Private health cooperatives

[LJRead]

Since there has been a lot of discussion on the health insurance issue of late, are there any thoughts on this idea of privately run health cooperatives that Obama seems to think is a viable alternative to a government run system?  Wouldn't this satisfy some of you who are against governemtn involvement in this sort of thing?  In New Zealand there were coopertive credit unions in place of banks which kept the cost of home loans down.  There are also cooperative food groups and probably a lot of other ones.  Do you think this is a good way to go for health care?

[Ice]

 Here they are called H.M.O.'s . The "health care" is rationed and dictated for you. Doctors decisions are limited and often dictated by the H.M.O. to "manage costs".  I did not like the experience.
 That said ,they may be acceptable or even desired in socialist  or communist countries. We are a different breed as so to speak. America was founded as a Republic and has a different culture,different thought process than any other country on the planet. Using socialized medicine/H.M.O.'s  on a national level here would be met with stiff opposition as we tend to be and independent lot.

[LJRead]

So you have about 40 percent of the population uninsured and medical costs skyrocketing - what is the solution?  Not a rhetorical question- I'm curious.  Do you just pay for services as needed, including very expensive heart operations and cancer treatment, or do you share the burden throughout society.  Those 40 percent are sometimes looked after (their bills paid for) by sharing what those who have health insurance and their employers pay so the burden is shared anyway, but some get by without paying into any system and just cruise by.t.  How do we reduce health care costs and make it possible for people to survive major illness without going bankrupt?

The HMOs as you call them are, I take it are private cooperatives with expenses shared by those who join up. So there is rationing with operations of a less immediate need put off until they can be dealt with.  Surely emergency services are covered.

Seems to me you can't have everything you want in the way of health care withou sharing the burden as expenses for some things are beyond the financial reach of most (you can call it socialism, or social cooperation).  You don't like HMOs, you don't like a Gov (socialized) system - seems there needs to be some compromise somewhere.  I guess I can't see a way out that doesn't involve some give and take.

[Ice]

I question your percentages and your motivations here.

[ace.cafe]

As I see it, as long as people have options to select what they wish, I'm happy with as many different potential options as possible.
The more competition there is, the better the prices and results will be.

Since it's government intervention and regulation which drove the prices up in the first place, after the debacle of Medicare and Medicaid being introduced into law during LBJ's Failed Society, er... I mean Great Society, the solution I see is the complete withdrawal of all government programs and intervention into the healthcare industry
Shut down all the gov't programs and regulations, and let the market work the way it did before they destroyed everything in 1965.

People can contract individually with their doctor or hospital to purchase the levels of care that they need, at prices they negotiate and agree to willingly.
If they can't afford some astronomically priced care, maybe they can get by with something that will work fine, but costs less.
Or they can finance it, like buying a car.
Or they can buy insurance, if they want to, from whatever insurer gives them the best coverage at the price they can afford.
Just like people do with nearly anything else they buy.
If I can't afford much, then I don't get much.
If I want more, I can better myself to achieve a higher income, to afford the things I want or need.
For indigents, plenty of charities are available.

There's no need for anything else besides that.
And no law needs to be passed to have private health "co-ops", insurance policies, or pay-as-you-go care.
The gov't has no need to even discuss it.
It's not their role.

[Kevin Mahoney]

The HMO's were put into business some years ago through another attempt at healthcare reform - a bill written by Ted Kennedy, they were his brainchild. In practice it seemed like a good model, the trouble is that they were run by "not for obvious profit" companies. In other words companies that are organized as non-profits but in fact are totally for profit undercover.
  One of the issues I deal with as a business owner is that we are only allowed to be a group of a few people. Not actuarial sound. One proposal is to let small business's buy as a much larger pool.
  I also liked the Safeway model where you pay according to your lifestyle. If you smile for example you pay more.
  I am just happy that it looks like they are giving up on the public option. With that our of the way perhaps theses worthless congressmen and women can all focus on a compromise. That was the part that bothered me the most. The other part is paying for it. Much like education in the US I don't think there is a lack of money in the system, just a lack of accountability.

[northshore_paul]

From someone who has worked in health care let me say that reform is needed but not a throw the baby out with the bath water approach. Something I have always wondered is why people want almost all heath costs covered at almost 100%. I have automobile insurance and home owners insurance but I still pay for my oil changes, flat tires and maintenance costs myself without wondering why my insurance company doesn't pick up the tab. Why do we expect the insurance to pick up the cost of the prescriptions we get, the diagnostic tests, xrays, etc and we pay only a small copay? I live in the Gulf coast region and after several years of large losses the insurance companies have resorted to paying claims only after a large deductible has been met. Why don't we do this with the health claims to help keep costs down. If you want to see the cost of health care go down abolish all insurance and let the market forces determine what an MD should be paid for his services or what the daily rate for a hospital room should be. How many folks would be getting coronary bypass surgery at $150,000 out of their pockets? MD's and hospitals would be lowering their costs or they would not be getting business. Medicare is partly responsible for the high cost of medical care today and if you want to see it go higher get government as the only exclusive game in town.
 
A true non profit coop, run as the credit unions are operated would be competition for the insurance companies and if large enough could be a force to lower reimbursements. BTW, this is the type of system Germany has and I have not heard of complaints from those citizens. Those of you old enough remember when going to the dentist was a reasonable expense for whatever you had done but since the advent of dental insurance, costs have skyrocketed. The reason is insurance companies have not had a reason to moderate costs...all they do is pass the increase on when rates are adjusted the following year and everyone pays a higher premium...whether you went to the dentist or not...and it is the same with the medical insurance.

And then there is tort reform...oh well, that is another fly in the ointment...just my 2 cents worth in this town hall of ours.

[LJRead]

I question your percentages and your motivations here.

Percentages?  That is the figure that is 'out there' at least 40% uninsured.
Motivation?  Just the fact that there seems to be an explosive environment of people criticizing Congress and the President - well, it is easy to criticize, but let's see some solutions.

The fact of the matter is that some procedures are highly expensive - heart surgery, cancer treatment, joint replacement, even smaller procedures can cost a fortune the way things are now.  So, should they be shared out sort of like ordinary insurance.  You pay so much per month with a deductible, and even if the accident costs a huge amount, say $100,000, it is amortized among all the insured.  A small percentage have accidents each year, but everyone is paying through their premiums. 

I believe some progress has been made recently in getting costs down, but there seems to be a long way to go.  Hospitals have agreed to cut costs, and insurance companies have agreed to allow people to be insured with preexisting conditions and not canceling if a condition arises.  Most of this seems to come through a fear of the gov. taking over in the health care industry, and is this because they have seen already what it will lead to? or perhaps they don't want to have their bottom line compromised.

In New Zealand, if you are injured on the job, you don't immediately file court action against the company - it is worked out so that the state pays your medical expenses and, I believe, some sort of compensation.  There are none of the huge legal awards or expenses.

