When little lies have big consequences.
I've been writing for The Intellectual Conservative for several years now. You know my beliefs from the various articles I've written, but what do you actually know about me?
In addition to the Ph.D. I earned at the University of Chicago, I hold honorary Ph.D's from Harvard, Yale and Columbia University. Three of the novels I've written have been optioned for feature films by major Hollywood producers, and are scheduled for release in the summer of 2009. I retired at 35 because I won both the New York State and Florida lotteries, making me a gazillionaire. My devilishly handsome good looks have put me on the cover of GQ magazine six times in the last three years. My trophy wife Bambi is a former Playboy Bunny (Miss October), and in three weeks I'm off to spend a weekend with Brad and Angelina at their private getaway in the Caribbean.
Okay. Was it the extra Ph/D's that gave me away, my trophy wife Bambi, the Hollywood movie options, or something more mundane like my "devilishly handsome good looks"? If it wasn't obvious before, it certainly is now that except for the real Ph.D. I have from Chicago, and the fact that I've written a couple of moderately-successful novels, none of the above is true. So why lie? Why augment the truth, or in other circumstances, deny the truth of a matter all together?
Why indeed? For a person like me, there's no real point in embellishing my looks, net worth, or social calendar, because enough people know what I look like (and who I like to pal around with) to quickly put a lie to anything I'd say. As far as my wife "Bambi" is concerned, the fact that I have a wife of 30-plus years makes it unlikely that I'm trying to score a date on Facebook with an assumed photo and made-up profile. So, in short, there's nothing to be gained for me by massaging the truth until it's no longer recognizable.
But what about those people who do lie about important issues where the stakes are much higher than their social reputation alone? Let me think of a good example to illustrate this point. You know, someone like, oh, the Democrat presidential nominee in the 2008 election.
At this point the moral relativists will jump in and scream "everybody lies, especially politicians." Yes, they do. But like an example I've used before, it's theft to steal a ream of paper from the office and bring it home for your kid to draw on, and it's theft to embezzle $750,000 from the office pension fund. But not every act of thievery has the same implications, and not every lie has the same motivations — or consequences — and to excuse one by citing the other is to play another kind of game with words.
Now, unlike my friends on the Left, I don't instinctively condemn a politician for changing his position when circumstances dictate. With regard to President-elect Obama, there's a qualitative difference between backing away from the immediate, draconian tax increases he proposed while campaigning in 2008, and the reality he faces in dealing with the worst economy since the Carter Administration. While Obama still publicly maintains that he's going to increase the taxes of the most productive Americans, he and his surrogates are no longer stating this fact emphatically, and are beginning to whisper about making the changes somewhere around 2010. This is not the same thing as Bill Clinton promising a middle class tax cut in 1992, and then jettisoning it immediately upon taking office in 1993.
What I'm addressing in this essay is Obama's own characterization of a minor, allegedly insignificant point during the 2008 campaign; namely, his relationship to a man who did some very naughty things when Obama was 8 years old. I'm sure many of my friends — er, I mean neighborhood acquaintances — did naughty things too forty or fifty years ago, and I'd hate to be held accountable for their actions because they live on my block, or I passed them in the hall while going to and from some meeting we both attended.
Or, to put it in Obama's own words regarding his relationship to domestic terrorist — I mean, former peace activist — Bill Ayers [April 2008 presidential debate]:
This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.
Right-Wing Republicans quickly reacted to this statement by pointing out that, "Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 . . .."
We can dismiss these partisan slurs that Obama was withholding the complete truth because they were made by kook fringe conservatives, and therefore had no basis in fact. The discussion of Obama's truthfulness will now end here. Oh wait, I just re-read the transcript, and it appears that it was Hillary Clinton who authored this statement, so we must continue because these charges now have inherent credibility. (In politics today, a fact is not a fact until a Democrat or the mainstream media says it is. Until then, the same identical act/charge either doesn't exist, didn't actually happen, or doesn't have any significance. I'm just playing by the established rules, so please don't hate me.)
So where is the truth of the matter? Two Democrats have made opposing charges. Was Ayers just a guy in Obama's neighborhood, not a friend and supporter? Was Obama more than a passing acquaintance of Ayers, or not?
This conundrum would normally be relegated to the deep, dark depths of academic trivia, were it not for the recent comments of Mr. Ayers himself. From a report by the Chicago Sun Times:
In a new afterword to his 2001 book, Bill Ayers, former leader of the 1960s radical group Weather Underground, describes President-elect Barack Obama as a ‘family friend' . . .
