Ahhh... our ever-efficient government strikes again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_on_re_us/us_baby_sitter_backlash_mich


State to mom: Stop baby-sitting neighbors' kids

By JAMES PRICHARD, Associated Press Writer James Prichard, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 29, 7:23 pm ET

IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood's children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school.

Regulators who oversee child care, however, don't see it as charity. Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she'd be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers.

"I was freaked out. I was blown away," she said. "I got on the phone immediately, called my husband, then I called all the girls" — that is, the mothers whose kids she watches — "every one of them."

Snyder's predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family.

On Tuesday, agency Director Ismael Ahmed said good neighbors should be allowed to help each other ensure their children are safe. Gov. Jennifer Granholm instructed Ahmed to work with the state Legislature to change the law, he said.

"Being a good neighbor means helping your neighbors who are in need," Ahmed said in a written statement. "This could be as simple as providing a cup of sugar, monitoring their house while they're on vacation or making sure their children are safe while they wait for the school bus."

Snyder learned that the agency was responding to a neighbor's complaint.

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said the agency was following standard procedure in its response. "But we feel this (law) really gets in the way of common sense," Boyd said.

"We want to protect kids, but the law needs to be reasonable," she said. "When the governor learned of this, she acted quickly and called the director personally to ask him to intervene."

State Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland, said he was working to draft legislation that would exempt situations like Snyder's from coverage under Michigan's current day care regulations.

The bill will make it clear that people who aren't in business as day care providers don't need to be licensed, Calley said.

"These are just kids that wait for the bus every morning," he said. "This is not a day care."

Snyder, 35, lives in a rural subdivision in Barry County's Irving Township about 25 miles southeast of Grand Rapids. Her tidy, comfortable three-bedroom home is a designated school bus stop. The three neighbor children she watched — plus Snyder's first-grader, Grace — attend school about six miles away in Middleville.

Snyder said she started watching the other children this school year to help her friends; they often baby-sit for each other during evenings and weekends.

After receiving the state agency's letter, she said she called the agency and tried to explain that she wasn't running a day care center or accepting money from her friends.

Under state law, no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers. Snyder said she stopped watching the other children immediately after receiving the letter, which was well within the four-week period.

"I've lived in this community for 35 years and everyone I know has done some form of this," said Francie Brummel, 42, who would drop off her second-grade son, Colson, before heading to her job as deputy treasurer of the nearby city of Hastings.

Other moms say they regularly deal with similar situations.

Amy Cowan, 34, of Grosse Pointe Farms, a Detroit suburb, said she often takes turns with her sister, neighbor and friend watching each other's children.

"The worst part of this whole thing, with the state of the economy ... two parents have to work," said Cowan, a corporate sales representative with a 5-year-old son and 11-month-old daughter. "When you throw in the fact that the state is getting involved, it gives women a hard time for going back to work.

"I applaud the lady who takes in her neighbors' kids while they're waiting for the bus. She's enabling her peers to go to work and get a paycheck. The state should be thankful for that."

Amy Maciaszek, 42, of McHenry, Ill., who works in direct sales, said she believes the state agency was "trying to be overprotective."

"I think it does take a village and that's the best way," said Maciaszek, who has a 6-year-old boy and twin 3-year-old daughters. "Unfortunately you do have to be careful about that. These mothers are trying to do the right thing."

___ Associated Press writers Randi Goldberg Berris and David Runk in Detroit and Kathy Barks Hoffman in Lansing, Mich. contributed to this report.

A couple of questions.

1) Who is the schmuck that complained that his neighbor was watching other people's kids? I want to find that idiot and just smack him/her upside the head.

2) Seeing this example of how government bureaucrats seem to be able to only operate according to "stadard procedure" and can't seem to think for themselves, do we really want that type of bureaucrat in charge of any part of our lives, much less making "decisions" about our health care? Seems to me that government bureaucrats have their common sense and critical thinking skills removed upon beginning employment within the government.

Comments?

The Headline should read NANNYState to Mom...

Trade associations ,Guilds ,licensing and other credentialisms all have traditionally been used to restrict the number of people providing services to inflate fees associated with the "trade" . It is a form of protectionism... and in this case it has nothing to do with protecting the children. It's the Nanny State protecting it's turf.

'' If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.'' Milton Friedman

If you ask me all these child protective services have way too much power anyway. I realize the importance of such agencies but they're out of hand, they can basically do anything they want.

My precious mom would have probably been jailed if things were like this 30 years ago, she watched everyone's kids and did a damn sight better than any daycare.

I'm curious though, what would Hillary say about the lady's comment that "it does take a village" in this area?

So much for "it takes a village,"... maybe that should be it takes the state.

When I was about 10, I was bicycling, having graduated from big wheels, in the cul-de-sac where I grew up. I fell off the bike, hit my head and just started bleeding etc.. My neighbors mom ran out picked me up and carried me home to my mom, who cleaned, my wound, and then took me next door to have my aunt, an obstetrician, stitch up my head on their kitchen table.

What would have happened to me if every one needed state approval to do what they did?


G&P

Nanny-statism is ridiculous. I grew up in the 80s and no one wore bike helmets, seat belts were optional, we rode in the backs of pickup trucks and we went out past dark alone without thinking that a potential pedophile was lurking around every corner. Being cautious is good but overdoing it is just as harmful as being careless. I wish we could turn back the clock.

Elliot, Illinois has the answer to people providing some type of care in their homes, unionize them all (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/05/special-report-a-parental-revolt-against-the-seius-home-invasion-robbery/).

Ahhh... our ever-efficient government strikes again.

State to mom: Stop baby-sitting neighbors' kids - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_on_re_us/us_baby_sitter_backlash_mich)



A couple of questions.

1) Who is the schmuck that complained that his neighbor was watching other people's kids? I want to find that idiot and just smack him/her upside the head.

2) Seeing this example of how government bureaucrats seem to be able to only operate according to "stadard procedure" and can't seem to think for themselves, do we really want that type of bureaucrat in charge of any part of our lives, much less making "decisions" about our health care? Seems to me that government bureaucrats have their common sense and critical thinking skills removed upon beginning employment within the government.

Comments?

Ever heard of child protection? You know government sees this as their thing

ever heard of child protection? you know government sees this as their thing

Yes, I know, that's the problem. They think it's their thing, and they employ people with no ability to use reason or critical thinking skills to do it. That is EXACTLY the problem.

Government insanity.....Comments?Hello Elliot:

Of course, I have a comment...

I can't help but notice that you left off a LARGE part of government in your diatribe...

You don't think it's insane for the government to torture in your name, to listen to your phone calls and read your mail WITHOUT a warrant, to spirit people off the streets and render them off to some foreign land for indefinite imprisonment... You don't think THOSE things are insane at all.

I do.

So clearly, it's not "government insanity" that you don't like. It's simply a SEGMENT of the government that you don't like... The OTHER segment is just fine with you...

So, as much as you pretend to dislike government, you're really a lover of government, aren't you? Actually, you're quite LIBERAL in that regard!

excon

Actually, I'd prefer to be doing the interrogating myself. But I don't think the government is going to let me do it. So I have to trust THEM to do it. I don't have a choice in the matter.

More seriously, though...

... the other part of the argument, as I have pointed out in the past, is that the Constitution specifically gives the government the power and responsibility to run wars, maintain security and keep the peace... as well as to maintain roadways, infrastructure, the mail system, etc.

The Constitution does NOT give the government the power to be a nanny state, determine how much people can be paid for their work, etc.

So yes, I support the parts of the Government that are mandated by the Constitution, and I am against the parts of the government that are NOT mandated by the Constitution.

So yes, I support the military, the police, the CIA and the FBI, while being against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the NEA and any other non-constitutional part of the government.

You do remember the Constitution, don't you?

Probably not.

That's OK, I'll keep reminding you.

Elliot

Probably the snitch who turned in this lady ran a day care center and was miffed that she was losing money! Betcha!

Years ago, when child snatchers were not rife in America, you could leave your kids at bus stops by themselves, or leave them to come home to an empty house after school. Now, the whole world has changed. Child snatching is rife, children get snatched on their way to and from school all the time, and children get taken from their own yards in broad daylight! At least that lady was trying to do something in her own neighborhood. I laud her for that. Too bad more responsible mothers aren't doing the same thing. Do you have any idea just how much it costs to park at kid at daycare for before school and after school care? Plenty. That's how much. If both parents have to go to work just to make ends meet at home that extra "park the kids" money certainly adds up especially if you have more than one kid to "park". Try making a living when all your money goes for "parking fees" each week!!

Probably the snitch who turned in this lady ran a day care center and was miffed that she was losing money!! Betcha!!

Years ago, when child snatchers were not rife in America, you could leave your kids at bus stops by themselves, or leave them to come home to an empty house after school. Now, the whole world has changed. Child snatching is rife, children get snatched on their way to and from school all the time, and children get taken from their own yards in broad daylight!! At least that lady was trying to do something in her own neighborhood. I laud her for that. Too bad more responsible mothers aren't doing the same thing. Do you have any idea just how much it costs to park at kid at daycare for before school and after school care? Plenty. That's how much. If both parents have to go to work just to make ends meet at home that extra "park the kids" money certainly adds up especially if you have more than one kid to "park". Try making a living when all your money goes for "parking fees" each week!!!

Yep. And then the government, which claims to be for the "little guy" goes and does something stupid like this to make it harder for the little guy to get by.

BTW, why have you chosen Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos Ramírez (Sean Connery's character in The Highlander movies) as your avatar? Good picture, but does it have any significance?

Elliot

Here's a thought, you could switch these people to regulating health care, now they would really do a good job providing they had good regulations, after all what it takes is someone with no imagination?

here's a thought, you could switch these people to regulating health care, now they would really do a good job providing they had good regulations, afterall what it takes is someone with no imagination?

Yep... healthcare as run by people with the competence of the DMV, the empathy of the IRS, and the financial management skills of the USPS.

Great idea, Clete.

May I throw something else into this mix? We are talking about govt, right?

I don't think it is possible for the leftists to be so stupid as to destroy this country as a free prosperous country.

So I have to conclude that what they are doing is deliberate and planned.

Now they have an ally in the White House, who has appointed these flaming red revolutionaries of the 60's to positions of power in his administration.

This is no accident either.

Consider the fact that the people most eager to destroy us (western civilization) are Muslims. (Not every Muslim, of course!)

What better way than to have one of their own in the WH?

I think Obama's conversion to Christianity was contrived to make his political aspirations possible.

After all, he has lied about so many other things, why should we believe him on this subject?

Did not Khadafy all him "our son"? And he is not alone among Muslims who think Obama is one of them.

I know it is politically incorrect to say this, but then, I have never been PC anyway.

children get taken from their own yards in broad daylight!!
Not nearly as often as you think...

I suspect the mom was watching the kids to protect them from each other, not from stranger danger.

Wolverine,
Let me understand your position. You agree that the government has.. "the power and responsibility to run wars, maintain security and keep the peace... as well as to maintain roadways, infrastructure, the mail system, etc." but you don NOT believe the government (BY and FOR the PEOPLE - remember that, in the Constitution?) should be used to ensure the physical health of its citizens, protect the environment they live in, protect them from the unscrupulous manipulation of the powerful for their own gain, or provide for them an equitable means of educating their children?
In your world, I guess we should all "be responsible" for our own needs, and the government should stay out of our lives - unless of course, its to enable those of us with power to keep and defend the privileges of that power at the expense of the weak. That about sum it up?

What a guy...
________________________________________________

I'd love to meet one person who expects others to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" who has actually done it..

May I throw something else into this mix? We are talking about govt, right?

I don't think it is possible for the leftists to be so stupid as to destroy this country as a free prosperous country.

So I have to conclude that what they are doing is deliberate and planned.

Now they have an ally in the White House, who has appointed these flaming red revolutionaries of the 60's to positions of power in his administration.

This is no accident either.

Consider the fact that the people most eager to destroy us (western civilization) are Muslims. (Not every Muslim, of course!)

What better way than to have one of their own in the WH?

I think Obama's conversion to Christianity was contrived to make his political aspirations possible.

After all, he has lied about so many other things, why should we believe him on this subject?

Did not Khadafy all him "our son"? And he is not alone among Muslims who think Obama is one of them.

I know it is politically incorrect to say this, but then, I have never been pc anyway.


Galveston,

You shouldn't worry about being politically correct, you should worry about being an idiot!

Make the people who tell you this crap PROVE IT! Until you do you will continue to look like a fool when you repeat it. You don't realize that the rest of us know the difference!

Ahhh... our ever-efficient government strikes again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_on_re_us/us_baby_sitter_backlash_mich



A couple of questions.

1) Who is the schmuck that complained that his neighbor was watching other people's kids? I want to find that idiot and just smack him/her upside the head.

2) Seeing this example of how government bureaucrats seem to be able to only operate according to "stadard procedure" and can't seem to think for themselves, do we really want that type of bureaucrat in charge of any part of our lives, much less making "decisions" about our health care? Seems to me that government bureaucrats have their common sense and critical thinking skills removed upon beginning employment within the government.

Comments?

It's easy to take a ridiculous example like this and make hay out of it, but maybe we should think about why these rules and regulations everyone hates so much are made in the first place. What if that woman watching those children was not a personal friend of the kids' moms, but just some resident looking to make a few bucks watching the kids. The kids moms are stressed trying to get to their jobs to pay the adjustable rate mortgage they were sold by the friendly mortgage broker that just reset at 18%, so they're grateful to know this lady will watch their kids. And suppose that woman had a pervert for a husband/son/cousin/uncle/boyfriend.. And suppose the big, bad government got a call about THAT woman? Would you criticize them for making sure the kids were in the company of safe adults when not with their parents? Or would you criticize them for NOT looking into the identities of this "kid-watchers" after you see the report on the local news about the pervert relative of the nice lady who watches the kids...
It's like everyone who hates the cops... until they hear a noise in their backyard! Or the IRS, until their refund check comes. Or the "government," until they're 65 and need medical care.
Criticize, but be fair...

'night all.

Chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.

Or as James Madison said it much better than I
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

But a clear examination of the expenditures of the Federal Government ,and it's future liabilities shows it is dominated by expenditures related to benevolence.

chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.Hello tom:

Nor is the cop part of government which you and Elliot just adore. They're UNCONSTITUTIONALLY reading our mail, "for our own good". We are the worlds largest jailer, "for our own good". They're torturing people, in our names "for our own good". They are making war on people who never attacked us, "for our own good". Personally, I think attacking people who posed NO THREAT to us, was pretty INSANE - no?

You and your friend the Wolverine, can see the Constitutionality in THOSE things, but you're blind when it comes to the Constitutionality of what really might be "for our own good".

Chris, you are right, right, right... The wingers here are wrong, wrong, wrong, as you so succinctly pointed out.

excon

chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.

Or as James Madison said it much better than I
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

But a clear examination of the expenditures of the Federal Government ,and it's future liabilities shows it is dominated by expenditures related to benevolence.

Sorry for paraphrasing about We the People, I thought I'd made my point.

The preamble actually says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What part of health care for its citizens and proper education and fair and equal treatment under the law is incompatible with the efforts of our forefathers to "establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?"

As for our future expenditures being dominated be a relation to benevolence, what's wrong with benevolence? What's the purpose of being a United States if not to be benevolent to ourselves? Not the wealthy and powerful ourselves, the ALL OF US ourselves? For that matter, what is the largest single future expenditure by our federal government. Is it not defense spending? Is that benevolent spending? Is military power more important than a healthy, tranquil, justly treated population? I sure hope not...

Take benevolence from your own pocket . There is no virtue if it is compelled . Compelled benevolence is pure and simple theft.

Sorry for paraphrasing about We the People, I thought I'd made my point.

The preamble actually says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What part of health care for its citizens and proper education and fair and equal treatment under the law is incompatible with the efforts of our forefathers to "establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?"

As for our future expenditures being dominated be a relation to benevolence, what's wrong with benevolence? What's the purpose of being a United States if not to be benevolent to ourselves? Not the wealthy and powerful ourselves, the ALL OF US ourselves? For that matter, what is the largest single future expenditure by our federal government. Is it not defense spending? Is that benevolent spending? Is military power more important than a healthy, tranquil, justly treated population? I sure hope not...

You made and interesting quote there "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?" I wonder what part of promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty isn't associated with ensuring the health and well being of all citizens. What exactly are the blessings of liberty if not to live a secure life in good health? It is strange that there are those who rely on that constitution for their protection but would deny its blessings to others. I think there might be a crack in the liberty bell

Madison in Federalist 45 made it very clear that decisions regarding the general welfare was STATE and not Federal Govenment's perusal . The powers of the Federal Government were few and enumerated .


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.

Madison also said "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one".

Indeed. What everyone here who argues for massive govt. welfare is actually arguing for is throwing the Cosntitution in the scrapper and fundamentally changing the contract between the people and the national government .

Not nearly as often as you think............

I suspect the mom was watching the kids to protect them from each other, not from stranger danger.

To protect them from each other? Read the article, this is a mom helping her friends out by watching them - keeping them safe from whatever danger - so the parents can go to work while the kids wait for the bus.

To protect them from each other? Read the article, this is a mom helping her friends out by watching them - keeping them safe from whatever danger - so the parents can go to work while the kids wait for the bus.
I read the article. I'm a mom, have babysat lots and lots of kids since I was 15, and stick to my story. Those kids are in more danger from doing stupid things with and to each other than they are from "whatever danger," etc. She's being more of a behavior monitor than anything.

Indeed. What everyone here who argues for massive govt. welfare is actually arguing for is throwing the Cosntitution in the scrapper and fundamentally changing the contract between the people and the national government .Hello again, tom:

That would be so, if that's what we're arguing for... But, we're not. It's your use of the word "massive" that just isn't so. If you wanted to discuss the plan as it really is, we could.. But, it's been evident from the git go, that you, along with your Fox noise machine, want to inflame the issue, and NOT discuss it...

I suppose that would be because if you REALLY debated what's really being considered, you'd LOSE in a heartbeat.

excon

PS> Why is it, that you have no objection to MASSIVE government handouts to business?? Why don't you object to the MASSIVE increase in police power the Patriot Act gave the government?? Why don't you object to the MASSIVE footprint this country is taking in the Middle East?

I know why. That's because you're very selective about WHICH massive government program you support. Some of 'em, you think are pretty cool, doncha?

She's being more of a behavior monitor than anything.

You're seriously serious? You can think of no dangers of a child being left alone at a bus stop for an hour besides "doing stupid things." Remind me not to ask you to babysit, I'd want someone with a much more developed understanding of keeping my children safe.

You're seriously serious? You can think of no dangers of a child being left alone at a bus stop for an hour besides "doing stupid things." Remind me not to ask you to babysit, I'd want someone with a much more developed understanding of keeping my children safe.
Good grief! You must be male.

Have you ever ridden a school bus that picks up in a subdivision or even rural area? The bus doesn't stop at every house. There are designated pick-up places. Children from various homes meet in those places to wait for the bus. Rare is a child waiting alone. Children standing around together for an hour get bored and can easily get into trouble.

Good grief! You must be male.

What does that have to do with anything?


Have you ever ridden a school bus that picks up in a subdivision or even rural area? The bus doesn't stop at every house. There are designated pick-up places. Children from various homes meet in those places to wait for the bus. Rare is a child waiting alone. Children standing around together for an hour get bored and can easily get into trouble.


Never said they couldn't get bored and get into trouble, but I guarantee those parents first concern is not their children being "bored." That's something I would expect a dad might think of first, but not a mom. Yeah, I don't want to leave my kids at a bus stop for an hour because they might get bored. Good grief indeed.

What does that have to do with anything?
Your reasoning.

