh.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:50 am
*FELLATOR. Can’t have RANDSIMBERG and the English Language Police jumping on my sex typo.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:51 am
I used a rhetorical technique to counter Bilwick’s use of a similar one.
No, you deliberately implied that he wrote something that he didn’t. That’s called a straw man argument, and it’s one of the lowest rhetorical tactics in the book, albeit effective with the ignorant or those of low mental acuity (which is why Obama and the Democrats engage in it so much). And you implied that I’m a collectivist, even if you don’t understand what the word “projection” means. If you’re going to engage in such odious tactics, expect to be called on them.
layin’ down the law like it’s his job!
It’s my web site, you anonymous moron. If you don’t like it, no one makes you read it, or comment here, either.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:53 am
“no one makes you read it, or comment here, either.”
This is entirely true. But, man, it feels so fucking great.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:56 am
I was pointing out the nonsense he was using to make his little Oprah joke. Pointing out that it wasn’t funny, in other words. But you’re determined to see it as an ODIOUS attempt by me to twist his words for evil. Whatever.
And I wasn’t calling you a collectivist, I was laughing at you for calling ME one. What you were projecting wasn’t “collectivist leanings” of your own, it was your tendency to demonize and belittle those who disagree with you.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:58 am
Ethan,
As an Anonymous Moron, I feel I have the obligation to tell you that your understanding of the English language is severely flawed.
That is all.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:00 am
I was pointing out the nonsense he was using to make his little Oprah joke. Pointing out that it wasn’t funny, in other words.
No, you were “pointing out” that he was proposing that Oprah be forced to contribute. In other words, you were lying.
And I wasn’t calling you a collectivist, I was laughing at you for calling ME one.
If you really think that the things you write should be interpreted in the way you intend them, then you need to work on your writing skills as well as reading. Because we can only read what you actually write. We’re not mind readers. That’s constructive criticism. And again, if you don’t like it, no one makes you either read or write at this site.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:01 am
“My name is Richie Cunningham, and this is my lovely wife, Oprah” -Austin Powers, International Man…of Mystery.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:02 am
And that’s being charitable. Worst case it’s gratuitous boot-stomping-on-a-face-forever from the self-described party of compassion. Talk about your sore-winners. Way to win-over converts, boys.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:04 am
Allow me to quote what I just wrote, in the hopes that this time you’ll understand me:
“you’re determined to see it as an ODIOUS attempt by me to twist his words for evil. Whatever.”
“What you were projecting wasn’t “collectivist leanings” of your own, it was your tendency to demonize and belittle those who disagree with you.”
I didn’t expect YOU to find it funny, naturally. But I did.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:10 am
You shouldn’t have expected any intelligent person to find it funny.
By the way, I’ve done something unusual (I’ve only done it a few times in the history of this blog). I’ve banned “Mark,” because he has never added any value to the discussion — only subtracted. And in the past (assuming that it’s the same “Mark”– the style seems similar), his only purpose in commenting is to attack or insult me.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:12 am
Based on his latest (9:04 am) post, Ethan is not only promulgating Bizarro Planet history, economics and logic, he’s now writing in Bizarro-ese, a language only comprehensible to people from his home planet.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:24 am
Some good news, finally!
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:24 am
Yes, my home planet of New Jersey. Where up is down and black is white. Where sarcasm is meant as malicious twisting of words and no one understands English.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:42 am
So, you don’t understand the meaning of the word “sarcasm,” either…
As evidenced by the election results last year, most of your fellow Garden State residents would seem to be smarter than you.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:43 am
Great news about Mark. I was about to point out that the law of this blog is Rands. Until the government begins regulating the internet like healthcare; everybody is free to create their own blog where they can suggest “could” means “should”. Fortunately, freedom still exists in some places, so if you come here and say stupid things; expect to be called stupid and consider how fortunate it is that somebody is willing to spend time correcting you.
As far as the healthcare bill passed… it’s not like the Senate bill, so I don’t understand how the President can sign anything other than the Senate bill. All the game playing will only add to the number of ways this law can fail judicial review. And I believe in the interim, the Democrats will pay the price at the polls in November.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:54 am
Have you looked at Christie’s approval rating lately, Rand? New Jersey has spent the last few months uttering a collective “oops.” I voted for him, too.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:55 am
You mean you’re shocked that he’s going to rein in an out-of-control government, something that he ran on?
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:58 am
Seriously? Stick to whatever passes for politics in California.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:02 am
He’s cutting government jobs, but he’s cutting the wrong ones….think DMV employees instead of the six-figure-salaried, eighth secretary to state representative X. He’s cutting the budget but in the wrong places…think education instead of wasteful programs. And he’s as corrupt a governor as any we’ve had, not that this should surprise any of us. New Jersey…one state, under indictment.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 am
Given the existence of the teachers’ union, education is a wasteful program. Counterproductive, in fact. And what corruption are you talking about?
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:09 am
Debating NJ politics with a guy from California seems a bit ridiculous to me…it doesn’t to you?
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:13 am
Not necessarily. There’s no reason that someone in California couldn’t pay closer attention to Jersey politics than someone living in New Jersey. But it is off topic for this post.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:13 am
As far as the healthcare bill passed… it’s not like the Senate bill, so I don’t understand how the President can sign anything other than the Senate bill.
You are misinformed. The House voted for the Senate bill, verbatim, and the President will sign it. Call that one Bill #1.
The House also voted on a separate bill, call it Bill #2, that makes a number of budget-related changes to Bill #1. If the Senate also passes bill #2, the President can sign it too, and those changes will become law. If the Senate doesn’t, the unmodified Bill #1 will be law.
The Senate is expected to pass Bill #2 because it’s a reconciliation measure, and therefore can be passed with a simple majority, and over 50 Senators have signed a letter promising to vote for it.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:18 am
You can kiss that goodbye now. Soon the US will not be able to afford much more than a few satellites.
Did you miss the news that health care reform actually reduces the deficit?
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 am
So they finally pushed it through. Vast amounts of ink, bits, bytes will be expended in numerous rants against this health care reform as right wingers everywhere vent their spleens. In a couple of days it will go back to the previous usual traffic. In a couple of months few people will care about it.
If the Republicans get a majority, which is likely although I doubt it will be overwhelming as some here wish for, at most the program will be renamed and changed in form while content remains basically the same.
Sorry folks but that is reality. People cannot bother themselves out of the sofa to power off their TV screens to save electricity. Let alone bother doing the math on which health care scheme is working better when costs are opaque at best.
If the Democrats lose the majority it will be because they neither got out of Iraq or Afghanistan in time, or because the economy did not bounce back quickly enough, regardless of health care.
The natural tendency is for increasing state social support. As productivity increases and jobs get automated a lot of people will feel disenfranchised by the system otherwise.
If anything these changes are increasing, rather than decreasing, as time goes by. It used to be that most people worked in agriculture, then it was industry, then services. Now even services are getting automated. So what is the future? Entertainment?
Barring a societal implosion due to external factors that is IMO the most likely scenario.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 am
Education as counterproductive and wasteful, because of the existence of a union? Our public schools are fantastic, and students and teachers alike benefit from the existence of the NJEA. But anyway: Off topic.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 am
“rhetorical technique” = contextually irrational sentence formation (?) Win!
Perhaps if you can show how your ‘logic’ built upon the ‘evidence’ from the discusison shows how Rand is “projecting” his alleged collectivist tendencies we’ll all take your arguments a bit more seriously.