Northshore _paul seems to have another good idea and that is to insure the big items and let the patient pay for prescriptions and minor things like x-rays etc. 

Heard recently of a U.S. citizen taking advantage of low care joint replacement in Thailand.  He went there, was picked up at the airport and taken to a sort of resort like hospital, his joints of both knees competently replaced and allowed a short time to recuperate under pleasant circumstance, then flew home with new, working joints and no apparent problems.  So, is this going to be a trend, like making automobiles overseas, doing medical procedures overseas also?  Interesting, isn't it, how companies price themselves out of the market.
It seems to be the big ticket items that are of concern and causing bankruptcy.

But it is this vociferous outcry, probably by the uninsured, going against any and all ideas where governments are concerned and calling it socialism, but not coming up, I don't think, with any logical alternatives. But then, maybe Ace is right, we don't need any - seems to me there is a crises in health care costs in the U.S. and how to pay for them.

[Ice]

This,,,,,"So you have about 40 percent of the population uninsured",,, was presented in a manner that suggests fact.
 
 Now it has turned into,,,,,,,"That is the figure that is 'out there' at least 40% uninsured.".

Which is it to be ?

[LJRead]

This,,,,,"So you have about 40 percent of the population uninsured",,, was presented in a manner that suggests fact.
 
 Now it has turned into,,,,,,,"That is the figure that is 'out there' at least 40% uninsured.".

Which is it to be ?

Well, if you want to dispute that figure, out with it - that is the one bandied about and I even qualified it by saying  about forty percent.  The point however holds and that is that a significant number of Americans are without a health plan and many suffer because of it.

What I do think is that the attack on Obama's desire for a new health program is more of an attack on his presidency than having any real substance regarding the issue involved.  People are yelling that he is a socialist and so on, but this latest suggestion, private co-ops, clearly indicates that he is more interested in seeing that Americans' health needs are taken care of than fostering some implied program of socialism. 

[Ice]

This thread is about health care co operatives Right ?

 If you want to start a new thread about how every one is out to bash Obama, pleases feel free to just that,,Start a new thread. 

[ace.cafe]

If he wants "private co-ops" then let there be "private co-ops".
They don't need any law passed to happen.

If he truly wants private health co-ops, then he can just drop the subject altogether and let the market provide them, if the people want them.

What's the big "need" to pass some law that puts gov't in the middle of it?

[LJRead]

The problem, Ace, that hasn't been addressed is 1) the highly expensive procedures being used in hospitals today and the need to pay for them, and 2) the relatively huge number of people uninsured who then become a drain on the system or simply go untreated.

About the first, the expenses are more than simply caused by the institution of Medicare and Medicaid.  I had to have a back scan done in one of the new machines by a neurosurgeon and learned that the cost of the machine itself was over two million dollars.  I don't know what the scan cost, but it had to be high to make up for the cost of the machine and technician to run the machine.  Then there are surgical procedures with whole teams of surgeons and stand-by help, kidney dialysis machines that many must be on, etc.  It is a question of how to pay for this and in this regard spreading the cost makes sense.  How this is done is the question.  This type of expense is not something that can be handled in a piece meal or patient pay as you go manner. None of us thinks he or she is going to need medical service and many extend that into thinking they themselves can go without medical insurance because the odds are with them and if they do need treatment others will pay for it.  Go to a hospital and the first thing they will ask is what is you medical plan.  Many won't admit you without one.  So people go to the emergency room which generally will treat patients.  A half-assed way to do things, isn't it?  But where I disagree with much of what you say, though finding your comments interesting, is that you don't seem to want to face reality of what it takes to live in the twenty-first century.

Ice, if you don't like this thread, I would suggest you simply butt out.  Everyone of your comments here has been in the form of an attack.  You seem to think, and have stated, that Americans and their so-called independence is unique.  There is a uniqueness in their history, it is true, but they now face the same problems that other countries face and the solutions are bound to be the same.  Fact is, this unique population you are talking about pays far too much for medical service, drugs and everything else (due to its unique capitalistic extremism, I suppose), is way down in the statistics of how well their needs are are taken care of (infant mortality rate very high, lifespan lower than in many other countries, persistent health problems from obesity etc.) .  I read where one in three of us has diabetes or incipient diabetes, just a pretty shitty outlook on health and not getting better if people like you have their way.  This "I'm independent and to hell with the rest of you" just won't work, in my opinion.

And Ice, you criticize my figures (40 % uninsured for example) just as a way of digging at me when you, who have done more to spread non-factual garbage on this forum than anyone, should be the last to talk.

[ace.cafe]

Well, I understand your concern LJ.
Things can get expensive.

And there are ways to deal with that, and insurance plans and co-ops(HMO) and catastrophic policies and "first dollar coverage plans", etc, to deal with them, depending on what a person can pay out of his monthly salary.
Or, if he thinks insurance companies are evil profiteers, he can choose to not purchase their products. Maybe even form his own group co-op and spread the cost.
Or he can pay as he goes.
Or he can even say he doesn't want the most expensive treatment ever devised by man, and take some Advils, or use the old machine that costs less.
It's up to the individual.
And there are plenty of choices, including taking minimal cost treatments and living with it, because that's all that might be afforded by some.
Or, they can "go untreated", as you say, and I'm perfectly fine with that choice too.
.

That's what I do. I go untreated and treat myself, unless I have something that I cannot treat, and then I choose the least expensive method humanly possible.
And I live in the 21st century, just fine.

[ace.cafe]

Double post

[Ice]

LJ it is sorry that you are offended.
  The Original post of this thread was about health care co-operatives. If you or anyone else wants to discuss or debate Socialism,Obama, or any other topic please be considerate of the rest of the forum members and start a new thread on the subject.

[LJRead]

Ice, apology accepted.

However, you should by now know that threads such as this rarely stick to the subject of the original post, but tend to wander as new thoughts come.  This is normal in human conversation and is as it should be.  Furthermore, the topic of health care, which is the subject of original post, is closely tied in with a) and attempt to destroy the Obama Presidency, and 2) strong implications of 'socialism' which, by the way, all societies are in one way or another.  So bringing in these two topics and combining them is in no way 'off topic' put simply part of the whole.

I realize in what I have read of your posts that you tend to be single minded, but that is you and not typical of this forum.

Ace: you no doubt live a healthy life-style and have had a degree of luck.  Many haven't had that advantage and sometimes drain the rest of the system because of it.

Furthermore, while I agree that people should have options, sometimes, as you if anyone should well know, it is more efficient to organize such things than to take the piece meal approach you are advocating.  The problem of course is the inefficiency and costs purposely added to such organized systems by people who are out to feather their own nests.  Knowing this, there should be ways to counteract such attempts.  I would say, though I can't verify this, that there have been many very good organizations set up in the past aimed at meeting social needs.  To take an entirely negative approach to such attempts isn't, I don't think, going to get the job done.