Hmmm. That sounds like a little more than "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." As Ayers explains, "We . . . knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign . . ."
Hmmm again. I don't have any neighbors who've knocked on my door and offered to raise money for my pet projects, particularly people who I don't regard as "friends." Even some of my "official" friends looked the other way when my kid went around the neighborhood raising money for her school, selling girl scout cookies, etc. And this is in the friendly South. I actually lived in Hyde Park for 5 years back in the late 70s and early 80s, where the Obamas resided prior to Tony Rezko buying them a new house. There were bars on most of the windows, and big loud dogs that liked to bite people in many of the homes.
In a community where families arrange "play dates" for their children instead of just letting them go outside and make new friends, Obama wants us to believe that some neighborhood guy he barely knew held a fund raiser at his (Ayers') house and donated money to Obama out of his own pocket? This doesn't pass the smell test. Some guy, out of the blue, randomly picks Obama to help launch his political career. They serve on the same board, but according to Obama Ayers is "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis."
It's Bill Clinton time again. Okay, the exchange of ideas wasn't "regular" (every Tuesday at 4:00 pm). One week it was Monday at 5:00, the next week Wednesday at 2:00, then alternate Tuesdays throughout the month of May. Ayers was just a really, really, really strong acquaintance, not a "friend." Ayers opens his home to Obama, but doesn't use the word "official" when he endorses him, so it's just another random, unconnected act.
The election is over, so why is any of this an issue? It isn't if you don't care whether the President is telling you the truth or not. But as we've learned from the Left during the past 8 years, if the President says it's 2:00 pm and it's really 2:01 pm, he's "lying." So, I intend to hold President Obama to a similar — albeit more realistic — standard.
Obama lied to us about his relationship with Bill Ayers. He did this because he believed it was important to his election effort. It doesn't matter whether he lied because he feared Republicans would distort the relationship; Hillary Clinton is the one who raised the issue while they were both vying for the nomination. He lied to beat her, and he lied to beat McCain. Any further rationalizing of the act is an interesting historical tidbit, but it doesn't obviate the fact that Obama repeatedly and consistently lied about Ayers.
The Left has reminded us for years that the end does not justify the means when it comes to fake lying (i.e. their charges about Bush and Iraq). So, it more than stands to reason that real lying cannot be justified either, even when the lie is deemed necessary to defeat other Democrats and the Republican Party nominee.
Why is this lie an issue, then? If Obama was willing to repeatedly lie about this supposedly "insignificant" matter, why should we think he'll tell the truth when a genuinely important issue is at hand?
Phil, I apologize for the sarcasm at the beginning of Post 49. I know you’ve read my posts.
Seems to me this discussion has devolved into using the power of government to take money from some to pay for healthcare for others. This taking is far outside the confines of the constitution but the comment that the constitution is over 200years old and could not anticipate this event. Well the framers actually did consider that times change and they provided a way for the constitution to change with the times called the amendment process. However, liberals noting that the electorate would never support the socialist agenda invented judicial activism where supreme court justices decide that the constitution is not their governing law but just a handy reference to be used when it agrees with their position and ignored when it does not.
Universal health care has been a failure in every country it was tried in which is the crux of Phil’s comments about those from other countries coming to the U.S. for treatment.
Is there a solution? Yes, called personal responsibility. By the way a large number of the “uninsured” are citizens of other countries in our country illegally. Hmmm
John, as sarcasm goes, it was pretty tame. No offense taken. I dish out much worse.
You are confusing the need to be an “expert” with the facility of simply offering an opinion. Opinions are like the exit points of the human digestive system; everyone has one.
Yes, people can disagree about “facts”. But you offer none. You simply offer generalized, usually feel-good truisms. For example:
“Where healthcare is concerned, I think everyone has a stake and a responsibility: businesses, individuals, the insurance companies and government. That’s how we’re connected.”
Okay. Sure. Everyone should be responsible, and everyone is connected. But HOW from a policy standpoint? To give you an example, “doing good” is not a definition of morality, since anyone can do anything and say it is “good”. There’s no way to test this definition beyond treating it like a platitude. Saying it is immoral to deliberately harm innocent human life does provide enough specificity. The definition of “deliberate”, “innocent” and even “human” can be debated and clarified as part of this discussion. And, the whole concept of “good”/moral can now be related to discussions of abortion, war, social policy in general, and a myriad of other things. In short, it’s no longer an abstract platitude, but a real issue being addressed.
