Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Victorumj]

• d101s ???????? ???????? by Victorumj
  [Yesterday at 11:30:10 PM]
• ???????? ?????????? ?????... by Victorcqt
  [Yesterday at 07:56:11 PM]
• ???????? ?????????? ???? by Victorgra
  [April 26, 2024, 11:29:30 PM]
• ? ??????? 2 by Juliyge
  [April 26, 2024, 10:16:52 PM]
• ??????????? ????? ???????... by Juliget
  [April 26, 2024, 08:28:55 AM]
• 2012 Concert Thread by Carmelasew
  [April 25, 2024, 11:19:23 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4939
• Latest: BrianCus

Stats

• Total Posts: 129553
• Total Topics: 7150
• Online Today: 189
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[ivan]

So instead of cutting the cancer out, you're in favour of just selecting a different form of cancer that will kill the patient in 10 years instead of only 8.

There is no workable plan on the table for cutting out the cancer.

I don't like it any more than you do, but doing nothing will at some point cease to be an option.

[Demosthenes]

There's a number of excellent workable plans.  But none of them involve increasing the power and scope and cost of government, so they're not being entertained, mainly because none of the members of government ever willingly decrease their own power.

[ivan]

...because none of the members of government ever willingly decrease their own power.

Like I said, there is no workable plan. You would have to replace 85% of legislaters with people who don't think like them before you could get something done. Or fire them without replacement.

How will we do that?

[ivan]

In the mean time, as long as we're stuck with a gang of quasi-socialist dogs in mangers, maybe we should expect them to do a job they have undertaken in a throrogh and effective manner. When we became a wellfare state seventy years ago, government was entrusted with a certain mission. It is failing in that mission. I don't think that failure is inherent. I think that we can be a better, more efficient wellfare state without further growing government.

Dismantling the wellfare state is a long-term plan. In the mean time, there is no excuse for poverty in this country.

[Demosthenes]

Like I said, there is no workable plan. You would have to replace 85% of legislaters with people who don't think like them before you could get something done. Or fire them without replacement.

How will we do that?

I don't have an answer to that.

Lately I've begun to give serious thought to the oft-repeated notion that democracy is hostile to liberty.

Unless more people wake up and realize where this lunacy is taking us, all we can count on with this kind of thinking is that eventually the cancer will kill the patient.

When sane treatment options aren't even on the table, the only option is to accept one that is still guaranteed to fail?

No, I refuse to accept that.  And if those are my options, I refuse to choose.  All that does is give validation to those smug, power-mongering assholes, and they don't deserve validation.

So I'll say it again.  I refuse to be party to any option that doesn't allow individuals to opt out of the plan AND the expense.  I will never, ever support any option that only serves to make things worse for most, especially when its clearly stated goal is to help "a few".

Force me to choose between Cancer #1 and Cancer #2 and I choose neither.

[Demosthenes]

In the mean time, as long as we're stuck with a gang of quasi-socialist dogs in mangers, maybe we should expect them to do a job they have undertaken in a throrogh and effective manner. When we became a wellfare state seventy years ago, government was entrusted with a certain mission. It is failing in that mission. I don't think that failure is inherent. I think that we can be a better, more efficient wellfare state without further growing government.

Dismantling the wellfare state is a long-term plan. In the mean time, there is no excuse for poverty in this country.

Come to think of it, perhaps I should reverse my stance.

I choose whichever public healthcare option that will cause the most havoc, the most strife, and the largest cost.

Maybe that will wake people up enough to realize that expecting the government to do everything for them only leads to disaster.

Then again, if people haven't realized that yet, they probably never will.

On a related note, the wife and I have talked about it, and we're giving very serious thought to moving to New Hampshire.

[ivan]

I choose whichever public healthcare option that will cause the most havoc, the most strife, and the largest cost.

In a way, that is how the SU unraveled.

Rather than the cancer simile, think of it as a virus -- it just needs to run its course, and it can get pretty nasty before it begins to go away. There is nothing wrong with making the patient as comfortable as possible in the mean time -- it neither prolongs the illness nor hastens the cure.

And moving to NH and acting locally is exactly the kind of personal decision one can make and remain true to oneself.

[Demosthenes]

I'm all for getting the Free State Project to critical mass in NH and pushing for secession, myself.

[xolik]

I don't have an answer to that.

Oh, I'll field this one. March on the Capitol with sporting equipment.



Hold on, there's a knock at my doo~~~~NO CARRIER~~~~~~~~~

[ivan]

I'm all for getting the Free State Project to critical mass in NH and pushing for secession, myself.