There was a case of a Colorado governor suggesting that older people need to know when to step aside (die?) when they have reached a point in their lives and not be a continual drain on the medical system.  AARP is strong on supporting a new health system.  While it is ok to suggest just living with whatever trauma we are faced with, it isn't realistic because, when all is said and done, we all cling to life tenaciously and are going to want to have someone there to meet our needs.  We may have good intentions of just 'stepping aside' but when the time comes, most are going to be reluctant simply to do so.

There was a recent case in England where a guy was complaining that the British health system wouldn't permit the extremely expensive drugs that would have extended his life by six months.  I think the amount was $100,000 pounds or so.  This would amount to rationing of services, a very difficult thing to do, but one which will sometimes have to be done either by the individual or his health provider.  But to fork over such an amount might have meant that some children's , for example, needs might not have been financially met.  The wealthy of the U.S. are well provided for, the poor take it in the butt.  I suppose the very poorest have access to Medicaid, but slightly above that are people who are stuck, caught in a hole so to speak, a black hole comprised of fear, defeat, and hopelessness, while others enjoy the good life.

[ace.cafe]

Ice, apology accepted.

However, you should by now know that threads such as this rarely stick to the subject of the original post, but tend to wander as new thoughts come.  This is normal in human conversation and is as it should be.  Furthermore, the topic of health care, which is the subject of original post, is closely tied in with a) and attempt to destroy the Obama Presidency, and 2) strong implications of 'socialism' which, by the way, all societies are in one way or another.  So bringing in these two topics and combining them is in no way 'off topic' put simply part of the whole.

I realize in what I have read of your posts that you tend to be single minded, but that is you and not typical of this forum.

Ace: you no doubt live a healthy life-style and have had a degree of luck.  Many haven't had that advantage and sometimes drain the rest of the system because of it.

Furthermore, while I agree that people should have options, sometimes, as you if anyone should well know, it is more efficient to organize such things than to take the piece meal approach you are advocating.  The problem of course is the inefficiency and costs purposely added to such organized systems by people who are out to feather their own nests.  Knowing this, there should way to counteract such attempts.  I would say, though I can't verify this, that there have been many very good organizations set up in the past aimed at meeting social needs.  To take an entirely negative approach to such attempts isn't, I don't think, going to get the job done.

That's perfectly fine with me LJ.
People setting up private organizations that meet their needs is great thing.
I'm all for it.
If a company is "feathering their nest" more than you prefer, then it's quite possible to choose another company or option. That's what competition is about.

The minute that it includes a "law" or a "tax"  or has "required participation, or face penalties if you don't", or uses power of gov't to slant the competitive playing field, is the minute that it loses ALL of my support.
And in fact, that gets my maximum opposition.

Here's why.
No matter how bad a company is, you can buy that product or service from somebody else, or don't buy it at all. Our option.
It cannot put you in jail. It cannot fine you. It cannot compel/force you to do something that you didn't contract for. It can't take your house. It can't kill you. It can't deduct your pay against your wishes. It can't put you in debt.
They have NO power over you.

On the other hand, gov't CAN do all those things, and it DOES.

So, do you want to be compelled by force to access a required set of goods and services, that you may or may not even want or need, and be taxed an amount that you cannot even have input about,  for it?
Or , do you want to buy what you want, at prices you select within your own means, without any coercion or threat of force involved, and you may take or leave what you choose, change your mind anytime you want, and live with your own choices, be they good or bad?

Personally, I don't see how there is even any question about that matter, but apparently there is.

[Ice]

LJ  just two of the many comments you have made about me,,,,
 
 if people like you have their way.  This "I'm independent and to hell with the rest of you" just won't work, in my opinion.

Notice the quotation marks you put in there??  This leads people to believe that you are quoting me.
That is an out right lie.  Never have I said or typed that comment.
An apology is in order here .

and another comment about me,

 you, who have done more to spread non-factual garbage on this forum than anyone, should be the last to talk.

This accusation is again, untrue. An apology is in order here too .

 Those comments plus infusing political rhetoric into this thread about Health care co-ops are in poor taste at the very least.

*modified to correct poor spelling, grammar and punctuation*

[Ice]

Now back to Co-Ops,
 Farm Co-Ops have a long history in America.
 Started, run ,tailored, tuned and responsive to the needs of the local members and over watched by the same members at the level?

 Has any one looked into the possibility of applying a similar template to local health care?
Is any one aware of if it has been don here in America ?
I am curious and would be interested in seeing the results.

[Eamon]

Those comments plus infusing political rhetoric into this thread about Heal care co-ops is in poor taste at the very least.

I'm not commenting about the rest of this dispute, but I would point out that it was LJ himself that started this thread, so it's not like he hijacked someones else's thread.

Eamon

[LJRead]

Ice, many comments made about you?  Come on - I have commented where you have attacked, never more.  You are the one who went on about the proposed health care act, much of which was debunked by other members.  You are the one who kept pounding at the Obama birthing issue which was clearly shown to have no basis in fact (except maybe the basis fraudulently posted on the internet, a faked birth certificate). 

As to your last post, I am quite sure there are ways to obtain good health care, but it seems that some sort of foundation must be mandated or people simply will not act.  We have had a health crises with us for how many years(?) and what has been done about it? It has only gotten worse.  People have pointed out that President Johnson and later Senator Kennedy at different times have tried to institute a national policy which, according to them, hasn't worked.  Does this then mean that nothing done nationally will work?  We learn by the past and keep trying for a better result in the future. I  can see where things like an ambulance service, emergency first aid care etc. could be undertaken by a small local co-op, but I wonder whether the higher priced medical necessities could be so handled.  Maybe a local clinic could be established paid for by subscription so that those needing its services wouldn't feel that the expense is too great. Then, on top of that, could be added a simple insurance plan, cheaper to pay for than existing ones because small needs are taken care of, but which could cover the expensive items just as auto insurance does.  In this regard smaller expenses could be paid out of pocket as Northshoe_Paul has suggested. People, like myself, are shy to commit themselves to seeing a professional, preferring to try to live with their ailments. We should have the freedom from worry about the expense to take care when needed.

So what part should the Federal Government play in all this?  I could see it setting up legal guidelines for the coverage of all citizen with minimal insurance and health services, yet not actually providing those.  Sometimes people just will not act unless there is legal necessity to do so.  Then, when they become ill, they will tend to moan and groan about failures higher up.

[Ice]

I apologize folks because here we go again,,,off the threads topic.

LJ ,
 Please search for any statements made by me at any time that could be construed as a personal attack on the members of this forum. (Disagreement with some one is not an attack.)  Report those statements to the mods.
.
 By my count in this thread alone you have made at leas three out right disparaging and/or demeaning comments about my person two of which are outright lies. 