Contrast this with your gross generalizations about UHC. Your quote — “As I also stated in a previous post, exploding healthcare costs are limiting our ability to compete in the world economy.” Okay, but WHY are they exploding? Are doctors arbitrarily charging more money, or is it something else, like, illegal aliens overloading the public health system (something I have first hand knowledge about from the task force I headed in Dallas several years ago), union contracts that provide viagara for retirees, trial lawyers who make doctors perform excessive tests to protect against lawsuits, etc.? Could the same efficiencies be achieved through medical savings plans, tort reforms, and letting the big three automakers go Chapter 11?
You never acknowledge any real issues beyond anecdotes and platitudes. You came close to it with the illustration of your wife’s experience, but your ‘solutions’ are incoherent. You talk about a need to change physician reimbursements (this is NOT the core problem) and make a passing comment about the “uninsured” without stating whether these are illegal aliens or 20 year old men and women who are American citizens. It makes a BIG difference!
Young people are largely uninsured by choice. I never cancer insurance until I was in my 40s, or a long term health care insurance plan until I was in my 50s, for good reason. Sure I could have gotten cancer in my 20s, or become disabled in my 30s, but some choices are reasonable based on probability, and some are not. Bankrupting a county health care system because illegal aliens have no insurance at all is not the same issue.
Until you recognize the systemic differences between these two facts, your pleas for “UHC or whatever reform of the system works best ought to be designed with its greatest emphasis on prevention” is meaningless. Lack of care about “prevention” is not the reason our health care system is in crisis. If anything, it is one of the contributing factors. My wife took our kid to the doctor every time she had a sniffle. My non-reimbursed medical bills were very high each year even before her cancer (which was covered by her employers and a supplemental policy we took out in our 40s because we acted responsibly, not like many others who take great vacations and then expect me to foot their medical bills through my taxes). If everyone acted with the same concern about “prevention” my wife had for our child, the system would collapse. We’d have to ration health care like they do in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY that practices UHC. This is a policy implication of the platitude you offer, that you never address.
Moreover, when you acknowledge that “The government has no present constitutional responsibility to provide National Health Care in the same way that it has no present constitutional responsibility to bail out the financial sector or the auto industry,” you are correct that there is no constitutional right to health care, but your further understanding of political-economics is flawed. The government has absolutely no “responsibility” to bail any industry out of trouble. It has the statutory authority to do so, and for economic and political reasons has chosen to act in a certain way in 2008. But this has nothing to do with a basic “right”, which is what I challenged you on when you said earlier that we have a responsibility in this country to provide some sort of UHC.
You say “The economic implications of UHC or similar reform of the current system are lower costs resulting in greater flexibility for American corporations in the world economy. With everyone involved, the pool of young and healthy contributors would increase, thus lowering premiums. Such savings would reverberate positively in the economy. The insurance companies wouldn’t also be interested if such reform didn’t have the potential of increasing their bottom line.”
This is absurd, and represents nothing more than wishful thinking. Unless you take out the trial lawyers, remove pharmaceutical company R&D costs/incentives to bring a new drug to market (they expect a financial payoff for their efforts, since there is great risk involve), and then ration health care services to provide equal access for everyone, absolutely none of what you say is true. Wishing is not the same as analyzing.
You further state “As a matter of common decency, we already subsidize food and housing.” Bullsh*t. My housing and food isn’t subsidized, although some farmers in Iowa get special subsidies for political purposes for the food I eventually consume. I don’t get food stamps. There’s no program to pay for my electric bills or mortgage. The only people who get these things are the indigent — the same ones who receive free or subsidized health care under the PRESENT system.
You also say: “There are people looking for free handouts who take advantage of, and yes, milk the system. But I think that’s the minority.” Again, this is an opinion unsupported by any fact. I take absolutely every tax deduction I’m entitled to, and if the government hands out money for X, I take that money too because it would be stupid not to until I can get that foolish law repealed.
In fact, you don’t even believe what you say, John. If you think I’m being too harsh in my assessment, please reconcile these two statements that you made:
(1) “There are people looking for free handouts who take advantage of, and yes, milk the system. But I think that’s the minority.”
(2) “But many doctors are saavy enough to get around that, or they figure out a way not to take on the patient in the first place.”
So, average people eligible for a government handout won’t take advantage of the opportunity, but the rich people will always try to beat the system?