As an example from this thread:
While Rand’s argument that you are collectivist did have some similarity to a fallacious argument from intimidation, the intimidation part was just gravy. The argument was fairly intuitive: 1.Ethan used “should be forced to” rather than the original author’s comment “could” (factual evidence), 2. Ethan used this terminology in reference to taking wealth from those who generated it and giving it to those who did not (a collectivist ideal), 3. collectivists prefer the use of state force over individual initiative (common knowledge, look at history), 4. collectivists desire to spread the (other peoples) wealth (i.e. equalizing outcomes), a postion with which Ethan just exhibited sympathy, and 5. Projecting is the unconscious act of denial of a person’s own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world,…or other people. Therefore, assuming Ethan is not ignorant of the meaning of what he has written, he is a projecting collectivist. QED.
Dont’ forget to check your premises!
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:23 am
“people who value dependency over liberty.”
Do explain how government-guaranteed private student loans foster liberty to such a degree that they’re worth giving $6 billion a year to politically-connected bankers. For context, that’s equivalent to nearly 1/3 of the NASA budget.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:25 am
Did you miss the news that health care reform actually reduces the deficit?
If you believe that, I have a bridge on the moon for you, half off today.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 am
CBO = GIGO
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
Jim – are you asking non-statists to explain a statist measure?
Or are you making an uncharacteristic comment that state interference in the economy leads to corruption?
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:33 am
““rhetorical technique” = contextually irrational sentence formation (?) Win!
Perhaps if you can show how your ‘logic’ built upon the ‘evidence’ from the discusison shows how Rand is “projecting” his alleged collectivist tendencies we’ll all take your arguments a bit more seriously.
As an example from this thread:
While Rand’s argument that you are collectivist did have some similarity to a fallacious argument from intimidation, the intimidation part was just gravy. The argument was fairly intuitive: 1.Ethan used “should be forced to” rather than the original author’s comment “could” (factual evidence), 2. Ethan used this terminology in reference to taking wealth from those who generated it and giving it to those who did not (a collectivist ideal), 3. collectivists prefer the use of state force over individual initiative (common knowledge, look at history), 4. collectivists desire to spread the (other peoples) wealth (i.e. equalizing outcomes), a postion with which Ethan just exhibited sympathy, and 5. Projecting is the unconscious act of denial of a person’s own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world,…or other people. Therefore, assuming Ethan is not ignorant of the meaning of what he has written, he is a projecting collectivist. QED.
Dont’ forget to check your premises!”
Are you serious with this stuff? Your complete misinterpretation of my intentions with that post is beyond infuriating, considering I explained myself at length afterwards.
Am I really going to have to explain that I wasn’t saying Rand had collectivist leanings…yet again?
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:38 am
Am I really going to have to explain that I wasn’t saying Rand had collectivist leanings…yet again?
Apparently, since your first attempts at explaining it weren’t satisfactory to those familiar with English and logic. We all read what you wrote, and understood it, even if you didn’t. Why don’t you just give up?
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 am
Jim,
I’m not mistaken. I stated in a previous thread that they would have to vote for the Senate Bill. And as I said in this thread:
I don’t understand how the President can sign anything other than the Senate bill.
Pelosi is out trying to convince people that the reconcilliation bill will be the eventual outcome. That’s what the Democrats were selling all last week. And as I pointed out in the previous thread; those who believed it will be deemed unworthy to hold an elected position as dog catcher.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:57 am
“Oprah should be forced to pay for covering the uninsured, but it’s fascism if your taxes have to go up by thirty cents a month!”
It was meant to be nothing but hyperbole. I wrote it in haste, and accidentally changed one word. And now…now I’ve been flayed open like so much rotten meat, my inner communist, my secret shame, visible for all the other commenters at Transterrestrial. I should have known I could not keep my collectivist beliefs secret from the keen minds in these comment threads, and I kick myself now for letting that one word give me away!
^ Sarcasm. Heavy.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:57 am
[...] Transterrestrial, who points to other things that must be said: I haven’t much to say except to that what happened [...]
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:04 am
Leland – they did vote for the Senate bill. I saw it on TV. They then voted for amendments. I saw that one on TV. Now, supposedly 52 Senators have signed a letter stating that they will pass the second House bill under reconciliation.
Unless the 52 Senators are lying (doubtful – they need the House to do anything) or fail (possible, but they obviously think otherwise) thinking that the House fixes will pass is reasonable.
Of course, considering that the House fixes take out all of the special deals that this blog has bitched about for months, you’d think that the Republicans would pass it in a New York minute. Unless of course they just want to be the Party of No ™.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:12 am
I don’t know why you overemphasize the projection issue, unless it is a feeble attempt at obfuscation.
Projection is a just a silly psychological shortcomming (which you insist was a mistake of your intention-to-writing converter), compared to the gaping philosophical abyss that is your embrace of collectivism.
If you want to convince people you aren’t a collectivist, you need to do more than show you weren’t projecting – you need to renounce the idea that government exists for anything more than the protection of individual rights. Starting with your comments that we should all be taxed to provide for other people’s healthcare.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:13 am
Ten state AGs are going to be suing on various grounds.
Oh man, this hash is going to be settled long before the bulk of this beast kicks-in. Maybe they’ll want to slip an acceleration amendment into the public option bill.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:20 am
We’re already taxed for other people’s healthcare, Ryan. And my last post was perhaps lost on you, but it was an attempt to mock Rand’s pop-psychology insistence that I’m actually a collectivist, and that my stupid comment was somehow revealing.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:22 am
I mean, seriously? “Projection is a just a silly psychological shortcomming (which you insist was a mistake of your intention-to-writing converter), compared to the gaping philosophical abyss that is your embrace of collectivism.”
I don’t embrace collectivism…that was Rand reading way too much into a tossed-off remark.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:23 am
If enough states want to fight this, I’d prefer they instigate a constitutional convention. It would give us a much better opportunity to cut out the system-wide rot that has infected our government in the last 100+ years. Addressing specifics in the Obamacare bill with precise legal action will be like trying to plug the little holes in the dike with your fingers, when the water is already cresting the top.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:24 am
We’re already taxed for other people’s healthcare, Ryan.
What’s your point? That doesn’t make it not collectivist.
I didn’t say you were a collectivist because you were projecting it on me. I said you are a collectivist because you have expressed collectivist beliefs (that we should all be forced to pay for your health care).
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:28 am
Not mine, I already have it through my employer. I’m lucky like that. I just hope my premiums come down with this new bill like they’re supposed to!
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:30 am
Let’s not go crazy now – that opens the floodgates to wholesale destruction of any and all rights we presently enjoy. I will take the principles of our Founders over those of our contemporaries. It’s not even close.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:31 am
I saw it on TV.
Did you ever see when David Copperfield made the big jet disappear on TV? I bet you believed he really made it vanish, after all, you saw it on TV!
Unless the 52 Senators are lying
That would surprise you?
Of course, considering that the House fixes take out all of the special deals that this blog has bitched about for months, you’d think that the Republicans would pass it in a New York minute.
Moron, the deals were there to get Democrats to accept it. They were trying to buy off enough Democrats to get a majority. I know that’s hard for you to understand, because you believe in unicorns and this nonsense: “Health Care Reform, passed with all American’s voices and intended to fund desired and needed health care.”
The House didn’t fix anything. They passed the Senate Bill. Then they passed a meaningless document that is supposed to look like they don’t agree with the Senate Bill unless certain changes are made. If the Reconciliation Bill really meant anything, then Obama would refuse to sign the Senate Bill until the Senate passes the Reconciliation Bill. Instead, Obama is waiting an entire 24 hours before he signs the Senate Bill without Reconciliation.
Oh yeah, did I mention that a certain Senator promised that if President, he would post all legislation on his website for 5 days prior to signing it? I bet you thought he wasn’t lying too!
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:31 am
My comment had nothing to do with what Rand said, except that it is in agreement.
I’m not making an appeal to authority. Collectivist sympathies are apparent in what you write – nearly all your posts in reference to the content of this thread.
And yes, we are already taxed to pay for other people’s healthcare – which is morally abhorrent and a great example of our current tyranny of the majority. Is the existence of that fact supposed to be moral justification for it? You didn’t offer an argument there.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 am
So Ethan ISN’T a colectivist? He sure is doing a good impression of one.