  Please do not confuse this issue and then change the subject. Please do not side step this issue by including rhetoric or hyperbole in any response you may post to it. This is NOT an attack it is a polite challenge to stick to this issue.

Thank you.

[ace.cafe]

Well, that's interesting.

We should have freedom from worry.
I like it.

[LJRead]

Well Ice, I suppose what I consider an attack (aggressive challenge perhaps?) you consider normal discourse. Nothing I can or want to do about that.  You have from the start tried to drag this thread away by focusing on my statistics, my motivation,  my disagreement with you, my divergence from the opening post etc.  Seems you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and not a thing I can do about that.

"Freedom from worry" I guess means freedom from anxiety about how my family will be fed when I have a heart attack and need quadruple bypass surgery, itself a symptom, perhaps, of anxiety and stress.  I guess stress is the number one killer in America today, regardless of whether it takes the form of other ailments stemming from a run down condition.  Stress could particularly be prevalent when the income providers see themselves unable to provide for family needs because of medical expenses unplanned for.

Now I will grant you that costs are too high there because a system or systems were introduced which permitted aggressive capitalistic greed.  Things certainly were more moderate when I grew up and expenses hadn't skyrocketed into the absurd.  But then too, medical science was at a lower technological level,  Open heart surgery, for example, was rare, and survival from it was limited.  You had a heart attack and your prognosis was maybe five years.  Things were simpler then and cost much less. People weren't allowed to vegetate for years in a semi comatose state.

And here we have the wealthiest country in the world in terms of GNP (but not income levels) and a good proportion of those living in the U.S. are forced into stressful situations which could be handled by a rational national health care system. or something similar.

And I live in one of the poorer countries in the world, with good access to doctors, free medicine if I choose to use it (I choose to pay) and though not highly technological, it does cover all the essentials and partly because of it, people are relatively free of anxiety.  The system, such as it is, and it isn't at all bad, is paid for out of taxes paid to the national government. My wife went in the other day and had a toothache taken care of, postponing it while in the U.S. because of the high cost.  Ah socialism! Ironic, isn't it?

The wealthiest country in the world placed into gridlock because a few want to maintain their independence from society. Well fine, be independent, but don't come whining when things that could have been handled by a more rational system get tough.

But maybe this post too is off topic, and maybe it contains within in it too much disgust and hyperbole.. 

[ace.cafe]

Certainly, it's a more "rational" system, if one takes the basic premise that the fruits of everyone's labors are open to being removed by force of gov't without their consent.

But, I have another proposition to postulate.
Suppose nobody paid any income taxes at all, and no Social Security and Medicare taxes at all.
Would payments for health insurance policies be unaffordable then?

And suppose we had a sound monetary policy, which didn't erode people's savings via inherent inflationary spirals which are endemic in a fiat currency which is loaned into existence.
Would payments for health insurance be unaffordable then?

Considering the level of overall tax burden, many people  would see a doubling of their take-home pay.
Think that might free up some cash for insurance?

Are you aware that official CBO figures show that if gov't spending were cut to 1999 levels, that no income tax would be needed to balance the budget?
Are you aware that it takes $21.60 today, to equal the purchasing power of $1 of currency in 1913? 1913 was the year that the Federal Reserve Banking System was introduced, changing the monetary policy of the US permanently.

So, while it may be convenient(for this conversation) to attribute "aggressive capitalist greed"(capitalist pigs, Comrade) to the reason behind healthcare costs being unaffordable, it could easily be shown(and I just did) that gov't policies are actually behind the erosion of Americans' income, in the form of taxation and monetary policy taking totals of 50%+ in some cases of people's earnings.

With only about 4.7% of purchasing power left in the currency compared with about 100 years ago, and 40%-50%  of the remainder being confiscated by various forms of taxation, there would seem to be little left for the wage-earner, in terms of real purchasing power. And now they have us at least $10 Trillion  in debt on top of that, with unfunded future mandates soaring past $60 Trillion.

Do you think that might be where the real culprit lies?
Overburdening of the people by a vastly expansive and over-reaching government structure which has shrunk the purchasing power of the currency to mere 4.7% of what it was, and then taking half of what's left in taxes, and piling on tens of trillions of dollars of debt for good measure?.

What's the answer to that?
More taxes and more gov't debt?

That might cause me to "worry", LJ.
And I should be free from worry, you know.
With the national average $40k salary, that would mean $15k+ more disposable income to the wage-earner. Think he could get a policy for $15k? I think so.
And it really might do some good for getting us out of this recession, too.

I would be much more free from worry if the gov't would cut it's program spending back to 1999 levels, where people could take home twice the money that they take home now, be free of income taxation(and the spectre of IRS audits/penalties),  and have alot more money to spend on whatever they want to spend it on, including their healthcare insurance policies.
Imagine that! A solution which actually requires less gov't. Amazing.

[LJRead]

You have a good point, Ace, if we could get rid of the wasteful parts, like military spending, but have you figured in what sort of job losses there would be if the Gov. didn't spend, spend, spend?  It is probably still true that Gov. is the biggest labor employer.  All those congressmen oppose cuts in military (the industrial part) spending because it means job losses among their constituents.  Some of these jobs might be picked up by private contractors doing the same job, like some sort of private postal service (I'm pretty sure tax dollars are going to subsidize the P.O).  Is anyone going to go for a big cut in the military or military spending - another big employer.  It seems to me there has to be some form of taxation to keep the necessities running, though the waste is pretty horrendous and nothing gets done about it.

Then there are the spin off effects - like the government employees spending and the people who produce various things for military and other branches of gov.- those dollars being recycled through the economy and providing more jobs.  This occurs all the way from top to bottom, garage mechanics, gardeners, fast foods employees - all are dependent to some degree on tax dollars going into salaries and being spent. There is an attempt to ease fluctuations in the farming community, and without taxation, I doubt they could be maintained and overproduction might result with a dropping to unsustainablility in prices of farm produce, as occurred in the Great Depression.

There is a  lot of taxation, to be sure, and taxation at all levels from the township (property taxes) on up, and a large proportion of those tax dollars going to pay salaries.  Have you taken that into consideration?

Yeah, inflation is a real bugger.  Maybe the Federal reserve is to blame, but perhaps there are other market forces as well.

What it seems to me, Ace, is that what you are saying has a big grain of truth, particularly in and ideal world, but, as pointed out above, there are these extenuating circumstances.

[Ice]

Well Ice, I suppose what I consider an attack (aggressive challenge perhaps?) you consider normal discourse. Nothing I can or want to do about that. You have from the start tried to drag this thread away by focusing on my statistics, my motivation,  my disagreement with you, my divergence from the opening post etc.  Seems you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and not a thing I can do about that.