Never said they couldn't get bored and get into trouble, but I guarantee those parents first concern is not their children being "bored."
I'm tempted to call her and find out. Bored kids dare each other to do stupid things like dash across the road in front of an approaching car, several gang up on one, sticks or stones get picked up and thrown first at road signs or tree trunks and then at each other... kids have very fertile imaginations.

I looked up the demographics of the township she lives in -- primarily white (non-Hispanic), German or Dutch heritage, high school grads who work in construction or office jobs, one or two kids per family that are in primary or middle school. If they were on the south side of Chicago, I'd worry about stranger danger and murder and kidnapping, but not in Irving Township. Look at the photo that accompanies the article. She isn't standing there with a gun, but with her arms crossed across her chest, watching them carefully as they hang out.

Your reasoning.

I just wanted to note that it was you that made this a gender thing by insulting men, and yes I am male. My gender has nothing to do with this though I seem to have more mom instinct on it than you do.


I'm tempted to call her and find out.

By all means do.


Bored kids dare each other to do stupid things like dash across the road in front of an approaching car, several gang up on one, sticks or stones get picked up and thrown first at road signs or tree trunks and then at each other... kids have very fertile imaginations.

Duh? And these parents want to keep their kids safe, whatever the danger.


If they were on the south side of Chicago, I'd worry about stranger danger and murder and kidnapping, but not in Irving Township.

And I used to not worry about my parents being kidnapped and robbed living just outside of Duke, OK (http://www.city-data.com/city/East-Duke-Oklahoma.html) (pop. 400) but they were.

And these parents want to keep their kids safe, whatever the danger.
I never said they didn't want to keep them safe. Glad you came around to my way of thinking. (And you insulted me first.)

I never said they didn't want to keep them safe.

Always moving the goalpost.


Glad you came around to my way of thinking.

It appears to be the other way around.

Always moving the goalpost.
I said "safe from each other."

Men hate to lose, don't they.

I said "safe from each other."

Yeah, "to protect them from each other." As in you were dismissing Twinkie's concern on kids being snatched. I'm telling you those parents are thinking about a lot more than protecting the kids from each other... Twinkie's point was relevant.


Men hate to lose, don't they.

Apparently not as much as you do, I've been consistent.

Yeah, "to protect them from each other." As in you were dismissing Twinkie's concern on kids being snatched. I'm telling you those parents are thinking about a lot more than protecting the kids from each other... Twinkie's point was relevant.[
Kids don't get snatched, especially in rural areas of Michigan. Child snatchings by strangers are rare. If anyone snatches, it's the non-custodial parent, not some stranger. Studies will support me on this.

I've been consistent.
We both have, but I strongly disagree with you.

Kids don't get snatched, especially in rural areas of Michigan.

And retired parents don't get kidnapped and robbed in Duke, OK... or did you miss that?


Child snatchings by strangers are rare. If anyone snatches, it's the non-custodial parent, not some stranger. Studies will support me on this.

And that makes a difference on my point... how? If anything it makes it stronger. All I'm saying is you were dismissive of Twinkie's point which is relevant. Parents, educators, day cares, church nurseries... and child protective services are much more concerned with the overall safety of the child. The dangers of sexual predators and snatchings by whoever are much more of a concern to them than you want to acknowledge for some strange reason.


We both have, but I strongly disagree with you.

Hey, if you think it's all about keeping little Johnny from getting bored then whatever, I give those parents much more credit than that.

And retired parents don't get kidnapped and robbed in Duke, OK... or did you miss that?
How often does this happen?

Twinkie's point which is relevant.
The media are the ones who have turned this into a cause. Child snatchings are rare and have gone down over the past 50 years. There are fewer now than when I was a kid. In my early childhood ed classes, the subject of children's safety was to keep them from hurting themselves and each other. Child protective agencies are more concerned about non-custodial parents or relatives, rather than a stranger, taking a child. When it comes to a child having been harmed, first look at the family members.

Several posts back, there were those who spoke for government benefits.

There used to be a place where government provided everything. Jobs, health care, housing, etc.

People were literally dying to get out of it.

It was called the USSR. Remember it?

It was called the USSR. Remember it?
But the citizens weren't given a choice.

How often does this happen?

Why does that matter? A local jury just sentenced a man last week for murdering 3 people in their farmhouse (http://www.amarillo.com/stories/100709/new_news3.shtml) 60 miles from here. You act as if rural crime isn't a problem and it is.


The media are the ones who have turned this into a cause.

Now blame the media? It should be a cause, neighbors should be able to help each other without fear of the government clamping down.


Child snatchings are rare and have gone down over the past 50 years. There are fewer now than when I was a kid.

So what? Why are you marginalizing this concern? I don't get it, it makes no sense.


In my early childhood ed classes, the subject of children's safety was to keep them from hurting themselves and each other.

OK, whatever. All I know is I wouldn't leave my children for an hour at a bus stop without someone to protect them... and my first concern is not about what they'd do to each other.


Child protective agencies are more concerned about non-custodial parents or relatives, rather than a stranger, taking a child. When it comes to a child having been harmed, first look at the family members.

Again, it makes my case. A non-custodial parent is more likely to know this would be an opportunity to grab the kid. Give it up Wondergirl, your dismissing this concern is silly.

Wolverine,
Let me understand your position. You agree that the government has.. "the power and responsibility to run wars, maintain security and keep the peace... as well as to maintain roadways, infrastructure, the mail system, etc." but you don NOT believe the government (BY and FOR the PEOPLE - remember that, in the Constitution?) should be used to ensure the physical health of its citizens, protect the environment they live in, protect them from the unscrupulous manipulation of the powerful for their own gain, or provide for them an equitable means of educating their children?

By what method would a government insure the physical health of it's citizens?

The BEST they could do is offer health INSURANCE or MEDICAL CARE not actual health. It is impossible to insure someone's health. The best insurance in the world cannot guarantee someone's health. The best health care in the world cannot guarantee someone's health. It can only guarantee CARE, not actual health.

I believe that it IS the government's job to make sure that everyone can get the health care they want/need/desire. The ONLY way that they can do that is by (and you skipped this prior quote from me) insuring that there is a free market in which people can purchase and sell goods and services freely, accumulate wealth, and pass that wealth on to the next generation. It is the government's job to maintain, perpetuate and protect interstate commerce through a free market system. THROUGH THAT FREE MARKET SYSTEM people are able to purchase the goods and services they want/need/desire... including health care and health insurance.

It is NOT, however, the government's job to provide those services... merely the free market system in which OTHERS can provide it. As soon as the government gets involved in actually providing the goods and services, they have eliminated the concept of the free market, because the market is no longer free. By doing so, they violate their Constitutional mandate.


In your world, I guess we should all "be responsible" for our own needs, and the government should stay out of our lives - unless of course, its to enable those of us with power to keep and defend the privileges of that power at the expense of the weak. That about sum it up?

Nope. In MY world (ei: the REAL WORLD) people have the ability to change their financial status. The poor have the ability to become rich, and the rich often lose their money and become poor. You speak in terms of class warfare, but the fact is that in the USA there are fewer barriers between the "classes" than in any other system in the world. People can indeed move from one class to another. A lower middle-class kid from Seattle, Wa grew up to become the richest man in the world because he was able to sell something that everyone wanted. A grandson of Jewish immigrants from Russia, who's father was a real estate agent, is now a Billionaire and the Mayor or New York and #17 on the Forbes list of the world's richest people. A middle-class woman from Nutley, NJ who quit the stock-brokerage industry in 1973 to be with her daughter has become a billionaire with a major magazine, a major media company, and a TV program telling women how to be better housewives.

There is nothing keeping good people who are willing to work from becoming the next billionaire. Except the government intervention that keeps them there by eliminating free markets and incetives for hard work, of course. It is the very government interventions that you propose that create the very barriers that you complain about.


What a guy...
________________________________________________

I'd love to meet one person who expects others to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" who has actually done it..

Nice to meet you.

Elliot

(BY and FOR the PEOPLE - remember that, in the Constitution?)

Um... no.

Because it isn't in the Constitution. It is from the Gettysburg Address.


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Elliot

Sorry for paraphrasing about We the People, I thought I'd made my point.

The preamble actually says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What part of health care for its citizens and proper education and fair and equal treatment under the law is incompatible with the efforts of our forefathers to "establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?"

ALL of it.

As you have said, it is the job of the government to PROMOTE GENERAL WELFARE... not grant it, promote it. It is NOT the job of the government to GRANT anything. It is their job to promote a free market system in which people can pursue these things, not to take it upon themselves to GIVE those things.[/quote]


As for our future expenditures being dominated be a relation to benevolence, what's wrong with benevolence? What's the purpose of being a United States if not to be benevolent to ourselves? Not the wealthy and powerful ourselves, the ALL OF US ourselves? For that matter, what is the largest single future expenditure by our federal government. Is it not defense spending? Is that benevolent spending? Is military power more important than a healthy, tranquil, justly treated population? I sure hope not...

The purpose of the United States is very simple and has nothing to do with granting goods and services. It's purpose, as I have said, is to create the ENVIRONMENT in which people can pursue those goods and services and liberties on their own without interference from others (including the government). That is the part you seem to miss.

Hello again, tom:

That would be so, if that's what we're arguing for.... But, we're not. It's your use of the word "massive" that just isn't so. If you wanted to discuss the plan as it really is, we could.. But, it's been evident from the git go, that you, along with your Fox noise machine, want to inflame the issue, and NOT discuss it...

I suppose that would be because if you REALLY debated what's really being considered, you'd LOSE in a heartbeat.

excon

PS> Why is it, that you have no objection to MASSIVE government handouts to business??? Why don't you object to the MASSIVE increase in police power the Patriot Act gave the government???? Why don't you object to the MASSIVE footprint this country is taking in the Middle East?

I know why. That's because you're very selective about WHICH massive government program you support. Some of 'em, you think are pretty cool, doncha?

A $2.3 Trillion plan seems pretty "massive" to me.

A plan that allows the government to nationalize 1/6th of our economy seems pretty "massive" to me.

Why do you deny that it is "massive?

Also... who is in favor of "massive handouts to businesses". If you will remember, we were AGAINST the government bailouts of the banks, auto manufacturers, and insurance companies that were supposedly "too big to fail". What are you talking about, excon?

As for the "massive increases of government power" of the USA Patriot Act, we are talking about powers that the Constitution already grants the government, and rightly so... the powers to defend the nation against any enemies foreign and domestic. Says so right there in the Constitution.

Elliot

As you have said, it is the job of the government to PROMOTE GENERASL WELFARE.... not grant it, promote it. It is NOT the job of the government to GRANT anything. It is their job to promote a free market system in which people can pursue these things, not to take it upon themselves to GIVE those things.Hello again, Elliot:

What you say is true... But, over the last 30 years or so, the government has been GRANTING private industry SPECIAL favors and SUBSIDY'S that pervert what you call a free market, into a license for them to print money.

Your principals are right. You observations are wrong. You speak as though the markets are pure. They aren't. So, once industry HAS the ear of congress, and congress passed laws that SKEWED the markets in the favor of industry, industry stops competing for customers, and starts competing for government handouts. If that WASN'T true, why does industry spend BILLIONS on lobbying congress instead of spending it to improve customer service??

That's what's happened. They've created a pretty nice situation for themselves.. Therefore, there has to be legislation to put the markets BACK to where they work for EVERYBODY, as you suggest they do, instead of for themselves, which is what they REALLY do.

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

What you say is true... But, over the last 30 years or so, the government has been GRANTING private industry SPECIAL favors and SUBSIDY'S that pervert what you call a free market, into a license for them to print money.

Your principals are right. You observations are wrong. You speak as though the markets are pure. They aren't. So, once industry HAS the ear of congress, and congress passed laws that SKEWED the markets in the favor of industry, industry stops competing for customers, and starts competing for government handouts. If that WASN'T true, why does industry spend BILLIONS on lobbying congress instead of spending it to improve customer service?????

That's what's happened. They've created a pretty nice situation for themselves.. Therefore, there has to be legislation to put the markets BACK to where they work for EVERYBODY, as you suggest they do, instead of for themselves, which is what they REALLY do.

excon

Of course there's lobbying taking place. In fact, it takes place because the members of Congress INVITED it. They wanted (in the words of Curtis Sliwa) to be wined, dined and pocket-lined. The businesses, the unions, the eco-nut groups, the pro-gun, anti-gun, pro abortion, anti-abortion, and pro/anti-whatever-you-like groups all saw that the government officials were willing to be bought, so they bought 'em.

The key to fixing that is making lobbying illegal. But it ain't going to happen... not because of businesses, but because the members of Congress don't want it to end. They LIKE the graft they get.

You are right about that.

But where does the problem lay?

It is SUPPOSED to be the government's job to MAINTAIN, PROTECT and PROMOTE the free market. Instead, they are ELIMINATING the free market by accepting lobbyist graft.

Nowhere in any law does it say that it is the job of businesses to maintain the free markets. In fact, it is the fiduciary responsibility of any business toward its shareholders to take advantage of any edge they can get in the market place, including greasing the legislative wheels if they can get away with it. Their sole job is to make a profit, not play fair.

It is the GOVERNMENT'S job to make sure that everyone is playing on a level playing field. Instead, the government is busy accepting bribes to make the playing field as UNEVEN as possible.

So the very problem you speak of is another example of GOVERNMENT Interference in the free markets instead of their protecting the free markets from such influence.

Don't blame the companies for accepting the government officials' invitation to the party. Blame the government for throwing the party in the first place. The companies didn't do anything wrong, illegal or immoral. They did what they are supposed to do as profit-making ventures. Blame the government officials for unduly influencing the markets they were supposed to uphold as "free" as per the Constitution.

So your solution to government influence in the free markets is MORE government influence in the free markets.

What a brilliant solution. More poison to fix the poison in the system.

By contrast, my solution is to get rid of lobbying by limiting what gifts any politician can accept from any lobbyist and requiring that they be reported to the public.

I, as a Banker, cannot let a client buy me a lunch anymore, because the FDIC has determined that such "business lunches" could constitute a "conflict of interest". Gifts from clients as low as $25 have to be reported to the FDIC as well. If that is the law for bankers, why are there not similar laws for legislators and lobbyists?

Simple. Congress doesn't want 'em.

Want to eliminate the uneven playing field? Put such laws in place, and see how long lobbyists last without being able to use "gifts" to influence the politicians. For that matter, see how long members of Congress last if they realize that they aren't going to be given free meals, free booze, free trips to Cancun, free hookers, etc. by lobbyists anymore.

Get RID of government influence. Don't increase it. THEN we'll be a lot closer to the free markets that built this country. But your solution if INCREASING government influence is the exact bass-ackwards way of handling it.

Elliot

So your solution to government influence in the free markets is MORE government influence in the free markets.

What a brilliant solution. More poison to fix the poison in the system.Hello El:

My solution is, and always has been, term limits. I know - you forgot.

excon

Hello El:

My solution is, and always has been, term limits. I know - you forgot.

excon

Term limits won't stop lobbying from taking place. There will still be a 12-year period for lobbyists to do their thing with politicians (assuming that you limit them to 2 terms in the Senate).

Not to mention the fact that Lobbyists would still have huge influence with the PARTIES even if their influence with the members of the Senate is limited.

No, the only way to eliminate the problem is to limit the amounts of money that they can contribute to a candidate or party or sitting elected official and force disclosure of all gifts or donations to the public.

Elliot

Hello El:

My solution is, and always has been, term limits. I know - you forgot.

excon

Actually, your solution is and always has been more government regulation of industry... ostensibly to counter the "influence" of the lobbyists for those industries. You said so yourself earlier in this thread. You said that the "free markets" that I am proposing won't work because of lobbyist influence, and that we therefore need more regulation of corporations. THAT is your solution. But in reality it's just more of the same... government influence to fix government influence... and it can't work, because it's just doubling down on what didn't work in the first place.

Eliminating government influence is the key, not increasing it.

Elliot

But the citizens weren't given a choice.

And you are certain that YOUR choices are not being reduced?

Get your head back into the sunshine.

And you are certain that YOUR choices are not being reduced?

Mine have increased and will continue to increase.

Mine have increased and will continue to increase.

When you have govt agents talking about enforced sterilization of women, (one of the czars advocated this in the past), talk of banning big screen TV's, painting roofs white, installing thermostats in your home that can be controlled by bureaucrats, banning black cars (in California), then you stand in real danger of losing your choices.

My health insurance is going up, and I have no choice or voice in the matter. (If the current health care bill passes.)

What choices do you have now that your grandmother did not have?

Did she have choices that you do not have now?

Do you think that everyone should have their need met by government, with everyone contributing what they are able?

Mine have increased and will continue to increase.

Really? With the Dems doing all they can to force the private insurers out of the health insurance business, passing a hate crimes bill that will restrict free speech, cap and trade and who knows what else, you think you'll have more choices?

Really? With the Dems doing all they can to force the private insurers out of the health insurance business
The insurance companies are not in business to help their insureds. I recently was a hospital patient. Considering what the hospital charged and what the insurance company doesn't want to pay... and I'm caught in the middle. THIS system is not working.

The insurance companies are not in business to help their insureds. I recently was a hospital patient. Considering what the hospital charged and what the insurance company doesn't want to pay...........and I'm caught in the middle. THIS system is not working.

Nice deflection.

The insurance companies are not in business to help their insureds. I recently was a hospital patient. Considering what the hospital charged and what the insurance company doesn't want to pay...........and I'm caught in the middle. THIS system is not working.

That is because "insurance" isn't the ultimate answer to health care. The only people with enough clout to enforce fairness is the government otherwise you have the insurers gaming the system. The government have to have the willingness and ability to regulate the system, both as to costs and benefits. The debate should be about regulation not the government taking over insurers.
You need a system where the patient clearly knows what is covered before any procedure, and if some of the insures have to get bigger so the system works is this a bad thing

The main point is that I don't want a government that has already failed at so many things running my health care.

Washington has a proven track record, and it is not good.

The main point is that I don't want a government that has already failed at so many things running my health care.

Washington has a proven track record, and it is not good.
The IRS, VA, and SS web sites are fantastic though, as is their customer service.

The IRS, VA, and SS web sites are fantastic though, as is their customer service.

They have good web sites? What does that mean?

The idea of a graduated income tax was first proposed by Karl Marx. It is destructive and un American by nature. The IRS is undoubtedly the most feared arm of the government.

VA hospitials are not noted for good health care. Horror stories abound.

SS was set up as a ponzi scheme to start with and is going under. Killing 50 million future taxpayers hasn't helped the situation either.

Fantastic customer service? You bet!

The IRS will definitely tend to you if you do not "voluntarily" send the confession sheet and pay the taxes.

Your examples show why I don't trust Washingtom.

The IRS, VA, and SS web sites are fantastic though, as is their customer service.

I'm sorry, but that's funny, lol!

I'm sorry, but that's funny, lol!Hello Steve:

What's funny is your response... You were looking for government agencies that provide good service.. Carol mentioned a couple... Then you dissed her because the particular SERVICE that's delivered WELL, isn't a service you like... Therefore, she's all wet...

How about the biggest government agency of all - the military?? Do you like them?? Do you think THEY deliver the service they're supposed to deliver?? I'll bet you do, because you LIKE the military... How about your local cops?? Do THEY deliver good service? How about your fire department??

Dude! Your hypocrisy is showing! YOU, like the Wolverine think the part of government that delivers services you DON'T LIKE, sucks!! But, when you consider the parts of government that you LIKE, well damn, government works just fine...

excon

the particular SERVICE that's delivered WELL,

Can you please explain to me how these examples deliver their service well?