Maybe he’thinks he’s a libertarian. Chris Gerrib once said he was a libertarian. Apparently on Bizarro Planet, libertarians advocate greater State power and reduced individual liberty.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:38 am
Jim asks me:
“Do explain how government-guaranteed private student loans foster liberty to such a degree that they’re worth giving $6 billion a year to politically-connected bankers. For context, that’s equivalent to nearly 1/3 of the NASA budget.”
Have no idea what your point is, or what argument you’re trying to advance. Maybe you should address your question to someone who actually things the government should be in the loan-guarenteeing business.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:41 am
Ethan at 8:03am–”Uninsured people are a drain on the economy, and are a big reason premiums are so high.”
Excuse me, Ethan. When I get a bill from my doctor, or the dentist, or the hospital, I PAY IT!! If I can’t pay all of it right away, I will work out terms with the institution to pay it over time, with interest. You called me a thief, sir, and I would like an apology.
I am very tired of being called EEEVIL because I don’t have health insurance to pay my bills for me.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:41 am
I’m socially very liberal, economically I’m more in the center. I don’t have a problem with things like the current healthcare bill, which strikes me as a series of commonsense fixes to the problems of our system. History will either bear this out, or it won’t. I think it will. You obviously do not. I don’t advocate for greater state power in our lives, but I do feel that things like healthcare, food and drug quality, education and the environment are things I’d rather a government keep an eye on. In other words, the government should regulate quality-of-life issues, not content-of-life issues.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:41 am
Titus –
It may very well open the floodgates, for good or ill. But you don’t currently have the choice between the principles of our founders and those of the last 100 years. Today, you only get those of the last 100 years.
A constitutional convention could either re-embrace those principles of a government instituted among men to preserve individual rights, or it will provide ample evidence to those who love liberty that they should prepare to go elsewhere if they want to keep it. Either case would beat living under this kudzu of creeping rights destruction.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:43 am
I hope you at least have car insurance, or heaven help anyone who gets in an accident with you. And you’re apparently very fortunate, either to have such good health that your bills are so affordable, or to have the money to cover yourself like that.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:44 am
How do you decouple “quality of life” from “content of life”
They seem inextricably linked to me.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:46 am
Food purity and the availability of affordable healthcare and education are quality of life issues. Abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, etc, are content of life issues.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:46 am
Rand, if you’re starting an extraterrestrial bridge brokerage, I have a beautiful one for you on mars: http://www.naturalarches.org/gallery-mars.htm
(Titus, if you’re reading this, you get your wish from me — I’m too happy to argue today.)
Oh, and don’t forget to support libertarian republican Tea Party candidate Scott Tillman for state rep, Michigan’s 100th district !
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:53 am
Ryan, I’ll keep your idea in mind for after the next crisis war and if-and-only-if the statists solidly lose.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
I don’t advocate for greater state power in our lives
[laughing]
You do say funny things, Ethan, but only inadvertently.
…but I do feel that things like healthcare, food and drug quality, education and the environment are things I’d rather a government keep an eye on.
In other words, you’re a collectivist. And one who, like many other words, doesn’t understand what the word means.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:59 am
It isn’t collectivism, it’s centrism. You’re trying to pin a radical label on what are actually moderate, nuanced political stances. Although compared to your political leanings nearly everyone must look like a raging Trotskyite.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Nope, I didn’t think I’d get an apology. And for your information, Ethan, I do have car insurance, though it is none of your business.
Apparently, Ethan’s reaction to being called out for insulting someone is to add more insults.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:11 pm
If you’re able to afford medical coverage without insurance then you’re lucky. Hell, if you can get a doctor to see you that isn’t in the ER without insurance you’re very lucky. It’s the ones who can’t afford medical coverage and don’t have insurance that are a drain on the economy. And cause premiums to go up for the insured. So I apologize, I wasn’t aware there was an exception to the rule in our midst.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:14 pm
“Food purity and the availability of affordable healthcare and education are quality of life issues. Abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, etc, are content of life issues.”
So an arbitrary list of things you want to control and an arbitrary list of things you don’t want to control. No principles involved.
Makes about as much sense as I anticipated.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:14 pm
By the way, the analogy to auto insurance is idiotic.
a) there is no federal mandate, only state
b) it is only for liability to others, not yourself and
c) if you choose not to drive (which is a privilege, not a right), you don’t need it. In order to avoid the health-care mandate, you have to choose not to be a US citizen. It is unconstitutional.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:18 pm
In order to avoid the healthcare mandate, you have to pay a small fee. Small price to pay for jacking up everyone else’s premiums, in my opinion.
And my list was not arbitrary, healthcare education and food purity are obviously quality of life issues. A sick ignorant person with salmonella poisoning is not going to make much of himself. As for the things I want government to stay out of…they’re things that hurt no one if they go unregulated. If a healthy, educated person wants to marry someone of the same sex, it’s none of my business. If a healthy, educated person wants to kill him or herself with heroin, it’s none of my business.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“It’s the ones who can’t afford medical coverage and don’t have insurance that are a drain on the economy.”
You’ve misunderstood the economic problem. It should read:
“It’s our insistence on forcing medical care providers to provide service to those that can’t or won’t pay for it, and looting from taxpayers to pay for it, that is a drain on the economy.”
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“In order to avoid the healthcare mandate, you have to pay a small fee. Small price to pay for jacking up everyone else’s premiums, in my opinion.” Emphasis on the last phrase. And your right to force your choices on the rest of society derives from . . .?
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
“It isn’t collectivism, it’s centrism.”
Is this the new party line? Define collectivism as “centrism”? How would the “New Centrism” differ from the Old Collectivism, then?
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
The effects of Earth’s yellow sun on my Bizarro World physiology.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
“I don’t advocate for greater state power in our lives. . . .”,
But you ARE advocationg it, Blanche, you are!
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Actually, I almost agree with Ethan – forcing me to sacrifice any portion of my life to provide for other people’s healthcare, education, and food purity does decrease my quality of life. I just draw a different conclusion – government needs to keep out of any and all such economic decisions.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:24 pm
It isn’t new centrism it’s old centrism. A position somewhere between the socialist ideal (single payer, state-run healthcare), and the far right ideal (unregulated health system, every man for himself).
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Ryan, do you actually believe that unregulated capitalism would result in a better life for anyone? Do you know what life was like before the formation of institutions like the FDA and OSHA?
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
So.. unprincipled position. Merely the gray, polluted amalgam of other people’s principles.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Ethan, I objected to your blanket statement that EVERYONE without health insurance is a “drain on the economy”, which implied that they don’t pay their medical bills. If what you meant was those who use the services of the ERs and don’t pay, that is a different set of people.
I accept your apology, sarcastic as it was.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:30 pm
It isn’t unprincipled, it’s moderate. A single-payer system would be too radical for me, and an unregulated free-for-all would be too radical for me. I’m not in favor of a nanny state but I’m certainly not an anarchist.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:33 pm
“Ryan, do you actually believe that unregulated capitalism would result in a better life for anyone? “
Hell yes. Everyone even.
“Do you know what life was like before the formation of institutions like the FDA and OSHA?”
I take it by your insinuation that OSHA and the FDA have done great things for our quality of life, given the alternative of never having the burden their existence? Sounds like you’ve just accepeted a burden of proof. Care to provide any evidence?
I’m not likely to just accept your assertion that these government agencies ‘do great things(tm)’ and perform services that can only be provided by taking my life’s work by force.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Jim said:
“Protecting people in the individual insurance market from outrageous premium hikes,”
Ethan said:
“I just hope my premiums come down with this new bill like they’re supposed to!”
Show me the statutory language that does this.