The US might be too complex for a laissez faire economy. But a smaller state might be able to swing it. If you do pull it off, I hope I'll qualify under your immigration policies (open borders would not be an option, I'm afraid -- that's at least one compromise you'll have to live with).

I think about this during my commute. I am a careful, responsible and courteous driver. All I need in order to arrive safely to my destination is for all my fellow motorists to also be careful, responsible and courteous drivers. On our neighborhood streets, there are no stop signs or dividing lines, but everyone is responsible enough for that not to be an issue. When I emerge onto the busier streets outside the neighborhood, I am thankful for the lines and stop signs -- and for the presence of law enforsement. But traffic still moves, albeit less efficiently, mostly without incident. And then there are the so-called freeways where, at peak hours, traffic grinds nearly to a halt.

As I inch along the freeway, I see people doing stupid, self-defeating things like slowing down for no good goddam reason, or zooming along the shoulder past stalled traffic in order to cram into a lane 3 car lengths ahead of where they were, or any number of other boneheaded stunts. This is where polite society breaks down and everyone claws for an advantage like crabs in a barrel. Enlightened self-interest goes right out the window in those conditions. Individually, by and large, I'm sure my fellow commuters would do just fine on the unregulated honor-system streets of my neighborhood, but when a certain critical mass is reached humans behave like assholes, and assholes both need and deserve all the laws and regulations you can throw at them.

It's not an accident that traffic metaphors are applied to government.

[ivan]

Force me to choose between Cancer #1 and Cancer #2 and I choose neither.

In other words, you'll quit the band before you play "Mama Mia".

Well, I said before that quitting the band is not an option, but that was just for the purpose of argument. It is actually the only option.

[Min]

What if after you play Dancing Queen, they want you to do Brittany Spears and Lil Wayne covers?

[ivan]

What if after you play Dancing Queen, they want you to do Brittany Spears and Lil Wayne covers?

The band only plays ABBA covers, and it plays them well. It is specifically designed to play ABBA covers. If it shows up at a gig and people complain that they don't do Lil Wayne covers, I have no sympathy for the complainers, and no problem with the band. But if the band sets out to be a damn good ABBA cover band, then shows up at a gig and fails to give a great ABBA set, then every complaint is justified and the band is failing to carry out its mission.

We are a largly socialistic country. Public schools, public roads, public medical care for the elderly and children, public law enforsement, public military, public space exploration, public media, public museums, subsidized and protected industries. We know how to make socialism work pretty well, even while pretending to have no part of it.

There are three models for eliminating the underclass:

1. The Black Hole of Calcutta model. Let them rot.
2. The laissez-faire model: dismantle our socialistic public works, fire 85% of government, privatize everything, lift restrictions on private enterprize, and let things sort themselves out.
3. The socialist model.

Like it or not, the only model with any track record for success in reducing poverty on a mass scale is Number 3, and, also like it or not, one of the countries that has had the most success implementing that model in reducing poverty is America. I like to say that American capitalism's biggest success is that it can make even socialism work.

The way I understand it, the public option in health care is mainly a measure to provide health insurance -- or health care itself -- to people who can't pay for it. Which means, for free. Which means, the rest of us pay for it. If we don't pay for it, they don't get health insurance, and we're back to option 1: they rot.

Oh, I forgot option 4: Giant international bake sale. We're actually doing that too.

[BizB]

Why are you assuming that the goal is to reduce poverty?

[Clear_Runway]

I agree. Poverty sucks, but no matter what it is going to exist. Try to eliminate it completely (I.E. pure socialism) and the entire population just sinks down into poverty.

And Ivan, please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing that the best course of action is to basically go away from socialism in the long run by toying with it in the short run? Let me introduce you to my friend, the Temporary Toll. You know, the one that supposedly pays for the road initially, then goes away later? And then, you know, doesn't go away?

The same is true for government in general. Let government have one tiny little power, and it will beg for more. Government is a black hole of power. Taking the power back is nearly impossible. It is almost never accomplished by anything short of revolution. There is no way in the world to accomplish smaller government by making the government bigger.

[12AX7]

There is no way in the world to accomplish smaller government by making the government bigger.