The IRS audits and prosecutes pitifully few tax cheats and lets the biggest ones become headlines.

The VA has seemingly changed their mission to getting vets out from under their purview altogether.

The SSA allows everyone and their cousin Mary to require an ID number which is specifically prohibited by law.

This level of service would result in rapid bankruptcy from ANY service provider but the government.

Hello C:

So, instead of going by popular BELIEF, and the recent emails I received, I'm going by my EXPERIENCES. After all, I HAD (and STILL have) lots of those beliefs too.

It's true. I don't like the DMV. They make me take a number and wait to go to window 983, only to find out that I took my number from the WRONG number thingy, and I have to start all over again... THAT, I hate...

With that kind of mind set, can you imagine how much I feared turning 65 knowing that I'm going to have to deal with SS and Medicare??

I was PLEASANTLY surprised... No, REALLY. I'd LOVE to blast government. There's parts I don't like either... But, it's true - I was pleasantly surprised when I got my Medicare card with NO hassell. They pay the bills. They haven't, as of yet, told me that I have to die. They haven't refused ANY medical service I've required... I don't know. What's not to like??

Social Security?? Boy, was I NOT looking forward to dealing with THEM... They're HUGE. For sure, they're going to hassell me...

But, they send the checks ON TIME every month. When I was going to change banks, I KNEW that my next three checks would be lost somewhere... But, when I went in, there was about 4 or 5 people there. They took care of me no matter WHAT window I went too, and my check got into my bank on the FIRST TRY.

Now, I don't like what the IRS DOES, but in terms of how I've been treated, I can't complain... They send my refund checks, and they don't hassell me. When they DID audit me, they asked about the ONE item they had questions about. When I provided the documentation they required, they thanked me, and went away...

In the final analysis, the IRS is nothing more than a glorified collection agency. I've dealt with collection agencies... As much as it pains me to say this, I'll take the IRS collectors ANY DAY over those scumbag PRIVATE collectors..

Those are MY experiences with the government agencies that I deal with. I'd LOVE to believe the emails... I'd LOVE to believe the rhetoric... But, I believe MY EYES first..

excon

How about the biggest government agency of all - the military??? Do you like them??? Do you think THEY deliver the service they're supposed to deliver??? I'll bet you do, because you LIKE the military... How about your local cops??? Do THEY deliver good service?? How about your fire department???
How could you miss mentioning PUBLIC LIBRARIES??

How could you miss mentioning PUBLIC LIBRARIES???????Hello Little Miss Librarian,

I don't know! How'd I DO that?

excon

How could you miss mentioning PUBLIC LIBRARIES???????

I've never been to a federally funded Public Library. All of the ones I've been to are funded by local governments and private donations. Does yours get a grant?

I've never been to a federally funded Public Library. All of the ones I've been to are funded by local governments and private donations. Does yours get a grant?
Private donations? Like through property taxes, our largest source of funding?

We usually get grants from the state. Public libraries are local government entities (I didn't say federal.)

I thought government at any level is the enemy here.

Please read this --

Library Funding. ERIC Digest. (http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-4/funding.html)

Private donations? Like through property taxes, our largest source of funding?

We usually get grants from the state. Public libraries are local government entities (I didn't say federal.)

I thought government at any level is the enemy here.

Please read this --

Library Funding. ERIC Digest. (http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-4/funding.html)

Government becomes the enemy when it goes beyond what the Constitution authorizes it to. Otherwise it is the proper servant of the people.

Our Federal government has long since gone beyond its authorization.

Military, infrastructure, mail, and money are within the Constitutional pervue of the federal government.

We could make long list of things that are not, but have been taken over anyway.

Evening Elliot

You are not going to believe this, but I think we actually agree on something

In the UK a few weeks ago, we had a similar report

Two police officers who had been friends for years shared the repsonsibility of looking after each other kids when the other was working

If they had to factor in the cost of full time care at nursery's then they would be better off on social benefits

A "complaint" was made by someone, and the two wpc's were informed they are breaking the law

What kind of stupidty are we living in here, especially if this is the feeling from two separate governments

Myself and my sister spent most summer holidays going from one aunts house to another, and as one of your posts states, who better is there to pick you up and clean up your wounds after you came off your bike than family! (especially if it is not your mom after you have ripped your jeans)

Bonkers elliot, totally bonkers

Steve

What's funny is your response... You were looking for government agencies that provide good service.. Carol mentioned a couple... Then you dissed her because the particular SERVICE that's delivered WELL, isn't a service you like... Therefore, she's all wet...

I've never heard anyone speak of the IRS offering "good service" before, but what was funny was that they have great web sites. Tell me that at tax time when you need an answer you can understand.


How about the biggest government agency of all - the military?? Do you like them?? Do you think THEY deliver the service they're supposed to deliver?? I'll bet you do, because you LIKE the military... How about your local cops?? Do THEY deliver good service? How about your fire department??

I don't much like my local cops but they're necessary and I wouldn't want to do without them. Fire departments are usually first class.


Dude! Your hypocrisy is showing! YOU, like the Wolverine think the part of government that delivers services you DON'T LIKE, sucks!! But, when you consider the parts of government that you LIKE, well damn, government works just fine...

The military has the toughest job in the world so they deserve my respect. Otherwise, I don't find much government efficiency in anything.

The military has the toughest job in the world so they deserve my respect. Otherwise, I don't find much government efficiency in anything.

And I've never heard of anyone accusing the adminstering of the military establishment as being efficient. They do a great service true. But the cost of those hammers...

And I've never heard of anyone accusing the adminstering of the military establishment as being efficient. They do a great service true. But the cost of those hammers.........

Yep. We do business with the Air Force fairly regularly and while they have stringent quality requirements they have no clue as to what they're paying for things. I know, I shouldn't gouge the military and then complain about government spending... but I don't. Doing business with them is such a pain you have to add to cover the extra costs associated with doing business with the federal government.

The IRS, VA, and SS web sites are fantastic though, as is their customer service.


So... you like doing business with the IRS, the VA and SS?

The VA may have a wonderful website, but their HOSPITALS are festering hellholes.

The IRA may have a wonderful website, but they are out to take your money, and they aren't exactly the most empathetic people on earth.

The Social Security website may be wonderful, but the SS Trust Fund is BANKRUPT.

So... aside from their wonderful websites, what exactly is it that makes you think that the government is competent at providing the services we are looking for in a health care provider?

Elliot

The military has the toughest job in the world so they deserve my respect. Otherwise, I don't find much government efficiency in anything.

I agree with Tom on this one.

There is a HUGE difference between EFFICIENCY and EFFECTIVENESS. The military is one of the very few parts of government that are highly EFFECTIVE in the performance of their given tasks.

But they are FAR from EFFICIENT.

Elliot

How could you miss mentioning PUBLIC LIBRARIES???????

Those are city-run bodies, not Federal.

Elliot

Hello Steve:

What's funny is your response... You were looking for government agencies that provide good service.. Carol mentioned a couple... Then you dissed her because the particular SERVICE that's delivered WELL, isn't a service you like... Therefore, she's all wet...

No, she's all wet because the very agencies she mentioned are the very examples of government inefficicency that we're talking about.


How about the biggest government agency of all - the military?? Do you like them?? Do you think THEY deliver the service they're supposed to deliver?? I'll bet you do, because you LIKE the military...

They are EFFECTIVE at their jobs, but not particularly EFFICIENT. You have been talking about how EFFICIENT the government will be at delivering health care. Using the military as an example of EFFICIENCY is a total crock and you know it.


How about your local cops?? Do THEY deliver good service? How about your fire department??

Both are city-run organizations, not Federal. Nevertheless, as much as I like the services that they provide, they are not exactly models of efficiency either. Especially when you consider that most cities that have paid police and fire departments (as opposed to volunteer systems) actually pay for THREE of EACH... they pay for their current police and fire force, the ones that are recently retired and the ones that retired 20 years ago... due to their pension programs. That is, they are paying 300% of what the private sector would be paying for employment benefits. That is MASSIVE INEFFICIENCY. Yes, the service is good... but the cost is not lower, it's higher than the private sector would pay for the same service.


Dude! Your hypocrisy is showing! YOU, like the Wolverine think the part of government that delivers services you DON'T LIKE, sucks!! But, when you consider the parts of government that you LIKE, well damn, government works just fine...

Excon

No... we're criticizing ALL government agencies equally... as being HIGHLY INEFFICIENT and poor examples of how to SAVE MONEY over the private sector. The fact that some (very few) of those agencies have managed to provide good services doesn't make them more efficient than the private sector. Government agencies are ALL wasteful, and inefficient and MOST also provide awful service.

The only hipocracy here is coming from you... claiming to be an advocate of government, claiming to be happy with the services cops provide, but then dissing on cops as all being corrupt and evil when they get in the way of your weed or put someone in jail for possession or when they "fight the war on drugs" that you don't believe in.

Your hippocracy includes the fact that you continue to push for a government health care system "out of the goodness of your heart" in order "to help the poor", but you wouldn't dream of stepping into a VA office yourself to take care of your medical needs, even though as a wartime Vet you are eligible for their services. Government health care is good enough for poor folks, but not for excon.

We're being equally critical across the board, including of the government agencies who's services we like. YOU are the one with multiple levels of hippocracy.

Elliot

but you wouldn't dream of stepping into a VA office yourself to take care of your medical needs, even though as a wartime Vet you are eligible for their services. Government health care is good enough for poor folks, but not for excon.
For years, I accompanied my WWII vet uncle (who had a nice nest egg) to a nearby VA hospital for checkups and ongoing care, even as an in-patient. I was always impressed by the courtesy and care he received, from the receptionist to the technicians to the doctors.

No, she's all wet because the very agencies she mentioned are the very examples of government inefficicency that we're talking about.
My experiences with the VA and SS so far have been above reproach. My younger son has worked for a total of twelve years for two large, well-known companies and has often mentioned their inefficiencies. You don't think corporate America is guilty of such?

My experiences with the VA and SS so far have been above reproach. My younger son has worked for a total of twelve years for two large, well-known companies and has often mentioned their inefficiencies. You don't think corporate America is guilty of such?

Of course it is. But excon's solution to corporate inefficiency was government intervention. And my point is that no matter how inefficient corporate America can be, the government is MUCH worse.

I have never seen a corporation spend $500 for a $2 hammer, have you?

I have never seen a corporate entity that was $42 Trillion in debt with no assets remain in business. But the SS Aministration does it.

I have never seen a corporate agency that continually loses money for their business partners continue to get funding from its investors and do business wth those partners. But Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are costing states huge amounts of losses every year continue to receive federal and state dollars and continue to operate in those states.

Corporate entities that waste so much money that they go broke go out of business. Government agencies that waste so much money that they go broke get emergency appropriations from Congress and continue to lose money.

There is a magnitude of difference between corporate inefficiency and government inefficiency.

Elliot

Evening Elliot

I am sure you can recognise that when a committee, organisation or a government is repsosible for spending money they will do so with peoples interest at heart

When a company spends money, a board or single person makes that decision with purely the bottom line in mind

Therefore there will always be a gap between efficiency of a company and a government

Do you accept that point of view?

Steve

Evening Elliot

I am sure you can recognise that when a committee, organisation or a government is repsosible for spending money they will do so with peoples interest at heart

Actually, I recognize the exact opposite. NOBODY spends money with the interest of other people's interests at heart. Even charitable organizations do it because there's something in it for them. And governments are probably the worst...


When a company spends money, a board or single person makes that decision with purely the bottom line in mind

When a government agency spends money, they do it for one of two reasons... either to gain additional power for itself, or to create social engineerring. Usually the social engineering is done so that they can gain additional power for themselves.


Therefore there will always be a gap between efficiency of a company and a government

Do you accept that point of view?

Steve

Sure, I can accept that there is a REASON that governments are less efficient than businesses (though I don't agree that it is a good reason). But if, as excon has argued, the point of health care reform is to make it more EFFICIENT in order to make it more affordable through less wasteful spending, then nationalizing the system is counter-productive to that goal. Can you understand the logic of that position?

Elliot

I can and I do agree, Politicians and their organisations should never run anything

However, I think on some levels, you should never let a business run it either

A business is never answerable to the people, governments are

Governments can't work efficiently, businessess can

And yet these are the two choices available to everyone

So what would you suggest to make the givernment more efficient?

I ask, because we all know, another level of administration hikes the price even further

Steve

I have never seen a corporation spend $500 for a $2 hammer, have you?
No. They use 4"x4" Post-It Notes when 2"x2" ones would suffice. Don't even ask about our paperless corporations that buy tons and tons of copier and printer paper.

What about $40 for an aspirin?

There is a magnitude of difference between corporate inefficiency and government inefficiency.Hello again:

This from a fellow who calls emergency rooms EFFICIENT if the doctors work EFFICIENTLY. It doesn't occur to him that treating people for a cold in the emergency room ISN'T EFFICIENT, no matter HOW well organized the doctor is.

Believe what he says about EFFICIENCY, at your own risk.

I WILL provide the link, if the Wolverine denies he said it.

excon

The only differnce I can think off between a company and government is this

A company will spend money to earn money, so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves

A government will spend money to earn praise, and regardless of how much they spend, they still get paid at the end of the week

I think until a politician has to account for his expenses every week to then provide his wages at the end of it, the system of overspend will never change

I also find it interesting that regardless of country, cultural back ground, all governments follow the same pattern

So it is a by product of the system, and I can't see anything out there that will alter it

The only differnce I can think off between a company and government is this

A company will spend money to earn money, so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves

A government will spend money to earn praise, and regardless of how much they spend, they still get paid at the end of the week

I think until a politician has to account for his expenses every week to then provide his wages at the end of it, the system of overspend will never change

I also find it interesting that regardless of country, cultural back ground, all governments follow the same pattern

So it is a by product of the system, and I can't see anything out there that will alter it

You hit on something important here... corporations worry about their bottoms lines and so they SPEND LESS to maximize that bottom line. Whereas governments do not have to watch the bottom line... in fact, they have a spend-it-or-lose-it policy here in the USA. Whatever they don't spend won't be budgeted to them next year, so they spend every penny they get and MORE to justify the need for a larger budget next year.

Which means that a government will ALWAYS overspend, whereas a corporation will always try to MINIMIZE spending.

Guess which of these results in lower costs to the consumer.

Elliot

Guess which of these results in lower costs to the consumer.

You musta missed this part: "so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves." (Psssst, they don't care about the consumer.)

You know Elliot, you guys speak with a different accent, and yet we are kin


they have a spend-it-or-lose-it policy here in the USA

It is exactly the same here in the UK, most of Europe is the same, with eastern blocks emerging as equal partners of the EU, their system of governments are becoming the same

Who started that trend with budgeting, and where do they live :)

You musta missed this part: "so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves." (Psssst, they don't care about the consumer.)

Show me a politician and a businessman and I will expose two liars

You know Elliot, you guys speak with a different accent, and yet we are kin



It is exactly the same here in the UK, most of Europe is the same, with eastern blocks emerging as equal partners of the EU, their system of governments are becoming the same

Who started that trend with budgeting, and where do they live :)

I THINK that it started with the US government, but I'm not sure of that. I have no idea when the UK government started that budgeting practice. I am pretty sure that ALL western governments use the same basic methodology for budgeting... which just proves my point about government in general. Ain't none of 'em that are more efficient than a private sector business.

So... if your goal is to improve efficiency in order to bring down cost for the consumer (which is excon's main argument in favor of government-run health care) then you are being counter-productive when you hand it over to the government.

Elliot

You musta missed this part: "so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves." (Psssst, they don't care about the consumer.)


They don't have to "care about the consumer". The result for the consumer occurs whether the business owner cares about the consumer or not. It is a natural byproduct of higher efficiency... both the consumer and the service provider benefit. The consumer pays less for the product and the owner of the business takes home greater profits. BOTH of them benefit.

Part of your problem, Wondergirl, is that you believe that if a business benefits, it must mean that the consumer is bwing screwed over and is losing out. To you, business is a zero-sum game... if one side of the transaction wins, the other side must lose. But that is simply not true. In most transactions, BOTH parties benefit. The guy who sells a car benefits by receiving money... hopefully more money than he paid for the car in the first place. The guy buying the car also benefits by receiving the product that he paid for in good working order. Neither one has been "screwed" in the deal. Both benefit equally. Similarly, when the insurance provider creates greater efficiencies, both he and his customer benefit equally... he increases his profitability, and the consumer pays less for his insurance.

You should really read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", especially the part about the "invisble hand". It explains how people working solely for their own benefit (to make themselves rich) create benefits to others as well (greater efficiencies, new products, lower prices, better services). It is the entire basis for the capitalist system and it has worked in the real world for centuries now. But the basic point I am making is that all parties involved benefit from greater efficiencies and lower pricing... and it doesn't matter whether the insurance company owner CARES for his customers or not.

Elliot

Morning Elliot

I agree with your points on business, I run my own businesses and as such, I do care about the customer, in as much as I want see them benefit from the product I sell

This obviously is a selfish act, as I want them to praise me and my product so word of mouth reputation will make more sales

However, there are certain aspects of business that I don't like when it connects social reform

Don't you think there is a case where business and government can work together to improve the governments effiecently while still leaving a voice for the people to address issues?

Hello again:

This from a fellow who calls emergency rooms EFFICIENT if the doctors work EFFICIENTLY. It doesn't occur to him that treating people for a cold in the emergency room ISN'T EFFICIENT, no matter HOW well organized the doctor is.

Believe what he says about EFFICIENCY, at your own risk.

I WILL provide the link, if the Wolverine denies he said it.

excon

I said it, and I stand by the statement.

In fact, I will say it again...

ERs are, by their very nature, the most efficient part of the American health care system. They are the only part of the medical system that assign the assets of the health care system (doctor's time, medical equipment, drugs, etc.) to their patients based solely on the immediate need of the patients.

That fact cannot be argued... and in fact, excon doesn't even attempt to do so. He knows it to be true.

So... we can have our hypothetical patient with a cold wait in an emergency room, where he will be treated LAST, and only after all the critical and emergent care patients have been treated first.

Or we can have the same patient go to his doctor's office, where he will be treated faster, but on some other basis than immediate need... perhaps it is on a first-come-first-serve basis, or perhaps it is based on his friendship with the doctor, or perhaps on the basis of how much he's willing to pay. In any case, it won't be based on most urgent need.

Now... I happen to think that patients with a cold are better served by going to their private doctor rather than the emergency room. At the very least they will be seen and treated more quickly. However, there is still no question that when you are judging EFFICIENCY of providing medical services, the ER option is STILL more efficient... because all patients, including the patient with the cold, are treated based on actual need.

Excon would like to argue that the doctor's time is being wasted by dealing with the patient with the cold. However, since that patient is being treated AFTER all of the critical cases have been tended to, that is simply untrue. If that patient with the cold wasn't there, that doctor would just be sitting around cooling his heals till the next critical case came along. The fact that he has time to see the patient with the cold means that he has EXTRA TIME ON HIS HANDS that is not needed to treat critical cases. Which means that treating the patient with the cold is the most efficient use of his time until another more urgent case comes along.

The fact is that excon is simply wrong about the meaning of "efficiency". He doesn't like the fact that patients with colds go to ERs, and would prefer that they go to private doctors. And so would I in reality. However, the fact that he would prefer something else doesn't mean that what is happening now is "inefficient". If efficiency is defined as putting the assets of the hospital where they are needed most urgently within a certain budget, then ERs are much more efficient than doctors offices, EVEN WHEN DEALING WITH THE PATIENT WITH A COLD.

Excon, you would prefer a different definition of "efficiency" of course. Though you never seem to be able to give us a definition. You seem to always fall back on the argument "Well everyone ought to recognize it." You never define what "it" means.