I read paragraph (1) of subsection 2701(a) to require that within a given rating area, a high risk, adult, non-smoking policy-holder cannot be charged a premium that is more than double that charged to a low risk, adult, non-smoking policy-holder, and to be a complete enumeration of factors that providers are permitted to consider when setting premium rates. It says nothing at all about what the rates can actually be.
I read paragraph (1) of subsection 2718(b) to require a rebate of non-claims cost in excess of 20%, 25% for the small group/individual market, of total premium revenue. After January, 2014 these numbers decrease to 15%, and 20% respectively. Since I expect claim costs to dramatically increase in proportion to a less dramatic increase in premium revenue, I don’t expect this to provide much protection from premium increases.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Funny, you are exactly advocating a nanny state – a state the provides “quality of life” protections for all its citizens (except its an evil nanny, because she pays for it from their looted life’s production).
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Ever read “The Jungle,” by Upton Sinclair, Ryan? Although I suppose that’s just liberal propaganda in your estimation, not a great work of expose journalism.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:39 pm
I am amazed at those of you who are SO happy to turn more of your dwindling store of choice over to a government that has run every entitlement it has enacted into the ground and created mountains of red ink.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:12 pm
A correction to my last comment: The Jungle’s a novel, I misspoke. But it is based on the author’s own observations and experiences.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
And Bill…I don’t see how the bill just passed limits healthcare choice. I’m going to have the same insurance plan I’ve had for years now, but with the added benefit of keeping that insurance if I actually get sick and need serious help.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I am amazed at those of you who are SO happy to turn more of your dwindling store of choice over to a government that has run every entitlement it has enacted into the ground
Most people don’t see being denied coverage, or not being able to afford it, as the sort of choice worth preserving.
And the government’s track record is better than your description. Social Security has slashed elderly poverty and is in decent fiscal shape. Medicare Part D has ended up costing less than forecast. Medicare is a budget-buster, but its costs have risen more slowly than those in the private health care market, suggesting that the problem isn’t with the government, and the just-passed bill is the first serious attempt to rein in its growth.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:36 pm
The Recon bill promises to stop short-changing doctors, so there goes that one.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
And the government’s track record is better than your description. Social Security has slashed elderly poverty and is in decent fiscal shape.
I beg to differ; the SSI scam has already started calling in its markers from Treasury (the ones issued when the “lockbox” was raided starting in the Sixties). Problem is, there’s nothing but cobwebs in the Treasury either. So the only way to pay out to seniors is to print money with nothing backing it. And with low prospects for anything to back it in the near term, as businesses still haven’t stopped shedding net jobs.
Hello, stagflation! Or should that be “Welcome back, Carter?”
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Medicare is a budget-buster, but its costs have risen more slowly than those in the private health care market, suggesting that the problem isn’t with the government, and the just-passed bill is the first serious attempt to rein in its growth.
Ridiculous. The costs are the same because the treatments are the same. The price paid is less, because the government has, again, by fiat declared that it’s willing to pay only so much for any given treatment, a value less than the cost of the treatment.
Jim, all due respect, but we’ve had this discussion before! Your continued assertions to the contrary will not change the facts that you cannot drain from the container faster than you input, and still have any substance in the container indefinitely!
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:05 pm
If Congress passed a law that said everyone would henceforth be required to accept welfare benefits regardless of need or want, with the IRS empowered to enforce said law, what would be the reaction, d’you suppose?
Because that’s what this amounts to. Private health insurance carriers are going to be driven out of business by this enormous, Congress-created market distortion (the same kind of market distortion that led to every other “crisis” this maladministration has used to enlarge the feral gummint) so that the public option will be the next step, followed by the public option becoming the only option.
That Jim joins in the thunderous applause for this thing, proves just how wrong and harmful it really is.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:06 pm
THere’s been a lot of earthquakes lately … is Atlas Shrugging?
Hope you guys in Kalifornia have your emergency kits up to date, it’s gonna be a big one.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Bad link. Bad! No click for you. Try this good link.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Ethan – The Jungle was not “liberal” propaganda, it was socialist propaganda. Upton Sinclair was a socialist activist.
Is his story supposed to be a great example of the horrors of laissez faire capitalism run amok? Can you show me how Chicago and the meatpacking industry was ever laissez faire? And can you then show me why the market could not solve the problem of poor standards on its own?
And the same goes for Jim:
“…suggesting that the problem isn’t with the government”
Care to explain why you think you can make this assertion? Considering how much influence the government exerts on health providers, I don’t understand why you think it is proper to assert that increasing costs of privately financed healthcare is the fault of a capitalist market. Especially when the more “capitalist” (i.e. less regulated) types of healthcare related services (lasik, cosmetic surgery, etc.) have decreased in cost per procedure.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:14 pm
In order to avoid the healthcare mandate, you have to pay a small fee.
So what you’re saying here, Ethan, is it’s ok for me to stick a knife in you as long as it’s a small knife. But of course, you don’t get to choose, I’m choosing the knife size for you. This is clearly not an infringement on your liberty because I’m a compassionate guy and would only make you bleed a little.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:18 pm
…from Fox News…
Court just ordered release of high level Gitmo Al Queda! I suggest the middle of the Pacific Ocean… from ten thousand feet… no parachute.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:44 pm
So an arbitrary list of things you want to control and an arbitrary list of things you don’t want to control. No principles involved.
Makes about as much sense as I anticipated.
Sorry Mr. Libertarian, but you fall into the same category with 99% certainty. I always find it interesting how you Libertarians usually defend a standing army, state police, court system, prison system, etc, while everything else must certainly be free from state interference. Guess what bud, you are a collectivist as well, by your own definition. Why should I pay so you can defend your corporation’s interests abroad with military action? Or when you get kidnapped abroad? Or even when you get kidnapped in the US? I mean it’s your problem right? I am not being kidnapped right now. Never was. If I do not travel abroad, I do not get kidnapped abroad either. Why should I be paying for a service I do not need?
There used to be a time where there were no standing armies, that people were expected to defend their own country with their own resources. This is certainly not true now. It is also interesting to note that the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. You would think having the death penalty would take the edge off, but it sure does not seem to be working very well. The US is right there #1 in the Top 5 Countries With Most Incarcerations Per Capita List together with lovely countries such as Russia and Cuba. So is it preferable to pay to keep people in jail, rather than pay for their food, housing, medical expenses. Oh wait.
Sorry, but what separates you from us centrists (I consider myself one) or even, gasp, statists is a matter of degrees. There is a continuum from centrist to decentralized. Which is not to say there it is not important. But there is little I hate more than faux puritanism.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Let’s not go crazy now – that opens the floodgates to wholesale destruction of any and all rights we presently enjoy.
Keep in mind that the left is concentrated in just a few states, the majority are red (red doesn’t seem correct, does it?) The danger would be the introduction of social issues that don’t belong in the constitution.
It may be safer now than later, who knows?
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Private health insurance carriers are going to be driven out of business
Nonsense, they’re getting 32 million new customers. Look at the stock prices for major insurers from January (when health reform looked dead) to today — they’re doing fine.
If you’re sure that you understand this better than the shareholders, and are willing to put your money where your mouth is, you could make a lot of money by shorting them.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Care to explain why you think you can make this assertion? Considering how much influence the government exerts on health providers, I don’t understand why you think it is proper to assert that increasing costs of privately financed healthcare is the fault of a capitalist market.
If government insurance were at fault for rising costs, you’d see costs rising faster in public insurance programs (like Medicare) than in private ones. Instead you see the reverse.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:05 pm
The costs are the same because the treatments are the same. The price paid is less, because the government has, again, by fiat declared that it’s willing to pay only so much for any given treatment, a value less than the cost of the treatment.