    For the life of me I cant understand why that isn't self-evident to people.

   ivan, there are more than those three choices. You yourself mentioned hybrids and that "I do think is that rational people can come up with a workable compromise."  Tort reform and open every state to every insurance company; let them market health plans (that's what they "DO") is another option.
    It has also been pointed out that the federal government cannot "force" you to "purchase" anything. That is entirely unconstitutional. If one cannot opt OUT of paying the impending tax; that is the net effect.
  We all know it makes good sense to wear a coat out when it's freezing. If you don't, you may very likely become ill; and require a doctor's care. But just because it makes good sense gives the fed no authority to MAKE you go BUY a coat. It's a known fact as well that homeless people aren't as healthy as people who have a home; why should the feds not require everyone to purchase a house? If they can force you to buy insurance (via taxes; or any other method) then what's stopping them from requiring you to purchase a house? Even more to the point; since you already own (or are buying) your own home; this 'tax' imposed on YOUR income doesn't buy YOU a new home; no, it buys that poor, homeless, 68 year old a house. Meanwhile, your house payment is still due monthly; or you lose YOUR home. 


 Yeh. That sounds like a nice plan.   

[Demosthenes]

No.  Like Medicare, anything that passes as an expansion of government into US health care will simply never, ever go away.

As it is, it's political suicide to even hint at reducing Medicare.  Or Social Security for that matter.

Historically speaking, entitlement programs don't go away.  Ever.

[Demosthenes]

The way I understand it, the public option in health care is mainly a measure to provide health insurance -- or health care itself -- to people who can't pay for it. Which means, for free. Which means, the rest of us pay for it. If we don't pay for it, they don't get health insurance, and we're back to option 1: they rot.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but when I'm able, I contribute to a number of charities. 

Funny thing is, that's voluntary... and yet I do it anyway.  I've heard that at least a few others do too.  Imagine how much more folks could give if they didn't give up 1/3 to 1/2 of their income to local, state and federal government to disappear down the Black Hole of Bureaucracy?

I know I'd be giving more.  There's a number of charities out there that are designed to provide health care to those who cannot afford access on their own.

Not to mention, there's a big numbers problem here that occurred to me yesterday.

(this is an unscientific representation, so don't try pinning proportion to me here, I'm just illustrating a point).

Population increase in the US has more or less flattened out since the 1960s.  It's still rising, but the big boom has been done for a long time, particularly since after the 60s, people just weren't having as many children, a trend that continues.


Baby Boomers and elderly in the US: (many of whom already qualify for Medicare)

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|


Everyone Else:

|----------------------------------------------------------------|


When you consider that Medicare -- a system which we already have in place to pay for health care for those who cannot afford it -- is already handling (or will already be handling) the bulk of those who can't pay for their own medical costs... why the headlong, breakneck RUSH to scramble some cobbled-together 1000-page boondoggle to handle the smaller demographic?

I simply refuse to see this as anything other than a scare tactic used to push a power grab.  Same as anything else government rushes through with this kind of frenzy of urgency.

Anything this ill-conceived and this "urgent" CAN'T be good.  It doesn't make sense by the numbers.

Of course, with all the baby boomers going on Medicare and Social Security at roughly the same time, and with the staggering numbers of unemployed already in this country (and that's only going to get worse in coming years), I suppose instead of 18% of Americans under 65 being uninsured, we'll probably be looking at government-induced crushing poverty to pay for Medicare and Social Security... so that 18% will most likely look more like 80% of the under 65 crowd being uninsured by 2025.

So we institute a public option to fill in that 18% gap we have now, incur an unfunded couple of TRILLION dollars to pay for it (that's an unfunded couple of trillion dollars every few years, mind you), and bring about that crushing poverty a few years early?


EDIT: bekause i cant speel.

[pbsaurus]

Why are you assuming that the goal is to reduce poverty?

Stated goal vs implied goal.  Implied is obviously line the pockets of our campaign donors so we can be re-elected, fuel our power hungry desires, and insure we are well taken care of in the process.

So why do you guys choose to do all this interesting stuff during the week that I'm on vacation?

Government has the power to effect any change, it's just not in their interest to do so.

[12AX7]

Government has the power to effect any change, it's just not in their interest to do so.

  Particularly with the 2nd Amendment intact.

[12AX7]

... democracy is hostile to liberty.

   That, I think, is the fatal flaw in the American model of country and culture. Which could be another thread entir- another sub-board, even.

[Demosthenes]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

-- Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler [unverified]

[xolik]

"Screw all y'alls!

-- Sir Xolik Wellington the Fifth [possibly drunk at the time]

[Clear_Runway]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

nothing is perfect. no government is sustainable, they tend to exist in cycles.

[ivan]

Why are you assuming that the goal is to reduce poverty?

There is always a drive to reduce poverty. Poverty of some is not good for society as a whole.

As long as government is seen as a means of reducing poverty, there will be those in government who will have that as a goal.

As long as government is seen as a means of reducing poverty, there will be citizens demanding that government do so.

Right now, government is seen as a means of reducing poverty by a substantial number of citizens.