Sorry, that ain't going to fly here. If you can't provide an alternate definition of "efficiency" as it pertains to ERs, you ain't got a leg to stand on.

Elliot

Now... I happen to think that patients with a cold are better served by going to their private doctor rather than the emergency room. At the very least they will be seen and treated more quickly. Hello again, Elliot:

Let's forget about efficiency for a moment... I think you finished yourself off there...

But, let's take a look at your statement above... It's actually bizarre. It shows the absolute disconnect you have..

The funny thing is, you probably have NO IDEA what I'm talking about either.. You probably think I'm arguing with you about whether he'll be seen and treated quicker by his own doctor.. Or maybe you still think I'm talking about efficiency... Or maybe you think I'm just arguing for the commie plot to take over the health care industry. Who knows what goes on in your little brain?

But, I'm not going to tell you what you're missing... I'm going to make you guess - IF you can, and I'll bet you can't.

excon

Morning Elliot

I agree with your points on business, I run my own businesses and as such, I do care about the customer, in as much as I want see them benefit from the product I sell

This obviously is a selfish act, as I want them to praise me and my product so word of mouth reputation will make more sales

EXACTLY!! I think you stated it better than I could have.


However, there are certain aspects of business that I don't like when it connects social reform

Don't you think there is a case where business and government can work together to improve the governments effiecently while still leaving a voice for the people to address issues?

No I don't.

The fact is that government and business have an adversarial relationship. It is the job of government to regulate business. It is the job of business to maximize profitability by testing the edges of regulation wherever possible. The two are, by nature, working against each other.

Because that is true, I do not believe that there is a way for government and business to "work together" at anything.

I believe that this is even more true when the government is run by someone who has stated or intimated in the past that they believe businesses to be "the enemy" and must be "broken" in order to bring them in line with the administration's policies, as is the case right now in the Obama administration. In such a situation, collaboration between business and government would be nearly impossible. One of the two MUST lose in such a relationship, and we both know it isn't going to be the government.

But even if that were not the case, government, by it's very nature, has the ability to control the rules of the game. They can change regulations at any time of their choosing so that businesses are either hurt or benefit. That means that the government essentially controls the terms of any such "alliance" and can therefore change the terms of the deal at any time.

It reminds me very much of the Star Wars movies... Remember the scene in The Empire Strikes Back when Han Solo and Leia Organa are captured on the Cloud City of Bespin by Darth Vader because Lando Calrisian betrayed them? Calrisian and Vader had a deal... but Vader changes the terms of the deal. From the Internet Movie Database, here is the exact quote:


Lando: Lord Vader, what about Leia and the Wookiee?
Darth Vader: They must never again leave this city.
Lando: [outraged] That was *never* a condition of our agreement, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!
Darth Vader: Perhaps you think you're being treated unfairly?
Lando: [after a pause] No.
Darth Vader: Good. It would be unfortunate if I had to leave a garrison here.
Lando: [to himself] This deal is getting worse all the time.

Government has the ability to change the terms of any deal at any time, and there is nothing that business would be able to do about it. Therefore, any "collaboration" between business and government of the type that you are proposing would eventually be detrimental to businesses. Even if the government never changed the rules, the FEAR that they might do so and the attempts to keep them from doing so would keep businesses from acting in a "free market" manner, which is detrimental to those businesses and to the economy in general.

So I do not believe that it is possible for businesses and government to collaborate in anything except for very short-term efforts... ie: wartime buildups as in WWII, emergency response to disasters, or similar situations. Except in the most extreme emergencies and only for short periods, I do not believe that government and business can work together toward a "common goal", because I do not believe that the government and business HAVE common goals and the two will eventually end up at odds with each other.

Elliot

Hello again, Elliot:

Let's forget about efficiency for a moment... I think you finished yourself off there...

But, let's take a look at your statement above... It's actually bizarre. It shows the absolute disconnect you have..

The funny thing is, you probably have NO IDEA what I'm talking about either.. You probably think I'm arguing with you about whether he'll be seen and treated quicker by his own doctor.. Or maybe you still think I'm talking about efficiency... Or maybe you think I'm just arguing for the commie plot to take over the health care industry. Who knows what goes on in your little brain?

But, I'm not gonna tell you what you're missing... I'm gonna make you guess - IF you can, and I'll bet you can't.

excon

I'm not going to guess at anything.

If you can't state your point clearly, it's probably because you don't have one.

You've gone from arguing "efficiency of ERs", which is a point that YOU brought up, to arguing some other point that I'm supposed to "guess at". You can't even state what your point is anymore. Again, the goal post moves when you can't reach it.

Game, set and match.

Elliot

I'm not gonna guess at anything.Hello again, Elliot:

Ok, I'll spell it out for you. I KNEW you'd miss it. Uninsured people don't have private doctors.. That's WHY they go to the emergency room.

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Ok, I'll spell it out for you. I KNEW you'd miss it. Uninsured people don't have private doctors.. That's WHY they go to the emergency room.

excon

But YOU are the one arguing that the government should insure them so that they have private doctors... I was arguing from YOUR point of view... and you completely missed the point.

IF the patient was given government insurance, and IF he went to a private doctor, it would NOT be a more efficient use of medical assets and time as you have argued.

THAT is the point I was making... and of course, you missed it because you were too busy nit-picking my argument to get the main point of the argument.

I guess it comes from barely reading what we right-wingers post.

>snicker<.

Elliot

But YOU are the one arguing that the government should insure them so that they have private doctors... I was arguing from YOUR point of view... and you completely missed the point.Hello again, Elliot:

Hold on podner... I also argue for the legalization of marijuana, but it has NOTHING to do with THIS discussion.

So, you're arguing THIS argument from MY point of view?? What kind of response is that?? No, you're not.. Not at all... Not even close.. And, why would you anyway?? I don't know who you think you're trying to fool, but, you forget that it's all written here for everybody to read and draw their own conclusions...

This ISN'T about insured people going to the emergency room... It's about YOUR CLAIM that emergency rooms are efficient...

Are you now arguing that after health care reform happens, and people are insured, and have a regular doctor, that they will STILL go to the emergency room for treatment of a cold?? Is THAT what you're suggesting will happen?? What planet do you normally reside on?

I can't argue with you when you do the right wing dance.. You need to settle down, and speak slowly.

excon

Here's some fresh government insanity (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/) for you, from the same Justice Dept that dropped charges against the New Black Panthers in a case of voter intimidation they had already won:


Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

"On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

Obama's Justice Dept wants to rig elections for Democrats and blacks while refusing to prosecute black activists intimidating voters. And you guys complained about Bush politicizing Justice. This is outright political thuggery in Obama's Justice Dept.

Hello again, Elliot:

Hold on podner... I also argue for the legalization of marijuana, but it has NOTHING to do with THIS discussion.

So, you're arguing THIS argument from MY point of view?? What kind of response is that?? No, you're not.. Not at all... Not even close.. And, why would you anyway?? I don't know who you think you're trying to fool, but, you forget that it's all written here for everybody to read and draw their own conclusions...

Sure I am... I took YOUR assumptions and argued them to their logical conclusion. YOUR assumption is that if the government takes over health care that this hypothetical patient with a cold will be given a private physician of his own and that this will make the system more efficient. I took those assumptions and proved that they are NOT correct.

You're wrong... deal with it.


This ISN'T about insured people going to the emergency room... It's about YOUR CLAIM that emergency rooms are efficient...

Yep. And you STILL haven't been able to post a single thing that makes that statement untrue. Including THIS post.


Are you now arguing that after health care reform happens, and people are insured, and have a regular doctor, that they will STILL go to the emergency room for treatment of a cold?? Is THAT what you're suggesting will happen?? What planet do you normally reside on?

Nope. You still misunderstand. I'm not arguing that the patient will go to the ER is he has government health insurance. I'm agree that he'll go to his doctor. As he should. I'm just arguing that this outcome is NOT the most efficient use of medical assets or time.

If your argument is that government managed health care will be more efficient, you are simply WRONG because doctors offices are NOT more efficient than ERs. THAT is my only point. I am not arguing whether that fact is good or bad. I am not arguing that having a private doctor is better or worse. I am not arguing whether going to an ER is better or worse.

I am simply addressing the issue of EFFICIENCY which has been the basis of your argument in favor of government-run health care. YOU have argued that a government run system would be more efficient than our current system... and you used ER's as your example of the inefficiency of our current system.

You did it right here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/will-united-states-ever-have-universal-healthcare-389870-59.html#post2034869

The exact words you used were:


Take ER's for example. I understand you have some experience there... ER's aren't for day to day treatment. They're too damn expensive for that. So, we should REFORM the system, if in no other way, so that ER's go back to being ER's, and people get their day to day treatment in a much more cost effective manner.


My entire point is that there is no provider of health care that is more efficient than an ER. And to date you still haven't been able to prove that statement wrong.

So instead, you keep changing the argument... now the discussion is not about efficiency, it's about what people will choose to do if they have coverage. The goal post moves again.



I can't argue with you when you do the right wing dance.. You need to settle down, and speak slowly.

Excon

Clearly I do... 'cause you ain't fast enough to keep up.

Elliot

Hello again, Elliot:

Hold on podner.... I also argue for the legalization of marijuana, but it has NOTHING to do with THIS discussion.

So, you're arguing THIS argument from MY point of view????? What kind of response is that????? No, you're not.. Not at all... Not even close.. And, why would you anyway???? I don't know who you think you're trying to fool, but, you forget that it's all written here for everybody to read and draw their own conclusions...

This ISN'T about insured people going to the emergency room... It's about YOUR CLAIM that emergency rooms are efficient...

Are you now arguing that after health care reform happens, and people are insured, and have a regular doctor, that they will STILL go to the emergency room for treatment of a cold?????? Is THAT what you're suggesting will happen????? What planet do you normally reside on?

I can't argue with you when you do the right wing dance.. You need to settle down, and speak slowly.

excon


What ET states about the ER being the most efficient is true. The most efficcient for emrgencies. Most ERs are set up to have imaging [ x-rays, cat scans, mri[s], u/s ] labs, and the staffing that has training and skill to deal with emergencies. Your private physician does not have this logistical set up. It is too expensive and there are CLIAA laws that forbid this. If you are having a heart attack, your doctor will tell you to go to the ER/ hospital, he won't tell you to meet him at the office.

If you go to the ER for a cold, the triage system ensures you will be seen AFTER all the more critical illnesses. If you are smart and learn that going to the ER for a cold takes 6 hours, maybe next time you will go to an urgent treatment center.

This is efficient. THe VA system could not stand on its own because it is inefficient, If you live in southern IL, the closest VA hospital is in Marion, and for specialty care it is ST Louis. Is this the system you desire for the rest of America?


G&P

Hello again, Elliot:





Are you now arguing that after health care reform happens, and people are insured, and have a regular doctor, that they will STILL go to the emergency room for treatment of a cold?????? Is THAT what you're suggesting will happen????? What planet do you normally reside on?

excon

I've been thinking about this very thing recently.

What will I do after Obama rationing kicks in and I or my wife start to hurt?

I will call the doctor's office, and when I am told it will be 3 months before they can see me, I will get into my car, or call an ambulance and go to the EMERGENCY ROOM.

I expect a lot of other people will do the same.

What do you think?

Gal, if, after the health care plan kicks in and you or your wife start to hurt, you call your doctor's office and get an appointment just as quickly as in past times, will you apologize?

What will I do after Obama rationing kicks in What is "Obama Rationing"? You do know that he doesn't decide what goes on in your wife's day to day health issues right?

What is "Obama Rationing"?
I'm guessing he means doctors will have to ration health care after President Obama gives health care options to all those millions of currently uninsured people who now go to an ER for care. We will have to wait months to see a doctor.

Gal, if, after the health care plan kicks in and you or your wife start to hurt, you call your doctor's office and get an appointment just as quickly as in past times, will you apologize?

Wondergirl, after the health care plan kicks in, WHEN, not if, rationing begins (as it has in every other country in which nationalized health care ha become law) it will be too late for you to apologize.

Elliot

Wondergirl, after the health care plan kicks in, WHEN, not if, rationing begins Hello Elliot:

Begins?? BEGINS, you say?? We ration health care right now. If you got the filthy lucre, you get health care. If you got nothing, you die. It ain't no more difficult than that.

Or, in the alternative, if we treat everybody NOW, which is what YOU say we do, there clearly ARE enough doctors to go around. It's just a matter of allocating them a little better, no?

Or, are you unable to keep up with all the crap you post??

excon

Hello Elliot:

Begins?? BEGINS, you say?? We ration health care right now. If you got the filthy lucre, you get health care. If you got nothing, you die.

No... if you've got nothing, you go to the ER... where you are treated based on need, not based on your ability to pay.

It's more efficient that way, you see.


It ain't no more difficult than that.

Sure... if you aren't going to tell the truth about our current system, it's ALWAYS easy.


Or, in the alternative, if we treat everybody NOW, which is what YOU say we do, there clearly ARE enough doctors to go around. It's just a matter of allocating them a little better, no?

And you think that a government... ANY GOVERNMENT, much less one as wasteful as ours is... is going to be better at allocating those assets than our current system is?

The best way to allocate them, as I have said, is via a triage system in an ER... those with the most need get care first. Those with less need get care later. That way we don't have to ration the care... we can manage the supply based on the actual need of the patients.

But if 46 million new people get added to the system, and the government allocates the assets by simply sending people to doctors' offices. Those doctors offices will become overcrowded. Patients will be seen on an as-come-as-served basis, and assets will be allocated based on the least effective methodology possible, resulting in shortages where the assets are most needed.


Or, are you unable to keep up with all the crap you post??

Excon

I'm keeping up just fine. You? Not so much.

Elliot

No... if you've got nothing, you go to the ER... where you are treated based on need, not based on your ability to pay.

It's more efficient that way, you see.Then who are all these people here: Medical Conditions & Diseases - Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medical-conditions-diseases/)
They should all go to the ER?

Then who are all these people here: Medical Conditions & Diseases - Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medical-conditions-diseases/)
They should all go to the ER?

They are all people seeking medical advice.

They ought to be asking their doctors for medical advice instead of relying on people claiming to be experts on an internet website.

But I'll bet you that most of them have a private doctor to go to.

If they don't, and/or if their condition seems emergent, then yes, they ought to go to the ER.

Do you think that someone should instead have to wait 3-6 weeks under government-run health care to see his GP, followed by another 6-week wait to see his specialist to find out why he has swelling in the right side of his penis (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medical-conditions-diseases/swelling-right-side-penis-408157.html)?

Yeah, you probably do.

Elliot

But if 46 million new people get added to the system, and the government allocates the assets by simply sending people to doctors' offices.

I'm keeping up just fine. You? Not so much.Hello again, Elliot:

Let's examine that, shall we? On the one hand, you say we cover EVERYBODY. On the other hand, you talk about 46 million NEW people being added?? Dude! Where did THEY come from, if we treat EVERYBODY now??

Plus, Mr. Wolverine, if they are NOW going to the emergency room to get treated for their colds, and they ARE getting treated as YOU say, if after they have insurance, and they go to their private doctor, won't that mean that there will be 1,000's and even more 1,000's of emergency room doctors just standing around?? After all, they'll have 46 million LESS people to treat...

Dude!

You really don't listen to yourself, do you?

excon

They are all people seeking medical advice.

They ought to be asking their doctors for medical advice instead of relying on people claiming to be experts on an internet website.
On this we agree.

But I'll bet you that most of them have a private doctor to go to.
I wonder why they are not going to him/her then.

If they don't, and/or if their condition seems emergent, then yes, they ought to go to the ER.
At least with a doctor's appointment you have a time and date to plan for versus the waiting at an ER.

Do you think that someone should instead have to wait 3-6 weeks under government-run health care to see his GP, followed by another 6-week wait to see his specialist to find out why he has swelling in the right side of his penis (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medical-conditions-diseases/swelling-right-side-penis-408157.html)?

Yeah, you probably do.
It's fun to make up stats uh?

Hello again, folks:

It's simple MATH. If EVERYBODY is being treated NOW, like YOU say, then all we have to do is move a few doctors around and EVERYBODY will STILL be treated.

Or, is my math off?

excon

Your math is off. If cheeseburgers were free then everyone would gorge themselves on free cheeseburgers.

The same is true with medical care. I am more inclined to do a web search and treat a routine stomach ache than go to a doctor and get treated for a fee. I can go to the store and purchase otc's for the sniffles instead of going to the doctor to get perscriptions that do the same thing the otcs do . But if it were free;perhaps the equation changes.

So yes the system would be overwhelmed as demand of free services increases.

Tom,
As a person living in a country with UHC I can tell you that that isn't the case.

A severe shortage of physicians to 2010 | Open Medicine Blog (http://blog.openmedicine.ca/node/93)

In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option -- latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-canada27-2009sep27,0,5111855.story)

tom,
As a person living in a country with UHC I can tell you that that isn't the case.

As a person WATCHING your system, I can tell you that it IS the case, and you simply haven't recognized it.

And I can tell you that your own government AGREES that this is the case. But you don't believe them.

There's a shortage of IT workers too.

As a person WATCHING your system, I can tell you that it IS the case, and you simply haven't recognized it.
You've proven that you have very little understanding of the system here.

Hello again, folks:

It's simple MATH. If EVERYBODY is being treated NOW, like YOU say, then all we have to do is move a few doctors around and EVERYBODY will STILL be treated.

Or, is my math off?

excon

Yes, your math is off.

In addition to the gorging scenario laid out by Tom, there's also the fact that 45% of current physicians have said that they would consider quitting the practice of medicine (http://www.investors.com/newsandanalysis/article.aspx?id=506199#)in the USA if health care is nationalized.

Do you think that we would have sufficient assets to cover everyone that would be covered under nationalized health care if almost half the doctors leave the system?

Oh... and in case you don't believe the IBD poll (they're a right-wing front group, right?), here's CNN reporting the Same RESULTS in a separate poll done by the Physicians Foundation.

Half of primary-care doctors in survey would leave medicine - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/index.html)

That's TWO SEPARATE POLLS with the Same RESULT.

So, yeah, your math is off.

Elliot

You've proven that you have very little understanding of the system here.

Yeah... so does the Frazier Institute, the Canadian government and all those posting on Canada's open health care blog. We all have a lack of understanding of the system there.

Bwahahahahahaha.

There's a shortage of IT workers too.

Your government isn't nationalizing the computer industry... yet.

Pay better wages to IT people and there will be more IT people.

But government is capping the pay for doctors in your country. You CAN'T pay them more without raising taxes, and so there will either be no more doctors or you will pay more for your "free" health care.

You don't even realize how screwed up your system is.

Elliot

Your math is off. If cheeseburgers were free then everyone would gorge themselves on free cheeseburgers. Hello again, tom:

Nope... I worked in restaurants... Coke was free. I stopped gorging after the first week. Besides, drinking coke and eating cheeseburgers are fun too. Going to the doctor ain't. So, no. I don't believe people will be lining up at the doctors office...

On a related note, last night O'Reilly was arguing with Stossel that if drugs became legal, there would be people lined up to get them. It has a nice drug warrior ring to it, doesn't it? But, they wouldn't. I don't know anybody who is just chomping at the bit to get himself addicted to meth so he can lose all his teeth and money... Nope. I don't know anybody like that, and neither do you. Everybody I know who WANTS to use drugs, IS using drugs.