There is no such thing as the true price of a treatment, there is just what the payer is willing to pay and what the provider is willing to accept. Private insurers are only willing to pay a certain amount, and Medicare is only willing to pay a certain amount, and sometimes (usually?) Medicare is not willing to pay as much. That’s hardly an argument against the government’s ability to control health care spending.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“There is no such thing as the true price of a treatment, there is just what the payer is willing to pay and what the provider is willing to accept.”
There is a true *cost*, however. If you, as a small business owner, were directed by law to sell whatever it is you sell below what it cost you to provide it, the issues would suddenly become clear to you.
Since you and your kind have opened the door to such abuses, that may actually happen.
Trotsky was as gleeful as you and some of the others on this list at the discomfiture of the middle class after the Russian Revolution. But he wound up with an ice axe buried in his skull in Mexico — an official act of government. Be careful what powers you bestow on your government….
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Mmmm… federal subsidies…. /homer
Looks like those “obscene” profits are about to get a little obscener…
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“Private insurers are only willing to pay a certain amount, and Medicare is only willing to pay a certain amount, and sometimes (usually?) Medicare is not willing to pay as much. That’s hardly an argument against the government’s ability to control health care spending.”
Which one is a government agency? That should be a clue what happens to the rest of us. What part of artificially creating a shortage and limiting payment will create a shortage, is a bad idea don’t you understand? Do you think smart, well educated people are going to stay in medicine and watch their salaries go down?
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Jim Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:02 pm
“If government insurance were at fault for rising costs, you’d see costs rising faster in public insurance programs (like Medicare) than in private ones. Instead you see the reverse.”
Or, you would expect to see costs rising faster in private insurance programs as medical practitioners try to recoup their loses from participating in the public program. Up to this time, more and more providers have been refusing to take new public plan patients. In the short term, there will be more attempts to do so, and more and more medical practitioners will retire early.
The next generation of medical practitioners will be fewer in number, as the incentive to practice after incurring a mountain of education debt is severely reduced. One can live large, for a time, by eating one’s seed corn, but the next harvest will be bleak.
” Private health insurance carriers are going to be driven out of business. Nonsense, they’re getting 32 million new customers.
And, you believe this will cost us less? There is only one way that increasing demand while discouraging supply will result in lower prices, and that is through government price controls, which inevitably produce rationing.
I am not against the ideal of making sure everyone has medical coverage. But, this approach is doomed to fail in the long run, and drive up our indebtedness and further depress the economy in the immediate term.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Private health insurance carriers are going to be driven out of business
Jim says: Nonsense
Using Jim’s method of rebuttal… I give you this.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
“So what you’re saying here, Ethan, is it’s ok for me to stick a knife in you as long as it’s a small knife. But of course, you don’t get to choose, I’m choosing the knife size for you. This is clearly not an infringement on your liberty because I’m a compassionate guy and would only make you bleed a little.”
This is a textbook strawman argument. Where’s Rand now?
And Ryan, companies will do whatever they can to make profits. Their goal is to make money, not to worry about their employees or the quality of their products. If you think the free market would have done away with brutal working conditions and diseased product without state intervention you’re deluding yourself. Look at China’s new free market economy…putting lead in our children’s toys and dangerous chemicals in our baby formula. American products are better and safer because of government regulation, not despite it. Look at Toyota’s rapid growth…followed by massive recalls. They made their profits by cutting corners. Who’s making sure the parties responsible are held to account? That’s right…the government.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:23 pm
This is a textbook strawman argument.
No, it’s an analogy. A bad one I admit. A strawman is a way to avoid responding to an argument by substitution of an easy target. Try again.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:31 pm
No, a strawman argument is when you oversimplify someone’s argument, then refute that oversimplification, as though that refutes the original argument. Which is exactly what you just did.
If it was supposed to be just an analogy, then you’re right…it was a really bad one.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:34 pm
If you think the free market would have done away with brutal working conditions and diseased product without state intervention you’re deluding yourself.
Call me delusional. It’s a matter of sensitivity. Assume the state did not intervene. Would today’s consumers buy a product from an American company that used child labor in a sweat shop environment? Not if they knew about it, which they would. This is an example of consumer regulation. No government regulation required. If you are going to counter by saying using child labor they could make a lower cost product I’d have to say you’re wrong about that as well. Skilled adult labor is going to outproduce child labor even adjusting for the cost differential. In other words, the higher labor price of the adult will still produce the product at a lower cost than the child. Consumers would not stand for it; even when consumers find out about a foreign child sweatshop most will stop buying the product.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:37 pm
No, a strawman argument is when you oversimplify someone’s argument, then refute that oversimplification, as though that refutes the original argument. Which is exactly what you just did.
Which is exactly what I did not do. Your definition is correct. Now show me where in my analogy I refute the oversimplification?
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:39 pm
“This is clearly not an infringement on your liberty because I’m a compassionate guy and would only make you bleed a little.” I thought you refuted the oversimplification quite nicely. Excellent use of sarcasm.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:50 pm
“Call me delusional. It’s a matter of sensitivity. Assume the state did not intervene. Would today’s consumers buy a product from an American company that used child labor in a sweat shop environment? Not if they knew about it, which they would. This is an example of consumer regulation. No government regulation required. If you are going to counter by saying using child labor they could make a lower cost product I’d have to say you’re wrong about that as well. Skilled adult labor is going to outproduce child labor even adjusting for the cost differential. In other words, the higher labor price of the adult will still produce the product at a lower cost than the child. Consumers would not stand for it; even when consumers find out about a foreign child sweatshop most will stop buying the product.”
Then why do countries without our sophisticated labor laws consistently employ children, and pay them next to nothing? Why are they working 16 hour days? I’d argue that the reason these things are considered repugnant today is that the government regulations and the media coverage of the controversy over them caused these things to be litigated in the public sphere, until people decided they had to stop. If people hadn’t stood up and said “We won’t work under these conditions,” and got the government to stand up for them, nothing would have changed.
In other words: Of COURSE today’s consumers wouldn’t stand for such things…because of the important decisions of our government in the past.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Thanks, I thought it quite clever.
Ethan: In order to avoid the healthcare mandate, you have to pay a small fee.
It appears you believe (and please correct me) that if the fee is small enough it’s not an infringement on liberty. What amount would that be? What amount if any would be an infringement?
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:59 pm
It isn’t about the size of the fee, it’s about the purpose of the fee. I see it as no more an infringement on liberty than any other tax.
For instance, I’m a pack a day smoker, and I don’t see the $7 I pay per pack in NJ to be an infringement on my liberty…because I know it’s bad for me, and I know that it makes me a drain on the healthcare system. The “sin tax” I pay on every pack is going to fund healthcare for poor children, among other things. And it was the people I voted for who put these taxes in place, which makes them perfectly constitutional.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Then why do countries without our sophisticated labor laws consistently employ children, and pay them next to nothing?
Why are they working 16 hour days?
You answered your own question… the media coverage Which is my point about consumer sensitivity which I believe is the natural result of affluence. An affluent society becomes sensitive to child abuse. It’s not that the government made some laws. If we were as poor as some of these countries, we’d have child sweatshops today regardless of any laws the government tried to impose. Paying next to nothing would be much more powerful an influence than any law. Affluence gives us the ability to be sensitive to the issue.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:01 pm
I see it as no more an infringement on liberty than any other tax.
There you go. All taxes are an infringement. The assumption is that some we consent to, such as national defense. By no stretch of the imagination can forcing healthy people to buy insurance be considered consent.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Sorry I missed this…
it was the people I voted for who put these taxes in place, which makes them perfectly constitutional.
Read that again slowly. If you vote for them, anything they do is constitutional? Tell me you don’t believe that.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:24 pm
No, thank you for pointing that out actually, because as soon as I’d posted it I knew I’d made a mistake. What I meant was, the government has the constitutionally-granted power to levy taxes. We can speak out about taxes we don’t like. I, for instance, am not too happy about the trillions of dollars we’re going to have to pay for the Iraq war, or the bank bailouts. But our system is a representative democracy, so even while we might not agree with the decisions our representatives make, they are constitutional if they survive our system of checks and balances. Which, I suspect, this healthcare package will do. Just like Social Security and Medicare before it.