By the way, to Mickey’s point — it hasn’t been lost on any of us that throughout your entire discussion of the need to adopt some form of UMC to provide healthcare for everyone since it is such a fundamental human need, you’ve offered no substance behind the thought that this responsibility begins with an individual taking personal responsibility for himself/herself and their children. All you’ve said is “I think everyone has a stake and a responsibility: businesses, individuals, the insurance companies and government. That’s how we’re connected.” This is like saying “Al Queda intends to attack the US somewhere sometime in the near future,” and thinking that you’ve issued an actual warning. Where, when, how, to what extent, in what manner? Your platitude about “responsibility” addresses none of these.
Your core philosophy as you describe it, by the way, is completely amoral. “I’ve always tried to put myself in the other person’s shoes.” When a rapist attacks a woman, I never put myself in their shoes. When a terrorist kills innocent people, I never put myself in their shoes. Once again you substitute generalized statements for real values.
My core philosophy revolves around the belief that it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life. Consequently, I don’t try to “understand” terrorists, abortionists, pedophiles, murders, politicians or Liberals, except to understand them enough to keep them from doing things against my core values. Because of my values I don’t give money to beggars on the street, but I’m one of the nation’s top contributors to Christian’s Children Fund among other charities. I’ve helped put non-relatives through college, had a homeless family live in my house for several months, and done a bunch of other things to further my principles. There’s meaningful substance behind my core values, both in what I do and don’t do. And none of it requires a feel good platitude to justify my action, or your involuntary participation to make my values come alive.
Consequently, what I don’t do is go around feeling good about myself for “caring”, and use other people’s money to further this feel good feeling.
I don’t think you fall into this latter category the way a lot of others who argue from pure emotion tend to do. But until you recognize that all you’re doing is offering feel-good statements that don’t address, or even understand the fundamental dynamics of an issue, there’s not much more to say on the subject.
Mickey G., We’ve actually gotten way off topic considering the article that began this discussion. Most of which is probably my fault. I entered this forum with the intention of getting to know the conservative mind a little better. I think I’ve succeeded. The various people posting here are often guilty of the same things they accuse liberals of. I see no one offering concrete solutions to the healthcare crisis, if they even recognize one exists. They merely criticize. If anyone here can outline a real way to reduce healthcare costs, I’m listening. I’m not sure UHC has been a failure in every country it was tried. But even if that’s true, it doesn’t mean it would fail here. The Canadian system is no more flawed than ours. On the one hand, theirs costs less per person than ours. But on the other they cover everyone. And there are plenty of horror stories right here at home of people who had insurance but were denied coverage. I’m sure you can find some of them on google if you care to do the research. Maybe those people didn’t read the fine print? Oh yes … caveat emptor! I’ve never said, “Let’s do the Canadian system or the French system.” I’m a reform advocate. But I think everyone has to be involved. That’s the extent of my support for UHC. As I stated several times in previous posts, the health insurance industry wants in on reform, unlike during the “Harry and Louise” days of 1993. That’s a good thing. Corporations want in as well, now that healthcare costs have risen enough to seriously effect their ability to compete in the world economy. I’ve heard no response to this. I’m not suggesting a free ride for anybody. You should know that. But with everyone taking “responsibility” as you say, not just employers and the the government, but individuals as well, we can reduce costs through risk management.
There also seems to be a failure by conservatives to acknowledge there are people in this country who happen to be on the left politically, who work hard every day, and take their individual responsibilities very seriously. I also think there’s a lot of selfishness and paranoia on the conservative side where money is concerned. It’s as if all the money in this country is just conservative money. I don’t think the selfishness and paranoia are what conservatives actually feel. But they do seem to “knee-jerk” in that way in political debate. You want to get under a conservative’s skin, just mention UHC!
The government is not the enemy. I think of the government as my sister, who happens to sit on her local town board; a childhood friend, Bob Reynolds who is now a county legislator; a high school acquaintance, Kevin Gaughn, a laywer who ran for congress and is now an advocate for regionalism to reduce the size of local government. I also think of the government as Jack Quinn, a former school teacher and our former congressman, a guy from the same village I grew up in. I think of the government as made up of mom’s and dad’s, business owners, and so many other decent people, democrats, republicans who may have served in the military in times of war and peace, who came from rich or poor families. Is our government of the people, by the people and for the people. I hope so.
“I see no one offering concrete solutions to the healthcare crisis, if they even recognize one exists.”