Same thing with a doctor... If, as you say, EVERYBODY is being treated NOW, then those hypochondriacs amongst us, go to the emergency room every day. It's free there, no?

excon

Afternoon Excon,

There has been several experiments in this country with legalising drugs

First, in a an area of London - Lambeth, cannbis was legalised for 3 months

The result was arrests were down by 50&#37; on Friday Saturday nights, Hospitals also saw the same drop in alcohol related casualties

Crime over the three months was also down by 40% overall

At the moment there is a trial where Herion addicts, where they can go to a clinic and obtain herion, of which they can take it home or take at the clinic, it's their choice

The results are still awaiting, but the signs suggest the same behhaviour in crime as reported in lambeth

The upshot is, drugs have been with us since man first discovered them, they are not going to go away at all, and if all illegal drugs were destroyed, the economies around the world would crash

Just thought I would share that after what you said mate

Ex

Lets take an example of the government's control :

Intention : keep housing [healthcare/ gas prices] affordable

Effect : shortages of affordable apartments [ healthcare/ gas]

Step one: artificially determine the price of a service. Don't let the consumer determine this via free market.

Step two : lowering the price of a service or product or service artificially will increase demand, whether it is healthcare, gas, housing. Look at the "success" of cash for clunkers. Why are prices lowered in a sale - to sell, to move merchandise.

Step 3 : reduce the ability of the producer to make a profit. Yes that evil word there. Profit is what helps businesses stay in businesses or expand services or products. This will have the effect of reducing the number of producers [ there already are geographic shortages in doctors. There will be more as the baby boomers get older, doctors retire earlier, less students take the path to being a doctor ].

Steps 1,2, and 3 lead to higher demand, less supply, and when the government does not allow for price adjustments, the result is shortages.

Rent Control: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html)

I suggest that anyone that does not understand this: read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" or try running a small business.


G&P

Hello again, in:

I am a fan of Thomas Sowell. I ran/run a small business. I AM a believer in free markets. And, IF free markets were what's happening TODAY, I'd still believe in them... But, our markets are anything, but free.

In the purest sense, if companies paid attention to the things that make them successful, like investing in R&D, customer service, and taking care of their most valuable asset, their employees, then we wouldn't be having this conversation...

But, that isn't what companies do to earn a profit anymore... Oh, they still DO invest the money where it does the most good. But, it's not in R&D. It's NOT in improving customer service... And, it's for SURE not on their employees... Nope, it's spent on lobbyists... THAT'S where it does the most good.

Now, of course they DO this, because congress passes laws that make it easier to make profits WITHOUT having to compete for them.

Doing that, SKEWS the marketplace. It's no longer free, operating for EVERYBODY'S benefit. So, when that happens, somebody has to SKEW it back. That's what health care reform is about.

excon

Ah, yes, the "corporate communism" argument.

Tell me, has paying lobbyists money ever resulted in an increase in profitability of a company? Or is spending money on lobbyists an expense that LOWERS profitability?

Seems to me that if a company is to be profitable, it STILL needs to sell product, even in this day and age of lobbyists.

Which means that R&D still needs to take place, as does production, sales, and collections.

In fact, businesses still have to operate as they always have in order to make a profit.

And it also means that lobbying expenses are LOWERING their profitability, no increasing it.

So your argument that all companies do to make money today is lobby is pure BS and makes NO SENSE from an economic or financial point of view.

BTW, as a general rule, COMPANIES don't lobby congress... INDUSTRIES do. Which means that any successful lobbying that takes place effects ALL of the companies in the industry equally. Which means that companies aren't getting advantages over each other, they are simply smoothing the way for EVERYONE in the industry.

Nobody is taking advantage of anyone else through lobbying.

Lobbyists, as a general rule, are there to make sure that members of congress keep the economic environment as free from government interference as possible.

What part of that do you dislike?

But I bet you'll argue that the lobbyists ARE taking advantage of someone. Though I doubt you'll have any actual EVIDENCE of that fact. It's just that "lobbyist" has become a dirty word, like "drug company" and "big oil". And so any lobbyist is automatically evil, and his very existence is "evidence" of wrongdoing.

Elliot

What's really funny is that excon's solution to a lack of a "free market" is to have the government take over the market.

Yeah.. that'll make the markets more free.

Elliot

Tell me, has paying lobbyists money ever resulted in an increase in profitability of a company? Or is spending money on lobbyists an expense that LOWERS profitability?Hello again, Elliot:

Are you kidding?? You shouldn't make it so easy for me...

A few of the largest banks just posted their biggest profits ever... They didn't earn those profits by lending. They earned them because they lobbied congress to allow them to change into bank holding companies which allows them to TRADE stocks. If congress wouldn't have let them do that, they'd have to earn money the old fashioned way. That's LENDING money, and they still AREN'T doing that.

Do you want more?

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Are you kidding??? You shouldn't make it so easy for me...

A few of the largest banks just posted their biggest profits ever... They didn't earn those profits by lending. They earned them because they lobbied congress to allow them to change into bank holding companies which allows them to TRADE stocks. If congress wouldn't have let them do that, they'd have to earn money the old fashioned way. That's LENDING money, and they still AREN'T doing that.

Do you want more?

excon

I guess the investing they did had nothing to do with the profits they earned... they got all that money from lobbying. Investing isn't "work". Trading stocks isn't "work". The profits just appeared all by themselves.

Riiiiiggggghhhhttttt!

Investing isn't "work". Trading stocks isn't "work". The profits just appeared all by themselves.Hello again, Elliot:

It's work they should not be allowed to do, just like an ice cream store isn't allowed to sell alcohol. It's work they were NEVER allowed to do when they were chartered. It's work there are only allowed to do, because congress changed the rules to allow them to do it. Congress only did that because of LOBBYING & MONEY.

But, besides all that, they TOOK TARP money. We SHOULD have a say in how they operate, no? But, Geithner, Summers, and the dufu's guy Paulson gave away the ranch.

But, I'll answer your question... When a bank lends money diligently, the ripple effect causes great things happen throughout the economy... When a bank makes money in the stock market great things happen to the CEO's of those companies...

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

It's work they should not be allowed to do, just like an ice cream store isn't allowed to sell alcohol.

Why not? Who decides what business a company is allowed to engage in? And why can't an ice cream store sell alcohol? If they are in compliance with the laws governingthe sale of alcohol, they SHOULD be allowed to sell alcohol.

Since when is a privately owned business not allowed to change its model, offer a different set of services, and move into a new line of business because the GOVERNMENT SAYS SO?

The government never had a legal basis for regulating what type of business a bank holding company can engage in or what subsidiaries and affiliates it may own. The lobbying groups simply fixed what Congress screwed up in the first place.


It's work they were NEVER allowed to do when they were chartered.

And their charter changed. They filed the paperwork to change their charter. It happens all the time, all over the country, in all sorts of businesses. Companies change their charters to offer new products and services, create new lines of business, and move their companies into new areas of the economy. It is not only legal to do so, it SHOULD be encouraged.


It's work there are only allowed to do, because congress changed the rules to allow them to do it. Congress did that because of LOBBYING & MONEY.

It is work that CONGRESS should never have been allowed to STOP THEM FROM DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE. They spent lobby money AS AN INDUSTRY to undo what Congress never really had the right to do in the first place. They spent lobbying money to get Congress to do what it is supposed to do in the first place... maintain free and open markets and opportunities for businesses to sell whatever product they wish to sell.


But, besides all that, they TOOK TARP money. We SHOULD have a say in how they operate, no? But, Geithner, Summers, and the dufu's guy Paulson gave away the ranch.

I told you at the time that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks. You argued in FAVOR of doing so. You've got nobody to blame for it but yourself. But that is beside the point.

But since when does bailing out a company mean that WE get control of how they operate? And even if the government DOES take control as they have in the case of GM and Chrysler, does that mean that we, you and I, have any sort of control of the companies?


But, I'll answer your question... When a bank lends money diligently, the ripple effect causes great things happen throughout the economy... When a bank makes money in the stock market great things happen to the CEO's of those companies...

Excon

Actually, great things also happen to the individuals that invest. That would be roughly 60% of Americans who have IRAs, 401Ks or other retirement plans or who have regular investment accounts that invest in the markets. You completely discount that beneficial ripple effect on the economy. And with the market closing last week over 10,000 for the first time in over a year, I'd say that it is a beneficial ripple effect being felt by many.

Elliot

I told you at the time that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks. You argued in FAVOR of doing so.

But since when does bailing out a company mean that WE get control of how they operate? And even if the government DOES take control as they have in the case of GM and Chrysler, does that mean that we, you and I, have any sort of control of the companies?Hello again, Elliot:

Let's be clear. I didn't support bailing out the banks WITH NO STRINGS, which is what they did..

Yes, let's talk about STRINGS... If you're a failing company and you need my investment, you betcha I have a say in what you do. If I own 51% of you, I have a LOT more than a say. I have CONTROL. Would you suggest those who CONTROL a corporation have NO say in how it's operated?? You would?

So in answer to your question, yes. You and I DO have control of those companies just as if you and I were stockholders... OMG - we ARE.

excon

I am a fan of Thomas Sowell.

Really? So is Rush Limbaugh... does that mean you're a racist, too? :D

Hello again, Elliot:

Let's be clear. I didn't support bailing out the banks WITH NO STRINGS, which is what they did..

Yes, let's talk about STRINGS... If you're a failing company and you need my investment, you betcha I have a say in what you do. If I own 51&#37; of you, I have a LOT more than a say. I have CONTROL. Would you suggest those who CONTROL a corporation have NO say in how it's operated??? You would?

So in answer to your question, yes. You and I DO have control of those companies just as if you and I were stockholders... OMG - we ARE.

excon

Changing the subject again? Can't respond to my arguments about lobbyists?

OK fine.

My response is simple... the government should never have bailed out the companies at all. Strings, no strings, it doesn't matter. They should have been allowed to fail so that other companies that are stronger could take their place. The government should NEVER have a say in what companies do or how they operate. It is unconstitutional for them to do so. It is marxism for them to do so. And it is detrimental to the investors, the creditors, and the economy as a whole for them to do so.

As for you and I having control of those companies... I see the government making decisions about those companies. But I haven't seen a single shareholder ballot form come to my home for me to sign as I do for other stocks I own. Have you seen a ballot form?

If not, you don't have control... the GOVERNMENT does.

I also don't have the ability to divest myself of this "investment". If I can't buy or sell the shares of the company at will, I don't have control do I? The government does.

So get all that crap about being in control of those companies out of your head. You ain't got control over nothing. You are an involuntary sharer of the risk with no possibility of reward and no way to get rid of the investment. The government is calling the shots, and we're all just along for the ride.

Congratulations, you got your wish.

Elliot

Elliot,

I will bow down to your expertise on economics, so please answer me this

In the Depression of the 1920s, it is my understanding that the Givernment at the time allowed banks to fail all over the place, this prolonged the depression

If the banks in most of the western world had not be bailed out, wouldn't it have had such a knock on effect that we would have been in a depression again and not just a recession?

Elliot,

I will bow down to your expertise on economics, so please answer me this

In the Depression of the 1920s, it is my understanding that the Givernment at the time allowed banks to fail all over the place, this prolonged the depression

If the banks in most of the western world had not be bailed out, wouldnt it have had such a knock on effect that we would have been in a depression again and not just a recession?

Actually, what prolonged the depression was NOT the failures of the banks. Other banks were quickly formed, and they took the place of the failed ones with very little muss or fuss. The economy of the USA trudged on even in the face of the failures of the banks, and the newer banks just slid right in and took up the slack. The recovery from the bank failures was very quick, and in fact, despite popular belief, very few depositors ended up losing money due to those failures. Those few who did lose lost MASSIVE AMOUNTS to be sure, but those were not "economy killers" the way it is often portrayed. And most people saw full or near full recovery of their deposits within short order. The system didn't fail so much as it shifted the burden to other financial institutions. And if that had been all that occurred, we would have recovered within 18 months to 2 years.

What really prolonged the Depression was FDR's taxation and monetary policies. He raised taxes, which caused and INCREASE in unemployment. He created massive welfare programs that he couldn't pay for, and borrowed money and printed money to pay for them, creating massive inflation. What few jobs he created were all "makework" programs that didn't actually produce anything, and therefore never ended up priming the economic pump that real employment causes. It was the massive unemployment, government spending, runaway inflation and high interest rates caused by these policies that drew out the Depression for 10 years longer than it should have lasted.

BTW, do any of FDR's policies remind you of Obama's Stimulus Bill initiatives? Remember the shovel-ready jobs that Obama promised? How about his massive spending? The quintupling of the US Budget Deficit? Increasing the national debt by over $3 trillion?

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

There's a REASON I get so excitable about Obama's policies. They are a mirror image of what FDR did during the Great Depression that made matters WORSE not better.

Elliot

Planx,

As a side note, if the reason for the Great Depression was the failure of the banks, then the inception of WWII and the wartime buildup of our economy would not have been able to cure that problem.

The War buildup created jobs, which reversed FDR's "makework" and "welfare" policies.

The buildup caused an increase in PRODUCTION and therefore a need for raw materials that primed the economic pump and rippled through the entire economy, causing economic growth. This was a direct reversal of the non-productive "makework" (read: shovel ready) jobs policy of FDR that resulted in a stagnant economy with zero or negative growth.

The buildup required funding via a "war bond" program that lowered interest rates and decreased the availability of cash in the market, thus decreasing interest rates and inflation rates.

In essence the Wartime Buildup was the perfect cure to the disease caused by FDR's prior policies.

That would NOT have been true of a Depression caused by bank failures.

Just something to think about.

Elliot

Elliot,

Any decent housewife knows that the best way out of a financial mess is to scrimp, and we all know that nearly every country in the western world has done the opposite, basically gambling on what will happen next

Back in the 90s we finally paid you guys off for what we borrowed in WW2

We are now back in debt, and whole lot of it, and the only way out of it to decrease public spending, and increase taxes

So yep, I am with you on this issue, sometimes you have to take the knock to prevent the fall

So do you think a stable economy will stave off the future of increase taxes - because I don't!

PS Cheers for the info on the depression, all I know about that era is the Al Capone Stories :)

So yep, I am with you on this issue, sometimes you have to take the knock to prevent the fall

Exactly.


So do you think a stable economy will stave off the future of increase taxes - because I don't!

One is not a function of the other. Stable economies don't prevent governments from increasing taxes. So I agree with you.

The key to preventing tax increases, as I have mentioned before, is the same as the key to preventing government from doing anything else we don't like... enforcing the Constitutional limits on their power.

In the alternative, voting the bums out of office works pretty well too.

Elliot

PS Cheers for the info on the depression, all I know about that era is the Al Capone Stories :)

My pleasure.

:D

Your math is off. If cheeseburgers were free then everyone would gorge themselves on free cheeseburgers.

The same is true with medical care. I am more inclined to do a web search and treat a routine stomach ache than go to a doctor and get treated for a fee. I can go to the store and purchase otc's for the sniffles instead of going to the doctor to get perscriptions that do the same thing the otcs do . But if it were free;perhaps the equation changes.

So yes the system would be overwhelmed as demand of free services increases.

Tom do you listen to yourself or do you just rave? If cheeseburgers were free would you gorge yourself on cheeseburgers? What you have just said tells me that you have a very low opinion, even lower than mine, of your fellow countrymen. I mean I already think they gorge themselves on cheeseburgers. But seriously;

Obtaining medical care is a function of how sick you are and how much time you have available or wages you can afford to loose. If you are a user of free medical services such as in the ER you know you are going to have to wait, so you are not going to increase your usage of free medical services for trivial matters. Going to the doctor for a sniffle will not get your prescribed a drug which will lessen the duration of your sickness but it might get you some good treatment advice like stay home and don't infect others, so you could get a net sum gain in doctors attendances. What you are really complaining about is that the poor, the destitute, or the homeless might actually be enthused to see a doctor.

I am more inclined to do a web search and treat a routine stomach ache than go to a doctor and get treated for a fee.
If indeed it is a routine stomach ache. What if you misdiagnose yourself, get desperately ill, end up in the hospital, and the medical staff employs all their resources to save your life? And you end up with a $100K bill. But look at the bright side -- you didn't have to pay that doctor's fee.

I think there is an equal chance that the doctor can do the misdiagnosis. Everything the doctor orders I do a web search on also .

You all can deny it all you want to . Increased demand needs to be met with increased supply ,or scarcity .Scarcity is met with either higher prices or rationing .

I think there is an equal chance that the doctor can do the misdiagnosis. Everything the doctor orders I do a web search on also .

You all can deny it all you want to . Increased demand needs to be met with increased supply ,or scarcity .Scarcity is met with either higher prices or rationing .
I recently went through the misdiagnosis thing and ended up in the hospital, but that's another story for another day.

So then let's make the medical field more attractive. During my hospital stay, I noticed a huge increase in the numbers of male nurses and lab techs.

If government runs all the health care, whether from insurance perspective or not, what it will amount to is everyone on medicare.

That's what I have now.

BUT, there are already doctors who REFUSE to accept any new medicare patients.

Price controls on doctors' wages (as with medicare) will only dry up supply.

It looks good for the moment, but will soon fail completely. What then? Doctors forced to work for the government at dictated wages?

So much for freedom, right?

FREE MEN ARE NOT EQUAL: EQUAL MEN ARE NOT FREE.

If government runs all the health care
Who said "all"?

You see, government is trying to use "global warming" as an excuse to grab more power,Hello again:

You and I don't DISAGREE on the evils of government at all... We also don't DISAGREE on governments' NEED to grab more power.

Where we DISAGREE is, in WHICH part of government is the BAD GRABBY part. It was clear to me, after all, that the dufus and vice were INCREASING, CONSOLIDATING, and GRABBING for more power. It IS what governments DO. They grab for power. There's NO disagreement there...

Although, you'll probably throw up your hands and look at me wide eyed, while you argue that when the dufus did what HE did, he was only following the Constitution, and doing what he NEEDED to do to protect us... And, I go riiiiiiiggggghhhhttttt...

THIS is where the disagreement lies...

Just as you said that the dufus needed to expand government to protect us, I'm going to say that Obama needs to expand government in order to protect us... In terms of the expansion of government, there isn't a substantial difference between us.

One of us is wrong. I know who.

excon

PS> Yes, I took your quote from another thread.

Who said "all"?

That would be President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, Barney Franks, Jan Schakowsky, Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein and Jacob Hacker. Among others.

See my previous post on the subject.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/hr-615-should-congress-senators-have-take-same-plan-408150.html#post2043925

Elliot

That would be President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, Barney Franks, Jan Schakowsky, Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein and Jacob Hacker. Among others.

See my previous post on the subject.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/hr-615-should-congress-senators-have-take-same-plan-408150.html#post2043925

Elliot
Not to worry. You willl be able to keep your private health insurance plan.

Not to worry. You willl be able to keep your private health insurance plan.

Yeah, you guys keep saying that. If you believe that I've got some great property in New Jersey I'd like to sell you.

Not to worry. You willl be able to keep your private health insurance plan.

YOU keep saying that. But the people who are putting the plan together and are going to be running it are telling us that we WON'T.

Which part of "We want a single payer health plan, and we're going to use the 'public option' to make that happen" are you having trouble understanding?

Elliot

Although, you'll probably throw up your hands and look at me wide eyed, while you argue that when the dufus did what HE did, he was only following the Constitution, and doing what he NEEDED to do to protect us.... And, I go riiiiiiiggggghhhhttttt...


Since that's the way the conversation is generally going to go, why don't we just skip to the part where you have no response, start changing the subject, and generally lose the argument, and I say "Checkmate". We can save time that way.

Elliot

YOU keep saying that. But the people who are putting the plan together and are going to be running it are telling us that we WON'T.

Which part of "We want a single payer health plan, and we're going to use the 'public option' to make that happen" are you having trouble understanding?

