Private health cooperatives

[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.