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:34 am
Jim said:
“Nonsense, they’re getting 32 million new customers.”
How many other customers will they lose once people realize it is much cheaper to pay the 2.5% penalty and go without insurance knowing that they can re-enroll at any time without penalty or added cost. I anticipate when the no pre-exising conditions clause is fully implemented in 2014 I’ll save over $10,000 per year by going that route.
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:47 am
Godzilla,
Interesting strawman you have there. It looks nothing like me. Nice guess, but I’m not a libertarian. Philisophically, I’m an objectivist and thus politically a laissez faire capitalist. My politics are based on the requirements for human life, i.e. fundamental principles that are never compromised. Go do a little reading on objectivism and you’ll find answers to your strawman questions. You might even discover that the difference between you and I is not a matter of degree, it is a matter of black and white.
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:10 am
For all the Statists out ther (you know who you are), an honest question:
Where is your personal tipping point on government power (or, How much government power is too much in your opinion)?
If you’ve already answered, pls point me in the proper direction. I am genuinely curious.
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:41 am
If you ask me, they’ve already crossed the line…but it isn’t with taxes and government programs. It’s the police force, consistently allowed to overstep their boundaries and harass innocent citizens. Every time I see a cop flip on his flashers just to avoid stopping at a red light I want to start throwing rocks. To quote the great poets of N.W.A…..well, you already know.
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:58 am
“Every time I see a cop flip on his flashers just to avoid stopping at a red light I want to start throwing rocks.”
That’s what gets your blood boiling? That a cop on patrol protecting your ass, who might be on alert to be directed to an unfolding emergency situation, delayed you a few seconds getting through a friggin’ traffic light?
Your priorities are way out of whack. Slow down. Leave the house a little earlier. Sheesh.
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:59 am
Well, Ethan, if you’re tripping cuz the popo roll through stoplights, then by all means ask them to nightstick anyone who fails to buy medical insurance. It’s only logical…
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:05 am
Sorry, G. Clark, but they’re probably not going to respond to your question. I already asked them that same essential question. Chris Gerrib gave some weaselly answer, probably to stall while checking if there’s already a pre-fab party-line answer to it. Jim, to his credit, actually gave a fairly honest answer, which was, in essence, for him there will never be a limit to statism. .Which I guess makes Jim a totalitarian. Keep that in mind when you read his posts.
Ethan probably wouldn’t comprehend the question; or at least pretend not to.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:05 am
Hey, I’m all for the police protecting us and arresting people who break the law. But when they can harass you for a half an hour because they happened to stop you for having a blinker out on your car….maybe their priorities are out of whack, not mine.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:07 am
Ethan said:
“Every time I see a cop flip on his flashers just to avoid stopping at a red light I want to start throwing rocks.”
Me too. Only, I’ve never actually seen that. I have seen plenty of police cars stopped at red lights. In all of my, admittedly very few, interactions with the police, they have been polite and professional.
I am reminded of a scene from the 1st season of Mad Men, when Donald Draper is at the apartment of some beatnics and everyone has gotten high. As Don leaves the apartment, one of the beats says, “The cops are outside, you can’t go out there.” “No,” says Don, putting on his suit coat and hat, “YOU can’t go out there.” Sure enough, when the police see him they just say, “Good evening, sir.”
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:11 am
Then you’re a lucky man, HAL. I’m a law-abiding citizen, I’m a safe driver with a clean driving record, and I’ve been condescended to and harassed more times than I can count. Maybe it’s just the police in Jersey, then? Hah.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:20 am
Ethan said:
“Maybe it’s just the police in Jersey, then?”
Could be. I rarely leave the midwest, and the traffic stops over the last 2 decades from a variety of city police forces in multiple states have been uniformly professional.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:34 am
Ethan, I don’t get your world view. The health care “reform” bill gives a lot more power to these sorts of people. There are consequences to giving government more power.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:44 am
The police aren’t going to be harassing anyone who doesn’t buy health insurance, that’s just ridiculous. No one’s going to jail for failure to purchase health care. I see it as similar to laws requiring homeowners to buy smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Although I suppose it’s your constitutionally-granted right to burn alive in your home…
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:34 am
Ethan said:
“I see it as similar to laws requiring homeowners to buy smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Although I suppose it’s your constitutionally-granted right to burn alive in your home…”
I don’t get this analogy. As I’ve explained here multiple times, under the law I will be permitted to purchase the policy “at need”. I realize that isn’t the intent of the law, but it will be the result. Health insurance isn’t equivalent to a smoke detector, as it doesn’t detect anything. Rather it was originally intended to be more like fire insurance, the purpose of which was to insure against a catastrophic loss. As Rand has explained multiple times, now that I will be able to do the equivalent of canceling my fire insurance policy, and only re-purchasing it once the fire trucks arrive to extinguish the blaze. I don’t see that as beneficial for the industry, or the uninsured. As a matter of fact, it seems quite possible that many of those currently insured who don’t have much in the way of claims will be able to save a bundle by dropping their coverage, paying the 2.5% penalty, and only purchasing a policy at need, thus getting out of the risk pool. This will leave only the people with large claim costs in the risk pool.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 am
“The police aren’t going to be harassing anyone who doesn’t buy health insurance, that’s just ridiculous.”
Right, and the EPA wouldn’t ruin a 50 million dollar agricultural economy and thousands of jobs to save a fish. Your problem is not enough imagination for how bad things can be when the government is involved.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:49 am
If it takes standing in the way of a 50 million dollar development to keep a species from going extinct, then I’m all for it. I’d rather not have my country look like the surface of the moon, thank you very much.
Anyway: if you do drop your insurance you’re going to have to pay a $750 dollar fine, presumably annually. So either way you’re paying into the insurers’ pool, whether you’re using it or not. If there are loopholes that will allow people to “game the system” like that, I’m sure they’ll be closed quickly.
And it is very much like a smoke alarm, in that one of the big intentions of this bill is to increase the amount of preventive care people receive. It’s been shown that routine preventive care is cheaper in the long term than sudden catastrophic care when things crop up that could have been caught early. In other words, it’s cheaper to see your doctor every year and pay for a prescription for blood thinners than it is to spend a month in intensive care after a stroke.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:00 am
If it takes standing in the way of a 50 million dollar development to keep a species from going extinct, then I’m all for it. I’d rather not have my country look like the surface of the moon, thank you very much.
If we let a species go extinct, it makes the country look like the surface of the moon? Really?
Species have been going extinct for eons. Earth hasn’t looked like the moon in billions of years (if ever).
It’s been shown that routine preventive care is cheaper in the long term than sudden catastrophic care when things crop up that could have been caught early.
Really? Do you have a credible citation? Because the research I’ve seen is that preventive care saves lives, but it doesn’t save money. In fact, it costs more, because you’re causing people to live longer.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:04 am
That was hyperbole, Rand. Deciding to let one species go is a slippery slope, was my point. Making a big deal about one species of fish might look silly, but there’s a very good reason for it.
And it might cost more in the long run, but I mean in the annual-budget sense. And if it causes people to live longer, then I think you just provided another example of why it’s a good idea.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:14 am
Making a big deal about one species of fish might look silly, but there’s a very good reason for it.
And there should be no cost-benefit analysis? Species preservation, no matter what the species, should trump all?
And it might cost more in the long run, but I mean in the annual-budget sense.
So you can’t provide a citation for your claim?
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:22 am
I’m sure there’d be plenty of money to be made cutting down the redwood forests of northern California and building homes and businesses on the land. If all it was subject to was a cost-benefit analysis.