Elliot

I am sure you get 100 politicians in a room and you will get 100 ideas

I really can't see anybody trying to force a single system onto the US especially when the insurance companies and vast amount of medical companies would loose out, which I understand have a powerful say in the government

Private Medical Cover will still be available like it is anyway in the world regardless of what system of health plan is in place

I am sure you get 100 politicans in a room and you will get 100 ideas

I really can't see anybody trying to force a single system onto the US especially when the insurance companies and vast amount of medical companies would loose out, which I understand have a powerful say in the government

Private Medical Cover will still be available like it is anyway in the world regardless of what system of health plan is in place

You show an unreasonable faith in politicians, if you get 100 politicians in a room you get no ideas they are all lobbying each other to see who will be the leader

Hahahahaha, Maybe I was still clinging to that last thread of hope on that one mate :)

I am sure you get 100 politicans in a room and you will get 100 ideas

I really can't see anybody trying to force a single system onto the US especially when the insurance companies and vast amount of medical companies would loose out, which I understand have a powerful say in the government

Private Medical Cover will still be available like it is anyway in the world regardless of what system of health plan is in place

I disagree on several points.

First of all, with the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress (with a supermajority) and the Presidency, the fact is that the insurance companies don't have all that much power right now within government. They don't have the power to stop a full-court press by the Democrats in Congress right now.

Second of all, in Canada there is no private insurance permitted (they are in the process of opening that up a bit, but it is still true as a general rule). For a long time in the UK, there was no private insurance. What makes you so sure that private insurance would continue to exist in the USA... especially when the people at the highest levels of government are telling us that their goal is to eliminate private insurance? As they have said, it may not happen immediately, but it is their goal to use the idea of a government-run "public option" to create a single-payer system. Given enough time and effort, that is exactly what will happen... unless it is stopped dead right here and now.

Elliot

I did read something along those lines before, but I put that down to some politicians trying to get something so far out of their reach that a compromise would be the way forward and therefore the goal would be reached

You have to understand, some of my comments are based on very limited information, and I have no problem being corrected where I am wrong, that is why I talk to people like yourself Elliot who give an honest (although strange) opinion on how america works,so yep you are represneting 300m americans right now :)

I didn't know that about canada either, I thought they had private doctor practices, but not hospitals, cheers for that as well

I really think the only thing that Bill Clinton and Obama was and are hoping for is a health care that allows or enforces health insurance for all americans, and as usual, you get all the different dynamics of politics coming out with Fear and Hope tactics

Thanks for the correction

I did read something along those lines before, but I put that down to some politicians trying to get something so far out of their reach that a compromise would be the way forward and therefore the goal would be reached

You have to understand, some of my comments are based on very limited information, and I have no problem being corrected where I am wrong, that is why I talk to people like yourself Elliot who give an honest (although strange) opinion on how america works,so yep you are represneting 300m americans right now :)

I didnt know that about canada either, I thought they had private doctor practices, but not hospitals, cheers for that as well

I really think the only thing that Bill Clinton and Obama was and are hoping for is a health care that allows or enforces health insurance for all americans, and as usual, you get all the different dynamics of politics coming out with Fear and Hope tactics

Thanks for the correction

Steve - I'd be curious to hear your perspective on your own country's health care system (you're from England, right?). What is your experience like in England as a consumer of health care?

Just curious to hear about it since I've not really heard a perspective from someone across the pond.

Salvo Jake

From my personel point of view the service has been first notch

I have had broken arms, a leg, and ankle, stiches to both knees, and right leg, dislocated shoulder, two broken ribs, concussion and skin cancer

All totally self inflicted, except the skin cancer :)

The service I have received has been first notch, When I have been to A&E (ER) I have been seen within an hour, and xrayed and patched up within a couple more

Check ups and appointments are casual for an am or pm which is annoying but the waiting is always a max of 45 minutes, I have sat in traffic jams for more time than at the hospital

When I had skin cancer, I saw my local doctor which again is under the NHS scheme, I made the appointed late one afternoon and was seen the next day

He referred me to an appointment 4 days later at the Hospital, of which they removed the lump from above my skin, and booked me in a few days later to have the entire lump removed

All in all I have no complaints about the British Health Service

The Nurses were great, doctors were professional, and the hopsital was clean and welcoming

Now, don't get me wrong, I have seen the stories of miscare, and total shambles when it comes to the running and how clean some places are

We have had a system whereby there has been no competition and some poor investment due to poor areas of employment

This has now changed or is changing and you can nominate where you wish to go, you can choose which doctor, instead of being your local, and which hospital even though it is 100 miles away

This will now mean we as nation can pick which is the best hospital for us to have treatment in

This will improve the system by introducing a level of competition

Members of my family have all had treatment, some serious, and friends of mine have suffered some serious forms of cancer, of which the treatment I have witnessed has been first class

Our stats though do show one problem we have as a nation.

We do not go to the doctors until we really have to, so catching cancer early is not always possible and people die when it is too late to do anything about

I can talk forever, especially as I have been to the hospital quite a few times

The thing is for us, (majority) we do take the health system for granted, because it has always been there when we needed it.

It is one of the few places that you can work in and get service, with a smile most of the time, and can walk, (hobble) out without having to pay for it, fill in insurance forms or any hassle

Now I know some will say you do pay for it through taxes which is of course correct, but if I am going to be taxed anyway, I am more than happy to be taxed for something I think is an amzing service

Especially when we see, whether correctly or not through the different media forms, people in the US having been denied treatment due to no insurance, or people with insurance but with a dodgy insurance company that doesn't provide cover when it is needed

Or the stories of people who work all their lives, pay taxes, are good people, diagnosed with an illness that their insurance doesn't cover and they spend their entire life savings on treatment

I think it is the responsibility of a civilised nation to look after their weak, poor, or misfortunate

Even to those that make stupid mistakes, to those that take from the system and not give back, it is a small price to pay for what we have

Finally, Stephen Hawking, who is arguably one of the most intelligent people on the planet, praises the NHS as he declares he would not be alive today if it wasn't for the way the NHS provided care and assitance for a very difficult condition

We could have lost a brilliant mind if it wasn't for a simple thing as paying a few extra pounds in tax per week

Hope this answers your question

I disagree on several points.

First of all, with the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress (with a supermajority) and the Presidency, the fact is that the insurance companies don't have all that much power right now within government. They don't have the power to stop a full-court press by the Democrats in Congress right now.

Second of all, in Canada there is no private insurance permitted (they are in the process of opening that up a bit, but it is still true as a general rule). For a long time in the UK, there was no private insurance. What makes you so sure that private insurance would continue to exist in the USA... especially when the people at the highest levels of government are telling us that their goal is to eliminate private insurance? As they have said, it may not happen immediately, but it is their goal to use the idea of a government-run "public option" to create a single-payer system. Given enough time and effort, that is exactly what will happen.... unless it is stopped dead right here and now.

Elliot

Elliot what needs to be stopped dead right now is this laissez faire attitude to medical care. There is nothing wrong with a single payer option so long as choice of doctor remains, but in any case there is no reason why a private insurance option shouldn't remain. Even though it is not in your constitution every human being should have a basic right to health care, just as they should have a right to food and shelter. If you founding fathers didn't consider such rights important they were dolts, but I think they covered it in a right to welfare. As I understand it what is wrong with your current system is denial of coverage under certain circumstances and a very legalistic interpretation of what is covered. As I read this debate I come to the conclusion that those in the US for some reason don't want health care to be cheaper through competition with insurance companies by a public option. This is inexplicable in a market place that prides itsself on competition.

As I read this debate I come to the conclusion that those in the US for some reason don't want health care to be cheaper through competition with insurance companies by a public option. This is inexplicable in a market place that prides itsself on competition.

I don't know how we could have been more plain, everyone believes we need some reform, everyone would like to see it cheaper and we all believe everyone needs access to health care. But when the government - the one that makes the rules and doesn't have to make a profit - becomes part of the marketplace, it's no longer a free market. As has been stated numerous times our federal government has specifically enumerated powers and being in the health care/health insurance business is not one of them.

Clete you are not that naiive . If it was a matter of competition the gvt. Would ease rules regulating the market place including allowing across state purchase of insurance and easing anti-trust exemptions the insurance companies currently have.

But this is not about competition . It is about direct government control of a growing segment of the GDP.
I see it no different than seizing of almost all the domestic auto industry ,or allocating money for the purchase of bad mortgages and instead using the money to gain an equity share of the banking industry.

Elliot what needs to be stopped dead right now is this laissez faire attitude to medical care. There is nothing wrong with a single payer option so long as choice of doctor remains, but in any case there is no reason why a private insurance option shouldn't remain. Even though it is not in your constitution every human being should have a basic right to health care, just as they should have a right to food and shelter. If you founding fathers didn't consider such rights important they were dolts, but I think they covered it in a right to welfare. As I understand it what is wrong with your current system is denial of coverage under certain circumstances and a very legalistic interpretation of what is covered. As I read this debate I come to the conclusion that those in the US for some reason don't want health care to be cheaper through competition with insurance companies by a public option. This is inexplicable in a market place that prides itsself on competition.


Do you really think that a government option will compete with private insurance?

That's sort of like saying that the referees will compete with the regular teams... it won't happen, because the referees control the rules, make the calls and decide who gets the point. And they AREN'T going to make the playing field even.

The proposals that conservatives have put forward WOULD increase competition. They would increase competition in each state from 2 or 3 or even 12 insurers to 1300 immediately. 1300 privately-run organizations competing against each other under the same rules and regulations.

THAT'S competition.

Elliot

Do you really think that a government option will compete with private insurance?

That's sort of like saying that the referees will compete with the regular teams... it won't happen, because the referees control the rules, make the calls and decide who gets the point. And they AREN'T going to make the playing field even.Hello:

If one assumes that the bill, as proposed, DOESN'T mean what it says, because the real intent of the authors is to do something entirely DIFFERENT than the bill SPELLS OUT, then you'd make the assumptions the Wolverine does...

But, if you believe the WORDS in the bill, instead of the loony right wing conspiracy theories being thrown about, a public option WOULD compete with private insurance. Why wouldn't it?? It's an insurance policy too, after all. It just doesn't have to make a profit. Sure it's going to be cheaper than the private plans. THAT'S the idea - so they LOWER their costs.

Is it going to bother the American taxpayer that the insurance company CEO can't send their children to private school anymore?? I don't think so.

excon

If one assumes that the bill, as proposed, DOESN'T mean what it says, because the real intent of the authors is to do something entirely DIFFERENT than the bill SPELLS OUT, then you'd make the assumptions the Wolverine does...

Wow ex, I'm still not believing my eyes about how much faith you're putting into politicians to be straightforward and honest in their language. What does the bill spell out anyway?

Wow ex, I'm still not believing my eyes about how much faith you're putting into politicians to be straightforward and honest in their language. What does the bill spell out anyway?Hello Steve:

I'm able to distinguish between political rhetoric, and the WORDS in the law.. If the words we write in our laws mean NOTHING, then we're in bigger trouble than just needing health care reform.

I can't tell you what's IN the bill exactly because there isn't a final bill. But, I can tell you what's NOT in there. What's NOT in there is language saying that we're just kidding, and we can scrap this LAW anytime we want and go commie on you.

excon

I'm able to distinguish between political rhetoric, and the WORDS in the law.. If the words we write in our laws mean NOTHING, then we're in bigger trouble than just needing health care reform.

Good, then maybe you can finally explain CFR 49 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5b0f467f91a98f9cf6833dbda89429af&rgn=div6&view=text&node=49:2.1.1.3.7.2&idno=49) for me. I always have trouble interpreting (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/interps/date) that one. And trust me, you need to actually view the links to get my point.

Good, then maybe you can finally explain for me.Hello again, Steve:

It means you can't carry bad crap in your truck... Look. I didn't say you could understand everything they write... But, I think you COULD discern a plot to DO exactly the opposite of what a bill purports... After all, you guys discerned plenty of those.

excon

Hello:

If one assumes that the bill, as proposed, DOESN'T mean what it says, because the real intent of the authors is to do something entirely DIFFERENT than the bill SPELLS OUT, then you'd make the assumptions the Wolverine does...

But, if you believe the WORDS in the bill, instead of the loony right wing conspiracy theories being thrown about, a public option WOULD compete with private insurance. Why wouldn't it??? It's an insurance policy too, after all. It just doesn't have to make a profit. Sure it's going to be cheaper than the private plans. THAT'S the idea - so they LOWER their costs.

Is it going to bother the American taxpayer that the insurance company CEO can't send their children to private school anymore??? I don't think so.

excon

Why should we "believe the words of the bill" when the people who wrote the bill admit they are lying in the bill?

Do you make it a habbit of believing liars?

Apparently you do, but only when it serves your political point of view. Otherwise you get all upset about it and spend your time ranting and raving about it.

Elliot

I can't tell you what's IN the bill exactly because there isn't a final bill.

Nevertheless, we should believe the words of the bill anyway, right?

Bwahahahahahaha

Elliot

It means you can't carry bad crap in your truck...

Not exactly, it tells you what bad crap you can't carry on your truck and HOW you can carry other bad crap but that's just a small fraction of the code. That's how the health care reform bill will end up once it becomes law, about as easily understood as CFR 49.


Look. I didn't say you could understand everything they write... But, I think you COULD discern a plot to DO exactly the opposite of what a bill purports... After all, you guys discerned plenty of those.

Mostly we've argued against what's being proposed, which the news today is about the Democrat's push for the 'public option' to 'compete' (terms which are intentionally deceptive (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/10/does_the_public_want_a_public_1.html)) with private insurers. When the issue is one you favor you guys think we're supposed to ignore the rhetoric, focus on how innocuous the 'specifics' are and get behind it while representing us as moonbat wackos if we don't. You'd like that because then it'll be too late once the bill is passed and signed. Sorry ex, but the time to object is BEFORE Congress does their dirty little deed.

Hello again, Steve:

It means you can't carry bad crap in your truck... Look. I didn't say you could understand everything they write.... But, I think you COULD discern a plot to DO exactly the opposite of what a bill purports... After all, you guys discerned plenty of those.

excon

So... let me get this straight.

You claim that you have the ability to discern a plot to make a bill do something OTHER than what it is perported to do.

You have the magical ability to do this just by reading the bill, even though you have now admitted that you cannot understand everything they write.

And yet when government officials (not just one or two, but SEVERAL of them, including the President, and the Secretary of HHS, who will be in charge of implementing the bill if it gets passed) TELL US that they are planning to make the bill do something other than what it purports to do, you can't discern a plot to do exactly that.

Uh huh...

Elliot

Again speaking of government insanity, I give you Alan "Republicans want you to die/Holocaust in America" Grayson's latest charade... Names of the Dead.com (http://www.namesofthedead.com/)

Hello Steve:

Yeah, he behaves just like your guys behaved... His schtick is essentially no different than those Republicans who accused the Democrats of wanting to kill Granny. There's more than a couple of those whackos.

excon

So I guess you see no difference between being able to point to specific legislation and say "this is what the effect will be" and making stuff up out of whole cloth. Figures. When it's in your favor you see nothing wrong with it, and completely miss the double-standard.

Elliot

Coming next for US government insanity?

Parents banned from watching their children in playgrounds (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223528/Parents-banned-supervising-children-playgrounds--case-paedophiles.html)

So now in the UK you have to approved to watch your own children?

Coming next for US government insanity?

Parents banned from watching their children in playgrounds (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223528/Parents-banned-supervising-children-playgrounds--case-paedophiles.html)

So now in the UK you have to approved to watch your own children?

Salvo Speech,

This is where a system that is in place to protect people from peados is failing

We allow these people to walk the streets, and all the best intentions in the world we cannot stop them from being around kids, so now we alienate innocent people for the failure

So we are creating further problems by not solving the original problem

I think a convicted peado should be exculded from society, their crimes are such that most of us would burn them at the stake to make sure it never happens

As we cannot do that, the system has yet again gone too far and the checks and balances from the media should draw this situtaion back to normality

Salvo Speech,

This is where a system that is in place to protect people from peados is failing

We allow these people to walk the streets, and all the best intentions in the world we cannot stop them from being around kids, so now we alienate innocent people for the failure

So we are creating further problems by not solving the orginal problem

I think a convicted peado should be exculded from society, their crimes are such that most of us would burn them at the stake to make sure it never happens

As we cannot do that, the system has yet again gone too far and the checks and balances from the media should draw this situtaion back to normality

It's the price of freedom and constitutional rights you can't stop peadophiles. It makes you wonder who actually wrote that constitution

Salvo Speech,

This is where a system that is in place to protect people from peados is failing

We allow these people to walk the streets, and all the best intentions in the world we cannot stop them from being around kids, so now we alienate innocent people for the failure

So we are creating further problems by not solving the orginal problem

I think a convicted peado should be exculded from society, their crimes are such that most of us would burn them at the stake to make sure it never happens

As we cannot do that, the system has yet again gone too far and the checks and balances from the media should draw this situtaion back to normality

Planx,

This is EXACTLY what I meant when I said that government intervention, even for the best of intentions, tends to result in more problems due to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.

And what happens when the media is no longer acting as a check & balance to bad behavior because they are in lockstep with the government?

Sorry, but the media is not a protection from government intervention extremism. It is simply an outlet for whatever information IT DECIDES to pass on to the public (and whatever information the government chooses to make public through them). It's a business, not a police or government watchdog organization. It should not be seen as some sort of protector of freedom and democracy. The media cannot survive without access to government sources. It is therefore beholden to the government. Because this results in a conflict of interests, they cannot be the government's watchdog.

Elliot

This is EXACTLY what I meant when I said that government intervention, even for the best of intentions, tends to result in more problems due to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.Hello p:

I couldn't agree with my right wing friend more...

Take Iraq, for example. It was an intervention done with the BEST of intentions, yet it turned out very badly. Afghanistan is another one. The drug war would be a yet a third example of how government action can go terribly wrong. Torture, too was taken on with good intentions, but with very BAD results. Don't forget that keeping gays from marrying, ostensibly, was taken on for good reasons, but the unintended consequences are dastardly. There's more, of course.

That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.

excon

Don't forget that keeping gays from marrying, ostensibly, was taken on for good reasons, but the unintended consequences are dastardly.

I'm not exactly sure how a ban on gay marriage been has 'dastardly' but I'm sure you'll tell us.

Salvo Chaps

Okay we all agree that government intervention usually has some bad results

But what is the alternative?

A democratic government has to set out rules and regulations as part of its make up - when something happens that effects peoples lives, the people hold the government accountable for that action

I cannot see any alternative but to allow givernments to continue with making such regulations

It is then up to the people to decide if these rules should, stay, go, or amend

Isn't that what makes democracy work for all people, a chance to have your say, to change policy and effect peoples lives peacefully?

Okay we all agree that government intervention usually has some bad results

But what is the alternative?

A democratic government has to set out rules and regulations as part of its make up - when something happens that effects peoples lives, the people hold the government accountable for that actionHello again, p:

Reagan said it best, and I'm paraphrasing here, when he said that the government that governs BEST, governs LEAST.

The problem was, he didn't follow his own advice. He used government force to mess around with all kinds countries and start all kinds of wars. Let me see, we got Granada, we got Panama, we got Nicaragua, we got Honduras, we got Iran... There's more, of course.

He, like some of his cohorts on this board, don't get that messing around in other nations affairs and starting wars, isn't even CLOSE to governing LEAST.

In terms of our rules, thank heavens it's NOT the government who sets them up. They're already set up in the Constitution, and it's government's job to follow them.

excon

I'm not exactly sure how a ban on gay marriage been has 'dastardly' but I'm sure you'll tell us.Hello Steve:

Let me ask you this... If the government took away white guys rights to own dogs, would that be dastardly for you?

excon

Seeing as how we've now been warned our dogs contribute as much to global warming as an SUV I think they'd like nothing better than to do just that. But you know it's hard to take away a 'right' someone never had in the first place as is the case in most states.