"Freedom from worry" I guess means freedom from anxiety about how my family will be fed when I have a heart attack and need quadruple bypass surgery, itself a symptom, perhaps, of anxiety and stress.  I guess stress is the number one killer in America today, regardless of whether it takes the form of other ailments stemming from a run down condition.  Stress could particularly be prevalent when the income providers see themselves unable to provide for family needs because of medical expenses unplanned for.

Now I will grant you that costs are too high there because a system or systems were introduced which permitted aggressive capitalistic greed.  Things certainly were more moderate when I grew up and expenses hadn't skyrocketed into the absurd.  But then too, medical science was at a lower technological level,  Open heart surgery, for example, was rare, and survival from it was limited.  You had a heart attack and your prognosis was maybe five years.  Things were simpler then and cost much less. People weren't allowed to vegetate for years in a semi comatose state.

And here we have the wealthiest country in the world in terms of GNP (but not income levels) and a good proportion of those living in the U.S. are forced into stressful situations which could be handled by a rational national health care system. or something similar.

And I live in one of the poorer countries in the world, with good access to doctors, free medicine if I choose to use it (I choose to pay) and though not highly technological, it does cover all the essentials and partly because of it, people are relatively free of anxiety.  The system, such as it is, and it isn't at all bad, is paid for out of taxes paid to the national government. My wife went in the other day and had a toothache taken care of, postponing it while in the U.S. because of the high cost.  Ah socialism! Ironic, isn't it?

The wealthiest country in the world placed into gridlock because a few want to maintain their independence from society. Well fine, be independent, but don't come whining when things that could have been handled by a more rational system get tough.

But maybe this post too is off topic, and maybe it contains within in it too much disgust and hyperbole.. 

No acknowledgment of the disparaging remarks made.
No appolgy.
More sidestepping and emotion.

LJ you are hemorrhaging respect and creditability at an exponential rate here.

[ace.cafe]

Okay LJ, well I think I can address that point by point.

The first thing that needs to be understood is that the government doesn't have any "money". ALL money in possession of the gov't and spent by gov't, has been TAKEN from the private citizens labors.
Government has no methods to be productive. Government is ENTIRELY PARASITIC. This is because of the previously stated basic operating premise of gov't.
So, this needs to be understood, or all follow-on discussions are founded on misunderstanding.
If you can point me to anything that is productive about gov't, where it isn't taking the people's money and spending it with somebody else, I'll defer.
Nobody can, so  I'm not worried about deferring.
Government gets ALL its money from the people. What it doesn't take directly, it borrows and hangs the debt on the people.
So, now that we have that understood, we can proceed.

The next thing is "jobs". Government doesn't create any jobs. Jobs are productive enterprises. All "government jobs" are parasitic, because they are paid by parasitic funds taken from the people. No "wealth" is created by any gov't job. It cannot contribute to the economy. All it can do is shuffle other people's money around. and decide who loses and who gets. It re-distributes, while carving off a good percentage for "administrative costs" that could have been much better spent with more efficiency and buying power, if the administrative costs(waste) weren't there..
Any "job" created by this method actually causes loss of real jobs in the private sector, because it competes with(or eliminates) private sector industry with money that doesn't belong to them, and can operate at a loss that it makes up with more forced taxation if necessary.
All "gov't jobs" are a drain on the economy. Not assets.
People may feel that those things are worth paying for, but they are not "productive" in the economic sense of the word. They are purely parasitic in the economic sense of the word.

Once it is understood that all these "gov't spending" and "spin-off jobs" related to government spending is actually confiscated individuals' money, and directed to gov't contractors via budgetary allotments, then we can see how gov't controls people and the economy, to be less productive than it would be in free market competitive conditions. And how the "political footballs" and lobbyists occur, to try to "steer" where all the people's stolen money is going to be directed. Winners and losers.
And the contractors and "winners" of this gov't largesse, are generally the major corporations which liberals typically say they dislike, and it is actually the gov't who is keeping these large corporations in "fat city" by awarding huge contracts which are poorly monitored and laden with massive amounts of overpayment, waste, fraud, and abuse.
The other programs may be operated by gov't agencies and bureaucracies, all parasitic, and are also rife with poor oversight, and laden with waste, fraud, and abuse.

As I pointed out in a previous post about the healthcare matter, these are the same reasons why it is imperative to restore a somewhat reasonable facsimile of the free market, where people can contract directly with the goods/services providers and make their own deals to purchase what they want at prices they agree to. And settle on an agreed-upon deal voluntarily.
The transaction agreement between seller and buyer is the foundation of a "good deal". Any 3rd Party taking the money from somebody and spending it for him, adds waste in terms of administrative layers at the very least, and suffers from the FACT that he doesn't care as much about YOUR money, as he does HIS money. YOU are the best steward of your own money. Not somebody else. If you want "good deals" for "good services" then you need to make that deal yourself, and be in agreement with the seller on what you want provided for the price.

As for "salaries" being paid by parasitic gov't funds, I think I already addressed that.
However, I think I've established now that all services provided by gov't, which are currently considered "necessary" by some, are able to be privately provided by purchasing power of people's money that isn't taken from them by taxation. The same amount of money is available to be spent, without gov't in the picture, because gov't gets the money from the people in the first place.
The concept that somehow there is "gov't money" that isn't stolen from the people is patently false. ALL that money is stolen. So, if gov't was kicked out of those sectors, the same, or more money would still be available to pay people for their work, maybe even the same kind of work, except $Trillions of it wouldn't be wasted by parasitic levels of useless gov't bureaucracy.
The faceless bureaucrats who live off this waste, would need to get new jobs.
Perhaps they might take some college level courses on re-training themselves about how to be productive.

Farm prices.
Farm prices are subsidized in many cases. This is waste.
As is the situation with ALL commodities, farm produce will fluctuate with market demand, and production will adjust, just like all commodities do.
We don't need to pay Ted Turner millions of dollars a year to have the largest buffalo ranch in the known universe.

Regarding "inflation".
There is one factor, and one factor only, in "inflation".
That factor is the size of the money supply.
It is decided by the Federal Reserve.
There are no other "market factors" The other "market factors" are known as "supply and demand", and if certain goods spike in price periodically, they also come down later, according to the demand curve. The only reason prices go up because of "inflation" is because of the increase in monetary supply eroding purchasing power of the currency. There is no other factor, regardless of what the propaganda may say. Everything else is market forces which fluctuate by supply and demand.
Federal Reserve monetary policy is 100% responsible for the loss of purchasing power of the currency thru inflation. ALL fiat currencies of this nature fail. That's where we're headed.
Interestingly, for the first 125 years of the US history, where sound money of gold and silver was used, there was NO inflation. The ONLY inflation was from the borrowing used for "Greenbacks" during the Civil War, which was correspondingly deflated back to normal during the deflation of the Reconstruction Period.