And here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661
Essentially, the sweeping statement that preventive care saves money all the time, across the board, is not accurate. But targeted preventive care, of specific illnesses in specific populations, does save money.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:25 am
I’m sure there’d be plenty of money to be made cutting down the redwood forests of northern California and building homes and businesses on the land. If all it was subject to was a cost-benefit analysis.
You didn’t answer my question.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:25 am
Ethan said:
“if you do drop your insurance you’re going to have to pay a $750 dollar fine, presumably annually.”
To which I respond $750 < $14,000. I’m not aware of a mathematical symbol for “much less than”.
“It’s been shown that routine preventive care is cheaper in the long term than sudden catastrophic care”
And Rand said:
“Really? Do you have a credible citation? Because the research I’ve seen is that preventive care saves lives,”
I’m not even sold on this. I’ve read somewhere that every individual over the age of 50 has as many as 3 undiagnosed conditions which COULD result in death, but 2.99 of them will never manifest, meaning the individual will die for some other reason, never having any symptoms of the undiagnosed condition. Once these conditions are diagnosed, they will seek treatment for them because, after all, nobody know if the condition will manifest or not, and preventative care save lives. The treatments entail their own risk, and a certain portion of the population seeking treatment WILL actually experience a negative outcome as a result of the treatment, up to and including death. All this is to treat a condition which only MIGHT have manifested in the first place. Risk assessment and cost benefit analysis is never as straightforward as it might appear.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:31 am
To answer Rand’s question more specifically: Yes. I can’t see there being a reason pressing enough to warrant knowingly wiping a species off the map.
And the way the fine works, now that I’ve looked into that aspect of the plan more specifically: If you can’t afford the health insurance, even with the offered subsidy, then you won’t have to buy insurance and there won’t be any fine. If you can afford insurance and don’t buy it anyway, then you’re fined the $750.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:45 am
I can’t see there being a reason pressing enough to warrant knowingly wiping a species off the map.
How about risking it? And it might be (say) a mosquito?
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:46 am
I’m not aware of a mathematical symbol for “much less than”.
<<
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:57 am
Hey Rand, I saw Jurassic Park, the mosquito is the only thing that will allow other species to continue to exist.
Don’t you want the robot from A.I. to bring you back?
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:58 am
Are we really going to start talking about the ethics of environmentalism in a thread about the healthcare bill? To answer the question anyway: It would depend on the severity of the risk. And yes, even if it was a mosquito. They’re vital parts of the food web in areas they inhabit.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Rand said:
something I can’t seem to type without locking up IE6, our fine corporate standard.
I thought of that, but being an IT guy, that reads to me as shift left.
Ethan said:
“If you can afford insurance and don’t buy it anyway, then you’re fined the $750.”
Yes, I fully expect a whole lot of people to do that math, pay the fine, and depart from the risk pool, once they realize they can get back in at any time without penalty. Why wouldn’t I go that route and save nearly $10,000? Right now, I’m paying over $8,000 a year in order to save $100 dollars each of the three times I visit the doctor’s office annually. I expect that number to increase to around $14,000 year once the new law is fully implemented.
Ethan said:
“even if it was a mosquito. They’re vital parts of the food web in areas they inhabit.”
Including my backyard, I suppose. I’m still using the bug spray, though.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Yeah, but you killing the mosquitoes in your backyard isn’t extincting the whole species…..
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
You guys are not doing very well against Ethan, I’m sorry to say. The reason is that you have allowed him to set the terms of the debate. For example, when he says:
he is begging the question. He has assumed that resources are available to provide everyone who needs them with blood thinners and the medical plant and personnel to monitor their progress and reactions and adjust their regimens accordingly.
That is the bottom line problem with this health care fiasco: it increases the demand for medical services while simultaneously reducing the prospective supply of trained personnel and equipment, and stifling future innovation. That is a recipe for failure.
Opponents of this measure must not get trapped into the position of seeming to advocate a law-of-the-jungle insouciance to the plight of the uninsured. If they do, they will lose.
What everyone knows is that A) we do not currently have the resources to commit to providing personalized care to everyone B) the current strategy of relying on medical personnel to become martyrs for the privilege of administering to the needs of those who believe they have the right to demand they do so will only decrease the supply and quality of those available to do so C) this will lead ineluctably to rationing, and a decrease in the quality of medical care available to those who currently have it already, which is the great majority of citizens.
A workable strategy to extend improved medical care to everyone would focus on training more medical personnel and relieving the burdens they must assume to do so, and encouraging innovation and advances in productivity in the provision of medical services. Prices go down either when you increase supply or decrease demand. Demand is not going to decrease naturally. By failing to increase supply, and indeed actively taking steps to diminish it, the government will be forced implicitly or explicitly to decrease demand artificially through rationing. This is an iron law of economics. There is no way around it.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:13 pm
something I can’t seem to type without locking up IE6, our fine corporate standard.
Can you type an &? If so, this: << will do the job in HTML…
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Wouldn’t the new demand for care cause demand for new doctors and new medical facilities? I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that the bill “actively takes steps to diminish” supply.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
“Wouldn’t the new demand for care cause demand for new doctors and new medical facilities?”
Well, yeah. But, we do not need more demand. We need more supply. And, if you’ve done nothing to entice those new doctors and contractors for medical facilities and products into fulfilling that demand, if in fact you have actively made the prospect less appealing to them, then how are you going to meet the new demand? There is only one way: the demand will have to be rationed to the available supply.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Yeah, HMO plans are fine if you’re at the age where people tend to get strokes. Otherwise, lacking a chronic condition, you’re better off just getting a physical every couple of years and paying out of pocket. Mandating that everyone buys one is mandating bad financial planning. HDHP are much better, and will be legal at least for another four years, maybe longer when the GOP takes back Congress.
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Becoming a doctor will still pay more than most professions. There may be a period where it’s harder to schedule an appointment, but wouldn’t it be safe to say that the new demand will eventually lead to more supply?
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:10 pm
“…wouldn’t it be safe to say that the new demand will eventually lead to more supply?”
How? You are going to pay them less. You are going to increase their caseloads. You are going to regulate them more heavily. You are not going to reform the tort system. What possible reason can you see that you are going to get more people to opt for such a career?
Please explain this to me. What thought processes are you bringing to bear on this question that makes you see more people volunteering to martyr themselves simply because you want them to?
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:23 pm
I will help you out before you blow a fuse trying to reconcile the contradictions.
What socialized systems rely on worldwide is this: they relax standards so that less qualified people can get their degrees, and they import doctors from poorer countries on a massive scale. The latter, of course, can only be temporary, as their Americanized children will not immolate themselves similarly, and the countries from which they hail become wealthy enough that their citizens no longer need to seek employment elsewhere to better their condition.
Then, in the steady state, we will have a pool of poorly qualified and motivated medical staff working with increasingly antiquated equipment, along with the occasional talented martyr-for-the-cause here and there.
This is where we are heading. This is what it is like in Europe right now, along with chronic double digit unemployment such as we are also experiencing now. That is what you have/are/will no doubt continue voting for.
There is no free lunch. You makes your choices and you takes your chances. Welcome to the Worker’s Paradise.
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:26 pm
You don’t get it, kid. The brains generally go where the money is. If health care doesn’t pay very well, smart people won’t get into medicine. You may get more practitioners but how good will they be? I don’t want the ones that get in to med school because the smart kids decided not to go. When you make doctors and nurses bureaucrats, you won’t have doctors and nurses who are bureaucrats, you’ll have bureaucrats who practice medicine. That’s a bad thing just so you know.
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Nice guess, but I’m not a libertarian. Philisophically, I’m an objectivist and thus politically a laissez faire capitalist.
Oh great. A follower of the cult of Ayn Rand. Hopefully it will be buried by history just like that other cult by Karl Marx. To be honest my preferred Russian writer is Dostoyevsky. I tried reading Das Kapital and Atlas Shrugged a couple of times, but found the writing in both books so turgid, boring, and uninteresting, I never did read them that much. Sure there’s a paragraph here and there that catches the eye, but reading either feels more like a chore than a pleasure.