But here's a deal for you, I'll agree the government needs to get out of the marriage business if you'll agree they need to get out of the "social justice" business.

But here's a deal for you, I'll agree the government needs to get out of the marriage business if you'll agree they need to get out of the "social justice" business.Hello again, Steve:

No can do.. The Bill of Rights is all ABOUT about social justice. And, I ain't NEVER going to give up my right to own a gun. You?

Oh yeah, there's a few other rights that the Bill of Rights mentions, so if I want to keep my gun, I guess I have to support the others too. I know. I know. Social justice, with the exception of guns, just don't turn you folks on too much. But, you can't be cherry picking your rights, you know, or you're liable to lose the one you like.

excon

Seeing as how we've now been warned our dogs contribute as much to global warming as an SUV I think they'd like nothing better than to do just that. But you know it's hard to take away a 'right' someone never had in the first place as is the case in most states. Hello again, Steve:

I'm just trying to get you to understand what it's like NOT to have a right that other people have? Maybe I was being to subtle. Or you know exactly what I'm talking about, and you know I'm right, but your right wing credentials won't allow you to say it.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I'm just trying to get you to understand what it's like NOT to have a right that other people have?? Maybe I was being to subtle. Or you know exactly what I'm talking about, and you know I'm right, but your right wing credentials won't allow you to say it.

No I'm not that dense and you know it. I made an offer but I knew you wouldn't accept because you DO think our constitution is all about social justice. You think the constitution supports coercing me into paying for someone else's health care, housing, food and children. You think the constitution is all about progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth and property. See you're OK with taking my stuff to give to someone else regardless of whether they're deserving or not but you're not OK with taking away a right someone never had. And you think we've drunk the koolaid.

Hello again, p:

Reagan said it best, and I'm paraphrasing here, when he said that the government that governs BEST, governs LEAST.

The problem was, he didn't follow his own advice. He used government force to mess around with all kinds countries and start all kinds of wars. Lemme see, we got Granada, we got Panama, we got Nicaragua, we got Honduras, we got Iran.... There's more, of course.

He, like some of his cohorts on this board, don't get that messing around in other nations affairs and starting wars, isn't even CLOSE to governing LEAST.

In terms of our rules, thank heavens it's NOT the government who sets them up. They're already set up in the Constitution, and it's government's job to follow them.

excon

I don't understand one thing, as a veteran yourself, as I have have never served, I need an explanation

If the armed forces are trained to fight, it isn't it right to send them into combat to fight for what the country sees are its interests?

I seem to rememeber the uproar caused when our maggie let your man, send in the bombers from the UK to take out gadaffi, I also seem to remember that gadaffi has been very quiet ever since and is today trying to make paths to join the rest of the world

Who decides a war is in the peoples best interest if it isn't the government - I ask, as I accept whether they are right or wrong, a government has to go to war at times to protect its interests and citizens, and I am intrigued how you and your consititution sees it

No I'm not that dense and you know it. I made an offer but I knew you wouldn't accept because you DO think our constitution is all about social justice. You think the constitution supports coercing me into paying for someone else's health care, housing, food and children. You think the constitution is all about progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth and property. See you're OK with taking my stuff to give to someone else regardless of whether they're deserving or not but you're not OK with taking away a right someone never had. And you think we've drunk the koolaid.

You know speech, chances are if we all got together and had a beer, we would all enjoy each others company

However, when you make statements like that, it is stereotypical of what the rest of the world sees America for

You probably are not heartless, but when you concern yourself with self interest without any care for your neighbour let alone a foreigner, are you then surprised that the US had become targets to extreme Islam

Planx,

This is EXACTLY what I meant when I said that government intervention, even for the best of intentions, tends to result in more problems due to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.

And what happens when the media is no longer acting as a check & balance to bad behavior because they are in lockstep with the government?

Sorry, but the media is not a protection from government intervention extremism. It is simply an outlet for whatever information IT DECIDES to pass on to the public (and whatever information the government chooses to make public through them). It's a business, not a police or government watchdog organization. It should not be seen as some sort of protector of freedom and democracy. The media cannot survive without access to government sources. It is therefore beholden to the government. Because this results in a conflict of interests, they cannot be the government's watchdog.

Elliot

Salvo Elliot

There is some confliction at the moment between freedom of speech an dreporting in the media, and the freedom of parliament to discuss matters in private

I think we all have to agree that politicians have the right to freedomof speech and as such they have the right to discuss matters in private to understand a view point, which can lead to a politician making some strnage comments.

This I believe should not be reported, as it the reporting of which would not be a true reflection of the subject or beliefs of a politician

However, the reporting of official meetings, documentation should all be transparent, and where depending on one body is obviously not ideal, the transparency should be available for all to see and view for themselves

So if the system isn't transparent then it can be argued that it should be more so - again an improvement of the system rather than abandament

Hello p:

I couldn't agree with my right wing friend more...

Take Iraq, for example. It was an intervention done with the BEST of intentions, yet it turned out very badly. Afghanistan is another one. The drug war would be a yet a third example of how government action can go terribly wrong. Torture, too was taken on with good intentions, but with very BAD results. Don't forget that keeping gays from marrying, ostensibly, was taken on for good reasons, but the unintended consequences are dastardly. There's more, of course.

That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.

excon

The part that Excon repeatedly seems to miss is that the War in Iraq falls under the Constitutional mandate for government to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic.

Again, for his benefit, the Constitution gives the government 3 responsibilities.

1) Protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic.
2) Maintain the infrastructure of the country (roads, tunnels, highways, bridges, mail, etc.)
3) Maintain an economic environment that is good for conducting business, producing goods and services, and accumulating wealth.l

The war in Iraq falls under #1.

Thus, where nationalizing health care reform is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a bad form of intervention, the war in Iraq was CONSTITUTIONAL and a case of the government living up to its responsibilities.

Excon would prefer to ignore this because of his personal dislike of Bush and his general dislike for war. Unfortunately, ignoring it doesn't make the truth go away.

Elliot

Salvo Chaps

Okay we all agree that government intervention usually has some bad results

But what is the alternative?

The alternative is what I have been talking about for the past several weeks with you... limiting the power of government, and making sure that the only things they do are the things enumerated as their responsibilities in the Constitution.


A democratic government has to set out rules and regulations as part of its make up -

That's an assumption. Because government has always made the rules, we assume that that is the way it is supposed to be. I question that assumption. I CERTAINLY question whether the FEDERAL government has that power, as opposed to the state and local governments, given the 10th Amendment.


when something happens that effects peoples lives, the people hold the government accountable for that action

Only because we have been trained to do so. There was a time that people took responsibility for their own lives instead of relying on government to fix their problems. My suggestion is that we go back to that way of handling our personal affairs.


I cannot see any alternative but to allow givernments to continue with making such regulations

It is then up to the people to decide if these rules should, stay, go, or amend

Isn't that what makes democracy work for all people, a chance to have your say, to change policy and effect peoples lives peacefully?

What makes democracy work is not having the government limit your rights and then force you to try to change it after the fact. Democracy works best when the elected representatives protect our freedoms BEFORE they are taken away from us. I reject this "reactive" concept of Democracy. True Democracy is PROACTIVE in protecting our freedoms and our rights. That is the very reason that the Founders sought to limit government power.

Elliot

You know speech, chances are if we all got together and had a beer, we would all enjoy each others company

It's funny, but I've said that to ex many times over the years.


However, when you make statements like that, it is stereotypical of what the rest of the world sees America for

You probably are not heartless, but when you concern yourself with self interest without any care for your neighbour let alone a foreigner, are you then surprised that the US had become targets to extreme Islam

That's just it, the stereotype is wrong. It's not that we don't want to help others, we just don't believe more government, more taxation and fewer rights is the answer. It's been pointed out here many times that the US is by far the most generous nation on earth, both privately and publicly, and the hypocrisy is thick on the left for chastising us for not helping our neighbor when the records show liberals are the most miserly among us. They're all about taking my money to give to someone else - with little regard for helping them stand on their own two feet - and I'm all about helping others out of my own free will and generosity while helping them help themselves. The other difference between us is we see what we do for others as between us and them, they like to spread their tailfeathers and boast of their own 'generosity.'

And then there's thing called our constitution which is entirely about limiting government, empowering the people and specifically enumerating government powers. Ex's way disregards the very foundation of this country, and when the feds take my stuff away I won't have anything left with which to help someone else. Charity by compulsion and coercion is not charity and keeping someone bound to the nanny state's apron strings is not freedom.

So then speech, what it comes down to is the fact that the state has not provided a suitable service for the taxes it has taken

The charitable donations which elliot just loves to state to me are certainly generous but they haven't led to the alleviation of social issues

If everybody agrees that social issues are problem and need to be addressed, then how would you go about it

Please consider that regulations have arisen due to the donations not working either

If everybody agrees that social issues are problem and need to be addressed, then how would you go about it


I have already responded to this question in another thread (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/now-carrying-freedom-little-too-far-409123-3.html#post2058237). What I wrote was...


Well, one way would be to revamp the education system in this country and eliminate the monopoly that the UFT, AFT and NEA have over education... open up more charter schools and allow school vouchers so that everyone can get the education they want/need, instead of forcing them into a failed school system that isn't educating them.

Second, you stop wiping their noses and @sses for them. You stop giving them EVERYTHING. You place time and dollar limits on welfare programs. You eventually cut them off and tell them to get a job and stop leeching off society. If a person is physically capable of a job (ie: he's not crippled beyond the ability to work, he's of the age of majority, and he has no mental illness or developmental illness) then he should be forced to get a job.

In short, the way you teach people to do for themselves is to slowly start forcing them to do for themselves.

It's no different from teaching your own children to become independent... slowly, over time, you grant them their independence and stop supporting them for everything in their lives.

You address social issues by getting people to be able to fend for themselves, not by giving them a greater incentive to become reliant on the government.

The alternative is what I have been talking about for the past several weeks with you... limiting the power of government, and making sure that the only things they do are the things enumerated as their responsibilities in the Constitution.

I am sure you can appreciate but the finer details of your constitution are unknown to me, I am hoever discussing the fundamentals of what a democracy is

You state, AND MAKING SURE - Who makes sure, what authority do you have to speak on someone's behalf, who checks your checks?



That's an assumption. Because government has always made the rules, we assume that that is the way it is supposed to be. I question that assumption. I CERTAINLY question whether the FEDERAL government has that power, as opposed to the state and local governments, given the 10th Amendment.

Again, finer details here. Before Givernment was Monachy, Despotism, Diarchy etc etc

There as always been, and always will be someone on the top, this is how any human social group works, a structure of belonging. If there was nobody there to take instructions or to instruct we would have chaos. As regards making the rules, who else would make the rules? It is a ponder that you still think industry can be mature and repsonsible in its actions

Just as you state your consititution has checks and balances on the people in office, companies need to be weighed and measured to make sure they are not found wanting


Only because we have been trained to do so. There was a time that people took responsibility for their own lives instead of relying on government to fix their problems. My suggestion is that we go back to that way of handling our personal affairs.

I have no problem with this, especially as I can handle myself and the weak will certainly bow down to me! Come on, are you seriously suggesting that strong rule the weak, because that is what it sound slike there


What makes democracy work is not having the government limit your rights and then force you to try to change it after the fact. Democracy works best when the elected representatives protect our freedoms BEFORE they are taken away from us. I reject this "reactive" concept of Democracy. True Democracy is PROACTIVE in protecting our freedoms and our rights. That is the very reason that the Founders sought to limit government power.

If your government was proactive, then it would be fair to say they would act to protect a persons right from being posioned due to poor quality control at a chemical plant

This would involve them making laws to make sure a company that failed to protect the freedom of the people and the company would be accountable for its actions

HANG ON, isn't that what happens already, a proactive government safe guarding the wealthfare of its voters against would be attackers both foreign and domestic

I still not see how you can have a fair system for all people while at the same time allowing companies to self rule, which they have demonstrated time and again to be ruthless, not all but the minority often spoil it for the many

Page from history for you

Back in the 1700s in England, it was common for the people to drink gin instead of water

This was due to clean safe drinking water was not always available and often expensive

However Gin was cheap and in terms of bacteria safe to drink

All of which led to social problems, a great way to explain this is the picture Beer Street and Gin Lane http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Beer-street-and-Gin-lane.jpg

The situtaion was getting worst and social order was breaking down

So the government introduced a tax on Gin which led to regulations for the improvement of drinking water

I am not saying that what the government did was as simple as that, but for me I am happy to drink tap water instead of gin!

Is this really what you wish to go back to?

You address social issues by getting people to be able to fend for themselves, not by giving them a greater incentive to become reliant on the government.

And as I have said the repsonsibility of the fortunate is to safe guard the misfortunate - I am all for teaching someone how to fish, but you need something in place to ensure that occurs, and your system of government it does not, it allows the strong to use the weak to their own ends - or has history just passed you by completely?

And as I have said the repsonsibility of the fortunate is to safe guard the misfortunate - I am all for teaching someone how to fish, but you need something in place to ensure that occurs, and your system of government it does not, it allows the strong to use the weak to their own ends - or has history just passed you by completely?

Steve, when people over here discuss the "poor" and downtrodden they are referring to people who in large part have 1 or 2 cars, several TV's, cable, internet, cell phones and their kids wear $100 Nikes. A good portion of them own their own homes as well, so until we narrow the discussion to those who really are misfortunate we'll never get anywhere. For those we're all agreeable to providing a government safety net.

That's not good enough for the left in this country, they want everyone (except them) dependent on government from cradle to grave. It's a cultural problem, it's a mindset that's been carefully cultivated by the left for decades mainly through the education system and promoted in the media. Liberals dominate - and I do mean dominate - both institutions by huge majorities. That's why I would begin the same place Elliot would, in education. Not only eliminating the liberal stranglehold but getting the federal government out of education altogether. Teach our children once again to be hardworking, independent, responsible citizens and as Elliot said, stop wiping their noses and @sses for them.

For those who really need the help, let's help them, but stop telling everyone they're entitled to whatever the heck they decide they're entitled to and stop taking mine and Elliot's money away from us to to give to people who darn well don't deserve a handout to reinforce that mindset.

The charitable donations which elliot just loves to state to me are certainly generous but they haven't led to the alleviation of social issues


It is my view that most charity is misdirected . I think "greedy capitalists" like Paul Polak ,founder of International Development Enterprise (IDE) do more to help the poor worldwide with his business model than all charities public and private combined.
What does he do differently ? He treats the poor as consumers and enterpreneurs .He believes that's the best way for the poor to achieve self sufficency. He sells affordable tools to the poor that they can use to work their own business . These tools include manual-treadle pumps to move water for irrigation during dry seasons , solar-powered water purifiers using ceramic water filters etc. Nurturing these markets will better serve the people than direct donations, financing large infrastructure projects, or relying on government initiatives.

He writes in his book Out of Poverty “The single most important thing they need to get out of poverty is to find a way to earn more money”...“This is so obvious that people tell me that it is a perfect example of circular logic. But the sad fact is that it isn't at all obvious to the great majority of the world's poverty experts.” Out of Poverty (http://www.paulpolak.com/html/about.html)

Salvo speech

No problem on defining the definition of poor, I am talking about the people who do everything they can to sustain basic existence, that is food on the table, roof over their heads, and shoes on their feet, but still need help

Choosing between a 40" and a 50" plasma is not the poor I had in mind

I am in agreement with you on the education

When I employed a couple of teenagers in one of my valeting yards years ago, they were 16, just finished part of their schooling, and almost the first line out of their mouths stated they had rights

My reply to them was this, if you want money you will do as I ask, if you don't want to listen to me, then you can leave

The look on their faces was a peach, they weren't expecting a straight forward ultimatium - you want to eat, you work!

What I object to in elliots statement(s) is the out and out dismissal that government intervention is a bad thing

It is like everything else we have, a man made system which has flaws, your own consititution states that if the need should arise, changes can be made to suit the times in question

So my question to you is this, if the eductaion is so lacking, and the lobby has a full majority of backers for the eductaion system, why then are you and elliot in the minority?

Salvo speech

No problem on defining the definition of poor, I am talking about the people who do everything they can to sustain basic existence, that is food on the table, roof over their heads, and shoes on their feet, but still need help

Choosing between a 40" and a 50" plasma is not the poor I had in mind

Then we are in agreement so far. Time for that beer, but cold please... no warm beer for me ;)


The look on their faces was a peach, they weren't expecting a straight forward ultimatium - you want to eat, you work!

Would love to have seen it for myself.


So my question to you is this, if the eductaion is so lacking, and the lobby has a full majority of backers for the eductaion system, why then are you and elliot in the minority?

I don't know that we're in the minority and if we are, the tide seems to be turning. But for the main reason the Dept of Education still exists I turn to Reagan...

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the closest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.”

Well if you are not in the minority, and the majority speak, how come you have a problem with the eductaion system?

Death and Taxes mate, death and taxes, and the people who run them - so I see yours and reagans point of view

Just because something seems difficult to do, doesn't mean it is impossible

If the majority speak then surely the office will listen?

Or do you see democracy as I do - a way of giving the people a say without the need to listen to them!

Or do you see democracy as I do - a way of giving the people a say without the need to listen to them!

That my friend is precisely how our government currently operates.

Hahahaha, that is how every democracy acts

Personally I would like to see a simple performance related pay brought into politics

I don't know about you or anybody else here, but if my company doesn't sell brakes, cars, and oil changes, I don't eat

For politicians, if they don't perform on their promises, they still eat

I think a government full of people who have to provide proof they are doing what they set out to, should then get paid, and not before, do you think the system would suddenly speed up and become leaner

Good concept, I'm just not sure how we would end up defining 'performance' for Congress. For me they perform best when in recess. :D

Hahahaha, I do love the fact that politian jokes are universal, so it is the game that we don't like not the players:D

I posted this somewhere before, but here is what needs to be done:

For every program passed by congress, the percentage of cost overrun should be determined. Then the pay of every senator and congressman who voted for it should be reduced by a corresponding percentage.

They would be working for free in short order!

Salvo Galveston

Now that brings their pay into line with bsuiness without the need to go for cheapest, purely deliver on time - I like that!!

The only problem is Congress will also be in charge of the math, a little "calculator abuse (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/160000-per-stimulus-job-white-house-calls-that-calculator-abuse.html)" if you will.

Afternoon Speech

I would say that in that case it is best to have an adisory committee to oversea it, however, following the events of the last week here I the UK and advisory panel on drugs advised against the political thought of the government and as such they fires the top advisor, others have resigned in protest, so yep great system, but yet again we see where political control will influence the outcome

I am sure you can appreciate but the finer details of your constitution are unknown to me, I am hoever discussing the fundamentals of what a democracy is

You state, AND MAKING SURE - Who makes sure, what authority do you have to speak on someone's behalf, who checks your checks?

This requires the appointment of judges who are strict Constitutional Originalists. Which in turn requires the election of strict Conservatives to Congress. It is the judges, especially the Supreme Court Judges who are supposed to be the "check and balance" that prevents the creation of laws that are unConstitutional or that grab powers not actually granted in the Constitution.


I have no problem with this, especially as I can handle myself and the weak will certainly bow down to me! Come on, are you seriously suggesting that strong rule the weak, because that is what it sound slike there

Where did you get that idea? What I was speaking of was taking personal responsibility for their lives instead of waiting and expecting government to do it for them. Where did you get the idea that that translates to the weak ruling the strong?