There are no "extenuating circumstances" when the facts are known.
But, there are "excuses". And those excuses are manufactured by those who wish to keep the oppressive hand of gov't on the people, so that they may be controlled and kept down,  so that the parasites in gov't may more easily control them and profit from their positions, and manipulate the population and economy for their preferred purposes.

It is precisely because gov't is parasitic and heavy-handed, that it's powers were intended to be few, and strictly limited in scope.
And it is directly correlated to this massive increase in scope of gov't, beyond its intended role, which can be attributed to the problems we face today.
More gov't isn't the cure. It's the poison.
While a small amount may be tolerated, those limits must be observed, or death results.

[LJRead]

Well Ace, you have suggested a basic thesis that governments are parasitic, and that may be where you err.  Government as it was established in the U.S. is by and for the people who, for the most part, pay taxes, complaining some in many case, but not in all cases, for which they receive some very good services.  In other words it is a huge co-operative made up of all who participate and most would be really pissed if you were take what you call non-productive services away from them. Participation is mandatory, but if it were not, then many people would become parasitic.  You can't have it both ways.

Without taxes you wouldn't have most universities and colleges, and while not all participate, all derive benefit from the education they produce.  Then there would be no space exploration and all the spin off inventions that have come out of it, you would have a lot less medical research, no National Institutes of Health, no National Science foundation, no national park system nor road system, no health standards for consumer protection of food stuffs, weather reportage, emergency services, defense services

Where you err too is in many of you statements including the idea that government doesn't earn money (isn't productive).  It provides services and many of those services are paid for.  I don't know what proportion of, for example, the postal service is paid for by its users, but i believe a fair percentage.  same with park services and others.  In the many cases where government services aren't paid for directly, benefit, sometimes much more important than money are derived from them.  Americans pay relatively little in taxes, and, if they were to pay more, they would get a lot more for their money.

You believe in this parasitic idea, but the huge labor force is evidence against this.  Those jobs, whether you think so or not, are in many cases very productive, serve the public good and are needed.  And when you get to all the levels of government, city, state, county etc.  then what we derive is even greater, the taxes relatively low.

Without going into a lot of detail, I believe a lot of what you have said here is far from true.  We differ in our starting points, our underlying premises.

[LJRead]

No acknowledgment of the disparaging remarks made.
No appolgy.
More sidestepping and emotion.

LJ you are hemorrhaging respect and creditability at an exponential rate here.

Ice, it is you who are off base and refuse to make sense.  It is you who posted a long opening to a thread on on the proposed medical plan which clearly was pirated from some other source, with little thought or investigation given, and what you tried to feed us was largely debunked.  It is also you who went on and on about wanting to see the proof of Obama's birth - to what end, I think we can all surmise. 

I don't see that you have that much credibility, truth be known.

[ace.cafe]

We differ in our starting points, our underlying premises.

Well, I certainly agree with that part of your statement.

So, let's say I go along with your view of things.
And take an example. Perhaps an outrageous sounding example, but it is made to be outrageous for a reason.

And let's say that some party(let's assume the evil Republicans) in Congress gets in majority, and they get a sympathetic  Prez, and they vote to have martial law, crack down on all dissent, and essentially set up a police state and decide to take 100% of everybody's income to pay for it. And they announce it is necessary for the safety of the people, and they have party members in the public who agree, and want this level of safety. After all, there are terrorists out there,  you know.

What's the difference between that, and what you're espousing?
The only difference is that you don't like that law. Nor do I.
But, it's doing exactly the same thing that you advocate, but achieving a different goal, with a larger amount of taxation.
Some people think a militarized police state would make them safer, and they don't want to "worry" about being safe.
They have a legitimate concern, and they think that's the way to handle it.
It's a "basic human need", and government can be made to provide it.
Empower gov't to do it, and tax people whatever it takes to make it happen.
That kind of security is expensive, and they have to spread the costs around.

What makes them wrong, and you right?

It can just as easily go against what you want, as for what you want.
The only difference is that in one case you agree with the oppression, because you feel that particular use of oppression of the public serves the "feel-good-ism" that you like.
And the other doesn't. But it might serve the "feel-good-ism" that some other group likes, and if they can swing it, there you have it.
No principles, just mob rule.

Ok, now let's leave that example, and  look at the moral issues..
You obviously feel that it's a moral thing to do to provide people with their basic human needs. And that's laudable. And people can do that with their own money.
However, taking money from other people to give to those who don't have enough is stealing. That's not morally right.
And to claim moral high ground by saying it's civilized to provide heath payments for a certain group of people, and then turning a blind eye to the vast numbers of people that you steal from and oppress in order to do it, is hypocrisy.
If people want to give their money to charity or help people, that's magnanimous.
If somebody forces people to hand over their money, so that they can spread it around to those they think should have it, then that's theft.

And this is why we have that quaint little document that is known as the Constitution,which tells the gov't what they can and cannot do. And what taxes may be levied, and for what purposes that money can be used for.

A long list of previous infractions and abuses is NOT an authorization. It may be a precedent, but not an authorization.
Where would it end? Hence, the reason for my "universal Ferrari plan" that seemed so ludicrous in one of my previous posts.
And to bolster that illustration, I'll quote Karl Marx
"Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive,
for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice
in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote
for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation."
Karl Marx

Except in our case, they are going to vote themselves into everyone's pocket that can possibly pay, and bankrupt the productive members of society. And then, since they are insatiable, they will then bankrupt the nation soon after it cannot borrow any more because there's nobody left who can pay.
And then, it becomes total tyranny, because the gov't wants to survive, and all payments will cease and "order will be maintained" militarily.


If you open that door, and it was opened long ago, mind you, then this is what you get. Any hare-brained scheme that some politicians think they can get away with, becomes law, and you're taxed to pay for it. No matter how much that tax is.
And just because you agree with this particular one, doesn't mean you'll agree with the next debacle that comes down the pike.

To quote Thomas Jefferson,
"Any gov't that is big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have".
Remember that.

[Ice]

Ice, it is you who are off base and refuse to make sense.  It is you who posted a long opening to a thread on on the proposed medical plan which clearly was pirated from some other source, with little thought or investigation given, and what you tried to feed us was largely debunked.  It is also you who went on and on about wanting to see the proof of Obama's birth - to what end, I think we can all surmise. 

I don't see that you have that much credibility, truth be known.

Hi LJ.

 Every thing I post as fact also comes with links and/or references to creditable sources and/or point of origination and/or a way to afford all here the opportunity to dissect it.

 Every thing I post as question is just that.

Now please scroll up to  Reply #18 on: August 17, 2009, 02:02:28 PM and re read it.

 Now I ask you, In your set of moral values is it acceptable to lie and intentionally mislead people ?

A simple yes or no will do.

 In your set of moral values is it acceptable to make baseless remarks and disparaging comments about people ? 

A simple yes or no will do.