Where is your personal tipping point on government power (or, How much government power is too much in your opinion)?
There are loads of places where I feel governments should be limited by either granting rights to citizens or establishing limits to rulers:
* Freedom of speech.
* Freedom of association (including corporations and unions). However this does not mean I have much tolerance for cartels.
* Freedom of movement.
* Abolition of the death penalty.
* I also think rulers should have short mandates with a limited number of terms (i.e. I think what Chavez did by making himself dictator for life is utterly despicable).
* Multi-party system (i.e. Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union were despicable).
* Proportional representation. One person one vote. I can tolerate something like the Senate with per state representatives for some kind of check or balance, but even then elections inside the state for example should be proportional.
* Direct election. None of this I vote for a guy, that votes for another guy, nonsense. Reminds me too much of the Soviet Union. IMO the more layers there are the more corruption the system gets. Easier to bribe less people.
This is not an exhaustive list. If you want to know my opinion on supposedly important social issues I am against euthanasia, against gay marriage, however I am pro-choice (fancy newspeak this one), and think drugs should be legal (as long as users don’t consume them in a way that I get exposed to the drug’s effects).
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Oh great. A follower of the cult of Ayn Rand. Hopefully it will be buried by history just like that other cult by Karl Marx.
Yes, that’s right. Because the followers of Ayn Rand have slaughtered so many tens of millions of people in their cause…
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Just the idea of rational ANYTHING when it comes to human beings is laughable.
March 24th, 2010 at 2:17 am
Just the idea of rational ANYTHING when it comes to human beings is laughable.
Try it sometime. Then get back to us on whether it’s laughable or not. You’re still stuck with cognitive dissonance, for example, believing that we can’t trust government to police our roads, but we can trust them to police our health care, something at least as intimate and vital to us as getting from point A to point B.
March 24th, 2010 at 6:02 am
Just the idea of rational ANYTHING when it comes to human beings is laughable.
Speak for yourself. But you’re certainly a poster child for the proposition.
March 24th, 2010 at 6:32 am
FIFY
March 24th, 2010 at 6:51 am
Godzilla says, that among Russian writers, he prefers Doestoevsky to Ayn Rand. (Let’s all pause now, genuflect, and say in unison, “Wow, what a smart guy!”) Apparently he skipped over the Grand Inquistor chapter in THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV. Or maybe he read it and thought the Grand Inquisitor was a good guy. “Hey, bread for liberty! Sounds like a good deal to me! We should elect someone like that president!” That part of Doestoevsky is coming true, just so much of ATLAS SHRUGGED is.
March 24th, 2010 at 7:17 am
“So what youre saying here, Ethan, is it’s ok for me to stick a knife in you as long as it’s a small knife. But of course, you don’t get to choose, I’m choosing the knife size for you. This is clearly not an infringement on your liberty because I’m a compassionate guy and would only make you bleed a little.”
And Ethan (not getting the point–or pretending not to–as usual) responds:
“That is a textbook strawman argument. ”
No, kid; that would be an analogy, with elements of the “reductio ad absurdum.” The point being that in einitiating force on someone, the wrongess of the act is not affected by the size or scope of the act, or the whether the person committing the act is ultimately intending for you to get some benefit from it.
March 24th, 2010 at 8:26 am
“cult” seems to have grown in meaning recently.
Either that or its a stand in for “I disagree with you, and rather than debate, I’m going to call you names.”
Follow that up with a pleading argument for intellectual superiority constituted by a reference to one’s preference of ethnically similar writers. Because ethnicity matters. And the writer you like is boring.
And then go on to state that your prefered government grants people rights, or establishes limits for rulers. As if the two were morally equal. And here is your list of such arbitrary rights, with no mention of integrating principle.
With regard to intellectual superiority, your argument has convinced me.
March 24th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Look at Toyota’s rapid growth…followed by massive recalls. They made their profits by cutting corners.
Ethan, that is just libelous and grossly wrong. Toyota made its profit by providing superior, high quality cars. Even in the early 70s when they were a dinky outfit selling little, boxy cars, their cars were better quality than the American ones. They broke down less often, they needed less and cheaper maintenance, etc. That was how they beat Volkswagon who had a car that needed the engine replaced every 120,000 miles (IIRC).
When the oil crisis hit, the Japanese car makers (all seven of them) were uniquely positioned to take advantage of it. Their little cars used a lot less gas and had much lower maintenance costs than anything else on the road. When the US car makers dropped the ball by producing some of the lousiest cars they have ever made (Vega and Pinto), then the Japanese moved big time into the US garage.
It’s worth noting that this happened long ago. Whatever problems Toyota has now with its cars are completely unrelated to their rise to a market leader decades ago.
March 24th, 2010 at 9:09 am
I am deeply suspicious, to a near certitude, that the campaign against Toyota was planned and excreted from within the bowels of Government Motors and the White House. I’m still not buying any bailout-mobile, now or in the future.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Also keep in mind that the rules for building cars in the US were set by the government in the 70s…(Carter) for improved gas mileage and the US companies were already behind the power curve there. Toyota should have told the government at the recent hearings that the device failures were due to design specs given to them by the government.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Becoming a doctor will still pay more than most professions.
You think Doctor’s are making as much as the Wall Street bankers that Obama bailed out? I’ve talked to many Doctor’s who wish they had gone into computers rather than medicine. Then they could work less hours and still make plenty of money. Most importantly, they could have made the money with just a Bachelor’s degree and a lot less debt in student loans.
All that before getting into the good points made by Bill Maron.
March 24th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
You think Doctor’s are making as much as the Wall Street bankers that Obama bailed out? I’ve talked to many Doctor’s who wish they had gone into computers rather than medicine. Then they could work less hours and still make plenty of money. Most importantly, they could have made the money with just a Bachelor’s degree and a lot less debt in student loans.
It’s bullshit. I know it, I had a doctor tell me the same thing. It was one of the factors that drove me to software in the first place. That plus a couple of other things. The chief factor, other than a doctor I respected telling me he wished he had not gone into medicine in the first place, was that learning medicine today involves memorizing a lot of factoids and I hate degrees which force you to memorize stuff as if it was some kind of badge of honor. The sooner medical teaching drops that requirement the better. It’s like when you tune in to Al-Jazeera and they are showing this boy “genius” that memorized the whole Koran. Nice. Give the guy an e-book reader.
Does not matter. Regardless of state intervention in the insurance market a doctor (or a software developer for that matter) is still an expert worker with specific domain knowledge that people need. You can still begin your own practice with little starting capital.
Also if you think people in software, or other segments of the computer business work for less hours than a doctor, you are sorely mistaken. Oh and we do not get paid for overtime. When you do the math on that you figure out we do not earn as much as you would think we do.
March 24th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
There’s a huge initial cost to being a medical doctor. For example, most people in the software industry work less hours than they do in residency training which apparently lasts around a couple of years. Glancing through Wikipedia, I see that current accreditation programs limit residency work hours to 80 a week. There are a few IT jobs that have that many hours consistently, but they aren’t common. So we have a vast different in entry costs. A doctor puts in a lot more schooling and low paying, on the job training.
Further, the liability associated with being a doctor is vastly worse than anything an IT worker sees. The latter simply can’t make a mistake that can ban them from working in the field or subject them to unbounded liability.
March 24th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Also if you think people in software, or other segments of the computer business work for less hours than a doctor, you are sorely mistaken. Oh and we do not get paid for overtime. When you do the math on that you figure out we do not earn as much as you would think we do.
Sorry. 100+ hour weeks over the course of several months? Done it on more than one project. I still wouldn’t compare it to a doctor.
I agree with what Karl wrote.