If your government was proactive, then it would be fair to say they would act to protect a persons right from being posioned due to poor quality control at a chemical plant

This would involve them making laws to make sure a company that failed to protect the freedom of the people and the company would be accountable for its actions

HANG ON, isn't that what happens already, a proactive government safe guarding the wealthfare of its voters against would be attackers both foreign and domestic

I still not see how you can have a fair system for all people while at the same time allowing companies to self rule, which they have demonstrated time and again to be ruthless, not all but the minority often spoil it for the many

Page from history for you

Back in the 1700s in England, it was common for the people to drink gin instead of water

This was due to clean safe drinking water was not always available and often expensive

However Gin was cheap and in terms of bacteria safe to drink

All of which led to social problems, a great way to explain this is the picture Beer Street and Gin Lane http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Beer-street-and-Gin-lane.jpg

The situtaion was getting worst and social order was breaking down

So the government introduced a tax on Gin which led to regulations for the improvement of drinking water

I am not saying that what the government did was as simple as that, but for me I am happy to drink tap water instead of gin!

Is this really what you wish to go back to?

First of all, can you find for me in the Constitution a requirement of government to regulate businesses for ANY reason? The government's responsibility is to maintain a free market environment, not limit that market in the name of "protecting society". A healthy society protects itself. It doesn't need government to do so.

As for the water argument you put forward, the maintenance of a healthy water supply falls under the government's OTHER responsibility for maintaining the infrastructure of the country. On the other hand, taxing or otherwise regulating gin-manufacturers or purchasers of gin for the purpose of doing so would be outside their authorities under the Constitution.

So the maintenance of a water supply would be a requirement of the Constitution. I've got no problem with that.

Elliot

In my opinion, voting day should be moved from November to April 16th, the day after tax day. That way people would vote based on the amount the government has taken from them in taxes.

This would create an incentive for our elected officials to limit the amount they take from us to the barest minimum in order to get re-elected.

At the very least, it would give us a greater sense of satisfaction when we pull the lever for the OTHER GUY when we vote.

Elliot

Salvo Elliot

You still think that a document written 200 years ago could forsee the dangers that's its own people would inflict on themselves

They left it open so that the document was open to be added and subjected from when and where necessary

You didn't understand the Gin argument did you - The picture depicts a soceity that has fallen to the preys of alcohol and as such are now such a problem a regulation needed to be inforced for its own protection, or do you think mothers so drunk they drop their own babies in the street is a society youwish to live in?

I am astonished that you don't see the need for a level of regulation to protect its citizens from rogue traders

I really hope you do remove all regulation from business elliot, as I would be the first to export Colonel Alex's Swine Flu Cure - I woiuld make a mint in days!

I really hope you do remove all regulation from business elliot, as I would be the first to export Colonel Alex's Swine Flu Cure -

That would mean that you are competing with the gvt approved snake oil .

Does the Vaccine Matter? - The Atlantic (November 2009) (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1)

Salvo Tom

Hey competition is good and healthy, the product is not always of that elk :)

the product is not always of that elk :)
elk = animal

Do you mean ilk? Or were you being funny?

Salvo Wondergirl

I guess coming from the windy city you are not used to being that dry;)

Salvo Elliot

You still think that a document written 200 years ago could forsee the dangers that's its own people would inflict on themselves

They left it open so that the document was open to be added and subjected from when and where necessary


No, I don't think they could have invisioned everything. But that is why the Founders created an Amendment system. Once an amendment is passed, it becomes as much a part of the Constitution as the parts written by the Founders.

If government, in its infinite wisdom (yes, I'm laughing as I type this) feels it necessary to change the Constitution to give them powers that they did not originally have, and if they have a compelling argument to do so, then let them Amend the Constitution legally with a 2/3 vote of both houses and every state.

If that was what the government was doing, I'd be OK with that. But that is NOT what they have done. They have simply taken on powers that are not legally theirs.


You didn't understand the Gin argument did you - The picture depicts a soceity that has fallen to the preys of alcohol and as such are now such a problem a regulation needed to be inforced for its own protection, or do you think mothers so drunk they drop their own babies in the street is a society youwish to live in?

Well, we tried prohibition and that failed. We have been taxing liquor since it was legalized again in 1933, and that hasn't prevented the abuse of alcohol. Government regulation has failed to provide an alchohol-free environment. We have some of the safest water in the world, and THAT hasn't prevented the abuse of alcohol either. In fact, I would argue that there is absolutely nothing that the government can do to prevent alchoholism, alchohold abuse, public drunkenness, and injury/damage caused by alchoholism.


I am astonished that you don't see the need for a level of regulation to protect its citizens from rogue traders

That's because you refuse to believe that people are smart enough to know a good product from a bad one.


I really hope you do remove all regulation from business elliot, as I would be the first to export Colonel Alex's Swine Flu Cure - I woiuld make a mint in days!

Yep... you would. And then you'd lose it in weeks as people figured out that your product sucks, take you to civil court to sue you for damages, and win every penny you ever earned and ever will earn.

That's the problem... you think short-term, and you assume the worst of your fellow man. You assume that the smart ones are too dishonest to deal fairly with their fellow man, and the honest ones are too stupid to know a scam when they see one. And you assume that, as one of the smart ones, you'll be able to get away with selling a bad product in the long term for a net gain.

But people aren't that dumb, most of them aren't that dishonest, and you aren't as smart as you think you are. (No offense intended... NOBODY is as smart as they think they are when they come up with a scheme to defraud others. It wasn't a personal attack against you.)

The great equalizer in such a deregulated economy would be education. THAT is where we need to start reforming society. People need to be educated to take care of themselves and not rely on government to do it for them.

Elliot

Elliot

I don't think you have any appreciation of the type of people that exist in this world!

Which is surprising when you say you have worked in Israel and seen the lengths that some human beings will go to

Yes I agree that if you act stupid then stupid is what stupid does

However, I think you are being exceptionally niave if you think that people will not abuse a system that has no regulations governing

Why on earth do you think we have regulations giverning indistry in the first place - mmmm I wonder!

Why is it you can't understand history?

Why is you think people have freedom of financial choice at all times? Freedom of choice does not guarantee freedom of choice!

Elliot

I don't think you have any appreciation of the type of people that exist in this world!

Which is surprising when you say you have worked in Israel and seen the lengths that some human beings will go to

Yes I agree that if you act stupid then stupid is what stupid does

However, I think you are being exceptionally niave if you think that people will not abuse a system that has no regulations governing

I think that it is naïve to think that the government is looking out for you.


Why on earth do you think we have regulations giverning indistry in the first place - mmmm I wonder!

I've given you the answer to that several times now... the reason for government regulation is to grant the government more power, not to make your life better. The government, quite frankly, doesn't give a crap about you or me or anyone else. The only thing that concerns government is the accumulation of power.


Why is it you can't understand history?

Why is you think people have freedom of financial choice at all times? Freedom of choice does not guarantee freedom of choice!

Actually I understand history quite well. And it is my study of history that leads me to believe that no government regulation has ever done anything to protect people... it has only managed to suppress and oppress people. This has been a common theme throughout history... the abuse of power by the government to oppress people. Exactly which part of history did you think I was misunderstanding?

As for freedom of choice, the one thing that I know for certain is that giving government more power only results in LESS freedom, including less freedom of choice. LIMITING government power may not necessarily result in greater freedom of choice, but it at least makes it POSSIBLE, whereas increasing government power ALWAYS does the opposite.

Elliot

I think you have no idea what I am arguing about, where do I say I expected the government to look out for me

You are putting words in my mouth again!


I've given you the answer to that several times now... the reason for government regulation is to grant the government more power, not to make your life better. The government, quite frankly, doesn't give a crap about you or me or anyone else. The only thing that concerns government is the accumulation of power.

Now it is just funny - You think the government doesn't care about me yet you think businesses do - wow, how naïve can you get!

FREEDOM OF FINANCIAL CHOICE IS NOT FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

I am not referring to the regulations placed primarily by government but industry to - all of which means the product you buy doesn't contain some hidden chemical that is bad for you (as an example)

LIKE Lead in yellow Paint

The toy doesn't conatin anything sharp like Needles!

The drink doesn't contain chemicals that were introduced after it left the factory

The list is endless, I think it laughable you think you could make an educated guess and it would be a guess from a list of products that were manaufactured with no regulations

Yo surely cannot be as naïve as all that!

In addition, if everybody followed your example then who in hell would buy the product - assuming you are never the first person who buys first but waits to find out what the rest of the consumers thought - so WHO would buy the product under your regime?

I also want to bring us back to what makes you think regulations are government doing - it just isn't as simple as that!

I think you have no idea what I am arguing about, where do I say I expected the government to look out for me

You are putting words in my mouth again!

Not really. You are the one insisting that government regulation is there for the benefit of the public. I make no such assumption. In fact, I know it to be a falsehood, based on historical data.


Now it is just funny - You think the government doesn't care about me yet you think businesses do - wow, how naïve can you get!

As I have said before, it doesn't matter is businesses are looking out for me. In fact, I am ASSUMING THAT THEY ARE NOT. In fact, I am assuming that the only person looking out for my interests is ME.

Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.

But that takes education, and it takes a government that forces businesses to do one thing and one thing only... label their products honestly. NO OTHER REGULATION IS NEEDED.

Elliot

Elliot

First of all, I had to write the cheques for my suppliers today, so please excuse me if I have come across to strong, I always get very annoyed with everything on the 1st of the month -kids are in bed and I have just had wee nip and feeling a lot more relaxed with the world!!

What I have been arguing against is your insistence that regulation in any form is bad, what you have been arguing against is you think I think all regulation is good

I actually think it is somewhere between

There is a clear reaon why rules and regulations exist in today's world

This need has arisen out of case after case of bad business and/or criminal activity that I believe the system is now at such a point that it is trying to avoid future bad cases and/or criminal activity

Of course this is an impossible task, and I agree with you that Governments should limit what they govern

However, in the land of marketing, you really need to check up what Honesty means - this is a decriptive word, and what one persons thinks is dishonest, another does not

Look, we both have the same idea of the world, screw or be screwed!

It is how we see other people that makes a huge difference, you see as you say, are only interested in you, I am on the otherhand have too much empathy for mankind to watch it continue in a society that thinks that today has no tomorrow, or freedom of choice is not freedom of choice for all in an unfair system

This does make me a socialist in anyway, I believe like you do, if we want something then we have to work for it

If we want to understand something we can sit down a read a book or two

But what makes you think that everybody in this world can do that?

I look out for a mate, he isn't the sharpest tool in the box but has the biggest heart, it just is how god made him, or he was dropped - can't decide which

He would not be able to make a wise choice if it landed in his lap, but as many people in his life have criticised him about his choices, it took me years for him to understand that when I gave him advice or explain something to him, he could always go and make the wrong mistake and I wuouldnt judge him for it, I would still take the mick, but that his choices are his to make, this has given him confort.

So now with him able to ask me questions and find out what is what and understand, he can make some of the right choices

This as you say is education, and we both agree on that issue

However, what happens to these people if there aren't people like myself looking out for them - should I allow them to live in a society that doesn't care

That's is the cornerstone of why I argue with so much matey, we have two opoosing views on life, you say the stupid should be educated and I never underestimate the stupidty of mankind

Elliot

First of all, I had to write the cheques for my suppliers today, so please excuse me if I have come across to strong, I always get very annoyed with everything on the 1st of the month -kids are in bed and I have just had wee nip and feeling alot more relaxed with the world!!!!!

What I have been arguing against is your insistance that regulation in any form is bad, what you have been arguing against is you think I think all regulation is good

I actually think it is somewhere inbetween

There is a clear reaon why rules and regulations exist in todays world

This need has arisen out of case after case of bad business and/or criminal activity that I believe the system is now at such a point that it is trying to avoid future bad cases and/or criminal activity

Of course this is an impossible task, and I agree with you that Governments should limit what they govern

However, in the land of marketing, you really need to check up what Honesty means - this is a decriptive word, and what one persons thinks is dishonest, another does not

Look, we both have the same idea of the world, screw or be screwed!

It is how we see other people that makes a huge difference, you see as you say, are only interested in you, I am on the otherhand have too much empathy for mankind to watch it continue in a society that thinks that today has no tomorrow, or freedom of choice is not freedom of choice for all in an unfair system

This does make me a socialist in anyway, I believe like you do, if we want something then we have to work for it

If we want to understand something we can sit down a read a book or two

But what makes you think that everybody in this world can do that?

I look out for a mate, he isnt the sharpest tool in the box but has the biggest heart, it just is how god made him, or he was dropped - can't decide which

He would not be able to make a wise choice if it landed in his lap, but as many people in his life have critised him about his choices, it took me years for him to understand that when I gave him advice or explain something to him, he could always go and make the wrong mistake and I wuouldnt judge him for it, I would still take the mick, but that his choices are his to make, this has given him confort.

So now with him able to ask me questions and find out what is what and understand, he can make some of the right choices

This as you say is education, and we both agree on that issue

However, what happens to these people if there arent people like myself looking out for them - should I allow them to live in a society that doesnt care

Thats is the cornerstone of why I argue with so much matey, we have two opoosing views on life, you say the stupid shoudl be educated and I never underestimate the stupidty of mankind

I think the last paragraph is the one that shows the difference between our philosophies.

I have worked with mentally challenged, Downs Syndrome, and other developmentally challenged children and adults. One thing that I have learned is that NOBODY is too stupid to learn. Some of the best decision-makers I have ever met were mentally challenged in some form or other... but they learned a METHOD for making decisions for themselves and they practiced it. Sometimes they made the wrong decisions, but they learned from those errors and didn't make them the second time.

I am fairly sure that your friend with the "simple" outlook on life that you claim "would not be able to make a wise choice if it landed in his lap" can learn to make decisions for himself just fine. It may take making bad choices and then dealing with the consequences of those choices in order for him to learn... but he can do it.

I believe that given the right education (and that means different things for different people) all of us can make good decisions for ourselves, and we don't need the government to do it for us. You believe that there are people who need protection because they are too stupid to learn. I disagree with that assumption based on my own experience.

BTW, just because other people think that your friend's decisions are bad ones doesn't mean that they aren't the best, most logical, most beneficial decisions for him. Your friend may have a different set of goals than others have, and therefore his decisions may be the ones most beneficial for his goals EVEN IF NOBODY ELSE SEES IT. Don't automatically assume that just because you would make a different decision that his decision is wrong.

I just don't buy the argument that people are too dumb to know what they want and what decisions to make to get it.

Elliot

More government insanity, Arizona Church Ordered to Stop Feeding Homeless (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091123/arizona-church-ordered-to-stop-feeding-homeless/).


A judge ordered a Phoenix church to stop feeding the homeless on its property, citing zoning violation.
Related

Retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice Robert Corcoran ruled in early November that CrossRoads United Methodist Church in north Phoenix was functioning as a charity dining hall in a residential neighborhood...

The church has a 50-year history of feeding the homeless and caring for the poor in the community.

Granted, it wasn't just the judge who was a Scrooge but the community itself complained of having to deal with the homeless. No good deed goes unpunished in this country any more, just ask the boy scout who picked up trash (http://www.mcall.com/news/all-a8_5scout.7084728nov15,0,6238384.story) in Allentown, Pa or the volunteer firefighters in Baraboo, WI who built sandbag barricades to protect Baraboo from record flooding (http://badgerblogalliance.blogspot.com/2008/06/union-grievance-filed-over-firefighters.html). Isn't it a bit of a mixed message though for the president to call on us to "feed a neighbor (http://www.volunteermatch.org/search/opp616714.jsp)" while the state is banning churches from feeding the hungry?

More government insanity, Arizona Church Ordered to Stop Feeding Homeless (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091123/arizona-church-ordered-to-stop-feeding-homeless/).It never would have received any attention from a judge if the members of the community themselves weren't the cause of the action:

But it was the very members of the community that raised concern about the church’s feeding ministry. Some residents complained about the homeless people wandering around the neighborhood, bringing trash to the area and cited fear of increased crime due to their presence.
“They broke into electric boxes and had their bikes and things chained up to fences, and set up camp right in our back yard,” said Talitha Cerino, who lives nearby, to the ABC News station in Phoenix.
“I don’t necessarily know that I would want to be walking down Central on a Saturday morning to see a parade of homeless individuals riding their bikes to get to their free meal in the morning,” Cerino said.

So it has nothing to do with government insanity.

Isn't it a bit of a mixed message though for the president to call on us to "feed a neighbor (http://www.volunteermatch.org/search/opp616714.jsp)" while the state is banning churches from feeding the hungry?Hello again, Steve:

Sure it is. But, since when did the Evangelical Christian community start listening to Obama? Seems like they take their marching orders from the likes of Pat Robertson.

Plus, as you pointed out, the DIS was the loving Christians complaining about the homeless people in their neighborhood... It has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with Christians NOT acting Christianlike.

excon

PS> You're really not blaming Obama for an Arizona court ruling, are you?? Really?? Is he also responsible for your bathroom stink after you use it?

It never would have received any attention from a judge if the members of the community themselves weren't the cause of the action:

Is there an echo in here? I said, Granted, it wasn't just the judge who was a Scrooge but the community itself complained of having to deal with the homeless.


So it has nothing to do with government insanity.

You must have missed this, too: Retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice Robert Corcoran ruled in early November that CrossRoads United Methodist Church in north Phoenix was functioning as a charity dining hall in a residential neighborhood.

And then there was this from the article, The judge’s ruling is effective immediately and affects all Phoenix churches with residential zoning. There are at least 20 other Phoenix churches that provide food to the homeless and poor as part of their worship programs.

A judge ruling that all churches in areas zoned as residential can't feed the homeless has everything to do with government insanity. The ruling can only be supported by zoning ordinances, not a resident's complaint about homeless people.

Christians listen to God and His word in the bible. Matthew 25:40 here. Hoo raa for this church and those that feed the poor and homeless.

I did not read in the article, what religious denomination [s] , if any, of those in the community that complained?


G&P

Sure it is. But, since when did the Evangelical Christian community start listening to Obama? Seems like they take their marching orders from the likes of Pat Robertson.

I doubt there are a lot of Methodists that take marching orders from Pat Robertson.


Plus, as you pointed out, the DIS was the loving Christians complaining about the homeless people in their neighborhood...

I didn't point out any such thing, I have no idea whether this community's residents are "loving Christians" or any other kind of Christian.


It has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with Christians NOT acting Christianlike.

I guess you missed that juxtaposition between Obama's call and the state's action here. I implied it was a mixed message - isn't it?


PS> You're really not blaming Obama for an Arizona court ruling, are you?? Really?? Is he also responsible for your bathroom stink after you use it?

Again, you miss the point - willfully or not. I tend to think willfully.

Right, itb, there is no mention of who these community members are, what their religious affiliation - if any - may be. For all we know it could be a good, compassionate liberal neighborhood.

For all we know it could be a good, compassionate liberal neighborhood.What a sad sad man you are indeed to harbour so much hatred for 50% of your fellow citizens.

What a sad sad man you are indeed to harbour so much hatred for 50% of your fellow citizens.

What a sad man indeed that you can't discern a tongue-in-cheek retort to an absurd allegation. Or maybe you can and you're just diverting attention from the fact that I shredded your last post.

Hello again, Steve:

Sure it is. But, since when did the Evangelical Christian community start listening to Obama? Seems like they take their marching orders from the likes of Pat Robertson.

Plus, as you pointed out, the DIS was the loving Christians complaining about the homeless people in their neighborhood.... It has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with Christians NOT acting Christianlike.

excon

PS> You're really not blaming Obama for an Arizona court ruling, are you??? Really??? Is he also responsible for your bathroom stink after you use it?

Why not?

Bush was blamed for global warming.:D

This thread could go on forever.
Government insanity seems to be infinite.