 In your set of moral values is it acceptable to keep side stepping this issue and deflecting it with more nonsense and ramblings ?

 A simple yes or no will do.

"truth be known" ,You have yet to prove or apologize for your comments, as previously requested . Comments that all can see.

 This thread has been viewed 218 times as of now and people are bound to notice,
that,   « Reply #12 on: August 17, 2009, 11:56:41 AM », has at the bottom,,,,,,,
« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 12:00:55 PM by LJRead »  and they are going to wonder why ?
 
 IMHO You are still losing what little creditability you have left with the members and guests of this forum over this .

[Eamon]

IMHO You are still losing what little creditability you have left with the members and guests of this forum over this .

Hey Ice,
You and LJ having a personal disagreement is one thing, but don't presume to know anything about what the rest of us think regarding the credibility of others on this forum unless we have specifically said so.  I'm not wading into this topic anymore, because nobody is changing anyone else's mind (although I think LJ and I are in basic agreement).and I don't frankly have the time.

Eamon

[ace.cafe]

I'm doing the best that I can to provide even-tempered and measured responses which describe the reasoning behind my opinions.

I don't expect to change people's opinions, but I do want to present a reasonable and well-founded case for my positions, and I hope that it makes people think.

[LJRead]

Simply put, Ice, I stand by my comments as to the garbage you produced about Obama's health plan (or was it Congress's health plan?) links or no links.  What you did was to use quotes entirely out of context (just snippets from the health care proposals) to try to provide a distorted view of the issue.  Then Jeff took your list to task and showed even more clearly what had been done.  In case you fail to understand, there were reasons, justified or not, for each of the provisions you mentioned and by grouping them together out of context you provided a highly skewed view.

So why should I apologize when what I say is true according to my view of it?  If you think you have been wronged, I suggest you take it up with the moderator who will then, if he feels it necessary, delete the offending posts.  You can attack my integrity, my honesty, my credibility all you want and it will mean very little to me because I see it for what it is, more garbage tossed out.

Ace, it is good that you have so thoroughly stated you position which I see as alarmist in the extreme ( radical example presented) and bears little correspondence to reality.  Americans live under a system which was established to have people vote for representatives and then have those representatives build ideas into laws, the Executive carrying out those laws and the Supreme Court determining when laws are unconstitutional.  A nice simple balance of powers which the lawless want to revolt against without bringing their complaints before the Supreme Court.  The lawless element even wants to foster the stockpiling of weapons, including assault weapons, so that they are in a better position to revolt if things don't go their way - right or wrong?

By and large I think the American people get a lot for their tax dollars including a lot of inventive ideas fostered by various types of research that can be later put into production.  I don't have, or have the time to look up, the statistics of just how large the public job pool is, but assume it is extremely important in keeping the economy afloat.  Without the underpinning of taxation the system and the inventive resources for production would be DOA.  I would suggest that in large part the wealth and position of the American nation is largely based on taxation.  Sure it has gotten out of hand, the spending that is, and much of this has been due to misguided leadership, but that can be put right if there is the will to do so.  And to put it right will require taxation to an extent.

Most Americans live in what could be described as "Fat City" compared with much of the rest of the world.  Those in Fat City get paid the most, have the greatest educational advantage, and really hardly miss what they must pay in taxes except that it bites a bit into their disposable income. But even so, they do just fine. During the campaign for presidency there was the discussion between Obama and the Plumber and Obama clearly said that it doesn't hurt for the wealth to be spread about a bit, and that is the way things operate, with most having at least a chance to gain the streets of Fat City if they put in the effort.  I'm pretty sure you don't agree with this, but I happen to.  America remains a land of opportunity for those willing to work and not look for a free ride.  Those looking for a free ride, I suppose, get one, but it isn't a very great ride, is it?  America puts up with a lot of freeloaders, but they are inevitable in any system.  If the freeloaders weren't bumming on the system they would go to the streets of Fat City and do their bumming there.

But I think we both agree that we have a vast difference of opinion, and the vastness of it has to do with our basic premises.  This is due no doubt to a difference in upbringing and personal history.  Some could see this thread as a debate, but I just see it as a discussion of ideas, and for me most helpful (even with a bumble bee buzzing about .

[Ice]

Hey Ice,
You and LJ having a personal disagreement is one thing, but don't presume to know anything about what the rest of us think regarding the credibility of others on this forum unless we have specifically said so.  I'm not wading into this topic anymore, because nobody is changing anyone else's mind (although I think LJ and I are in basic agreement).and I don't frankly have the time.

Eamon

What I was intending to post was "IMHO You are still losing what little
creditability you have left with many of the members and guests of this
forum over this." The mistake is mine.

For that and unintentionally offending any one I do apologize.
 
I will also IM Eamon.

[Ice]

« Reply #35 on: August 18, 2009, 10:24:14 PM »
 

LJ,

 It is remorseful that you fail to see your errors in  this issue of disparaging comments and un true accusations of a fellow forum member.

 All the diatribe and hyperbole in the world does not  deflect attention away from ,nor justify your conduct. Niether will it erase  the comments you made.
They stand for all to see.

[ace.cafe]

LJ,
The main difference that I see going on is that the premise for governing seems to differ.
In one case, there are limits proscribed in the documents which give the gov't their authority.
And in the other case, anything goes,at the whim  of the majority.
No inherent "rule of law" to protect the minority from oppression.
Now, I personally feel that is a dangerous road to take.

And yes, this country has gone down that road, much to my dismay, for a goodly number of years now. Massive amounts of money have been transferred from one class of people to another. And yet, the problems are worse, and the people are in debt up to their ears, and the nation is technically, if not functionally yet, bankrupt because of it. Why? Because that's the ONLY way what you propose can end up.
It's guaranteed failure.

You see, it's not the proscribed laissez-faire doctrines of this nation that created this mess we're in. Up to 1929, we were the most prosperous nation on Earth, with virtually no debt.  It's the incessant meddling with Marxist-style class-warfare underpinnings that occured since then which put us here.. Those are the policies that have ruled this nation for the last 77 years, and took us from the most prosperous nation  on Earth to the biggest debtor nation the world has ever seen.
Is that a successful record?
For 125 years under the Constitution, we were the most successful nation ever known.
For the 77 years since under leftist ideology beginning  with FDR, all downhill to near bankruptcy and massive social decay where we are today.


And the other part that really sticks out is that my premises do not impinge against anyone, nor violate anyone's rights, person, or property. At all.
I don't hurt anyone. They are responsible for creating their own happiness, and if they don't do it, then they have  only themselves to blame.

And your advocated premises do impinge on many many people, and DO violate their rights, persons, and property.  I know you want to pretend that they don't  hurt people, but they do.
You "justify" the incursions against them with rationalizations, such as "they can afford it", or "they get alot for their money", which is YOUR opinion, not necessarily their opinions. Yet, you'll support the forcing of your opinion onto them, to the extent that you will physically take THEIR money away from them to do what YOU want done, regardless of whether they consent or not.

And I think that is a position that needs to be seriously considered, because there is NO justification for such actions, regardless of the "nice intent to do good for others, with other people's assets", while advocating doing harm to them, in order to "do what YOU think is good for others". The ONLY taxes originally proscribed for this nation were tariffs,imposts and excises. Trade taxes. And they were only to fund the basic administrative functions of a part-time Federal Gov't with a Navy for border defense. The Income Tax only came much later, after the monetary policy changes(Federal Reserve), which was pushed thru to insure the debt that the country was about to start building up with the new unconstitutional debt-based currency.
Oh yes, this has been been a work in progress for a very long time now. Since the Bolshevik Revolution, in fact.

The basic difference, boiled down, is that you think you have the right to control my life in order for you to get what makes you feel good.
And I don't.
I think I can make what I can of myself, and reap the rewards of my efforts, or my failures.
And I don't advocate hurting anybody doing it.
But you do. And that's why everything you speak about needs a justification about why it is "okay" to do it.
And I need none, because I'm not doing anything against anyone. And I speak out against the incursions that are already being done against people.
So, I don't think that it's okay to do things against you, but you think it's okay to do things against me. As long as that achieves what you want for your other purposes.

You can't achieve good by doing evil, Larry.
I think that's a basic premise.




But, getting back to the original thread topic, I am okay with  Private Health Co-ops, as long as they are actually private co-ops, which will require no laws to be passed to have them.
If that helps people to afford things, I'm all for it.

[LJRead]

Ace,

It seems to me that it is very easy for you to be so philosophically narrow in your view of the Constitution and such, but we have little to go on regarding what the country would be like if the same policies were in place as before, say, President Lincoln.  You can criticize the present system using what I see as very general, unsupported statements and phrases (parasitic, evil, Marxist etc) since no one can argue with something that never occurred to see the result.  We don't know what the country would be like without alterations in taxation and so forth.  Where I live it is much as, perhaps, the U.S. would have been, but it is a rather stagnant place, no money for development (like I've been out of business for a year because the bridge is still down).  It would be nice to have some money here to grease the wheels of industry (mainly the tourism industry) but that can't occur because there is no basis to repay.  A vicious cycle.  I could easily build my place into a multimillion dollar resort, but the cost of money is too high, interest rates at the 14 + percent level, so it is pay-as -you go, or not sleep at night worrying about how the loans can be repaid.  Almost all revenue comes from, like you say was intended in the U.S., duty on trade with some also coming in through a high (15%) consumer tax.  So the bridge is still out, the ferry system non existent (there is one private ferry which is heavily in debt), and we see other countries like Fiji and Samoa booming with tourists while we can attract few. Our hospitals barely make it and our schools just get by.   Believe me, a tax base is very necessary for a country to go anywhere, though obviously the U.S. has over spent.

The U.S. has paid greatly for its defense and the wars it was felt necessary to be fought, so where would that money come from?  There was a huge infrastructure needing, apparently, to be built and how could it be paid for (hydroelectric plants like Hoover Dam, interstate roads, the Park system, defense, schools, fire departments, police departments, basic research, etc. etc.  All would require some form of taxation to be viable.

Just the population increase from the relatively unpopulated nation at the time of its origin requires social services on a massive scale.  This has to be paid for.

What I would suggest is you get Ron Paul in there by forming a huge block of like minded voters as yourself.  Good luck!

[ace.cafe]

Thank you LJ.

And alot of freedom-minded people are doing exactly that.
Freedom is popular!

Nice having the discussion with you.

[The Garbone]

Ace,
I think things started down the wrong track with Wilson and FDR just took the ball and ran with it.

My view of government healthcare is this.    Next time you get medical treatment go up to the door of the richest man on your street with the bill and ask him to give you the money to cover your costs.  Tell him if he does not you will return with a gun and take the money or lock him up.  That is what is proposed,  its just that people are hiding behind government.  Looters on and all...

[ace.cafe]

Ace,
I think things started down the wrong track with Wilson and FDR just took the ball and ran with it.

My view of government healthcare is this.    Next time you get medical treatment go up to the door of the richest man on your street with the bill and ask him to give you the money to cover your costs.  Tell him if he does not you will return with a gun and take the money or lock him up.  That is what is proposed,  its just that people are hiding behind government.  Looters on and all...

Oh yes, you're preaching to the choir with that  one!
Wilson should have been strung up for the Federal Reserve Act and the Income Tax alone, not to mention his other stuff.

And there have been problems regarding over-reaching power and central banking since almost the beginning, really. There have always been agents for co-opting the system in this country.
It's been a constant battle over the 2 centuries to try to keep the central controllers off our backs. And of course, it's always government that they want to use, because government is the ultimate force that they can use to subjugate and oppress.
The founders gave us government, but with a very limited scope and very tight reins on it. It was "minarchist" in nature, allowing maximum freedom, but minimum impingement by gov't to only perform the most minimal tasks, to maximize the freedom of the sovereign individuals. And with some very important "rules of law" to protect the individuals from the very government that they instituted.
Self-determination was the bedrock. Not molly-coddling by meddling government nannies.

We were warned by Thomas Jefferson:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

And by Ben Franklin:
"A Republic, if you can keep it."
Ben Franklin

And George Washington:
"Government is a dangerous slave and a fearful master."
George Washington

And there were many others.

The founders warned us about most things. They knew.
The problem was that we didn't heed.

By the early 30s, there had already been an insurgence of Communist influence in this country, coinciding with the Bolshevik Revolution and the Global Communist movement. It managed to gain strong footholds in the US.
Over most of the world today, that has all basically died-out and seen as a failed system. Except for here in the US. It got so entrenched into the media, school system, and government people here, that it still hangs around even today, attempting to drag itself up out  of the grave. All the  so-called "liberal policies" are all rooted in the basic tenets of communism, and always have been. That was their genesis. Even the "class warfare" tactics seen all the time today, are directly from Marx. This is indisputable. It's fact.

So, as Jefferson so presciently pointed out, liberty has yielded and government has gained ground, and we are where we are now.

I don't know if the country can be pulled out of this tailspin.
It may be fatal.
But, as Churchill said, "Never give up!"

[jdrouin]

Well, this breaking news story points out that our government has ceded to a new one, but the national debt is now nullified. Could be a chance to start over:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/u_s_government_stages_fake_coup

Jeff

[RAKe]

Ace, good points throughout this thread--I too say let the market decide, and get government out of the health care business.  Government intervention has thus far stifled research, driven up costs, and limited care--what a combination!  I just hope the clowns in Congress and the Criminal-in-Chief understand that it is the voice of the electorate at these town hall meetings, and they ignore that voice at their political peril.