*** This is pure sophistry. You introduced the issue that there’s a “crisis”. You offer platitudes about the “crisis” which we criticize. Then you fault us because we haven’t offered a “solution” to your platitudes.
I’ve challenged your notion that there is a “crisis” in health care. There are problems with health care, as there are with many issues. Just because the media calls it a crisis doesn’t make it a crisis. I actually spent a year of my life working on an aspect of this issue with the Dallas County Hospital District, and I know where the public health care problems are, and why they exist. They don’t exist because I’m taxed too little, or doctors are too greedy.
You can’t even explain what the fundamental issues are regarding health care in the US, other than to rely on a bunch of sophomoric feel-good platitudes. And yet, because you’ve deemed it to be a crisis where “everyone” is responsible, we now have to accept your unsubstantiated premise and offer concrete alternatives to your platitudes.
If you want to be taken seriously try and figure out what the real systemic problems are of an issue before you pop off with more banal tripe. This isn’t an opinion forum where everyone tells us what their favorite color is, and why they like puppy dogs better than kitty cats. It’s supposed to be an informed exchange of ideas, not a load of silly opinions.
All you do is toss out words with no understanding of how they actually connect in the real world. “[W]ith everyone taking ‘responsibility’ as you say, not just employers and the government, but individuals as well, we can reduce costs through risk management.” This is embarrassing drivel. It is either the government’s responsibility to provide health care, or it is my responsibility. If it is the government’s, then justify it in terms of the constitutional mandates and limitations of power. If it is an individual’s responsibility, then waht exactly are the specifics of this responsibility, and why the hell should my neighbor pay for my stupidity if I choose not to be insured?
And don’t tell me that it’s impossible to get insurance. It may be expensive for some people, but not everyone. And regardless of the cost, anyone can afford it — if they are willing to recognize their basic responsibility for providing food, shelter, medical care etc. for themselves and their families. So they get a $200 TV set instead of a $1,500 one.
This is the discussion of personal responsibility, which you have yet to acknowledge.
As for the additional platitude that “There also seems to be a failure by conservatives to acknowledge there are people in this country who happen to be on the left politically, who work hard every day, and take their individual responsibilities very seriously,” — bullsh*t. You haven’t even addressed this issue yourself in a meaningful way. We at least have tried to ground the discussion with this as a starting point. All we get from you is more meaningless platitudes about everyone being responsible in some way or another, or we’re all somehow connected in a meaningful but unspecified way — which impacts this particular discussion how exactly?
The government is not my enemy either (more platitudes from John). But it’s not my friggin sister either! It’s a manifestation of a social compact that provides for a clearly articulated common good as defined by an agreed-upon constitution that LIMITS the power of state and central authorities over the people, because not to do so threatens their God-given inalienable rights. Try taking an introductory course in political science 101 instead of drawing your political insights from Steely Dan records, and maybe you’ll appreciate what we Neanderthal conservatives are saying.
Until then peace love and mutual blessings upon the great Mother Earth within which all humanity is united. That’s apparently all we need to know to set the level of capital gains tax, determine how many ships our Navy needs, assess which property tax scheme provides the greatest income without injuring private enterprise, and set the proper speed limits on country roads.
John, if you are thinking of government as a “sister” get ready because she is about to perform an abnormal sex act on you. Name a single program that federal government runs that can be considered to be both effective and efficient.
Can’t think of any that is because there are none. Government is a necessary evil, not an answer.
John,
Regarding your post #47
“… sudden interest in healthcare reform …”. How do you reform something before it exists? Right now, the healthcare system we have in the private sector is whatever arrangement doctor and patient agree on. We call that the free-market. You aren’t speaking of ‘reforming’ the market, but of supplanting it with government-managed healthcare. If you were speaking of reforming Medicare and Medicaid (which is a mess and in need of reforming) you might be onto something. But you aren’t suggesting that are you? Instead, you are proposing we do to what remains of the private sector what has already been done to those who can’t afford or (unwilling to buy) private insurance.
The corporate world is, indeed, interested in government subsidized healthcare. That would transfer the cost and management of their employee’s care off of them. If someone offers you a golden opportunity to rid yourself of a major business cost while still meeting a negotiated contractual (union) obligation, you’d jump at it too. But, what about workers? Does this improve their quality of care, or just transfer it beyond their reach to negotiate. Companies can be negotiated with to get better care, governments ignore all but those they wish to hear. Companies can be sued for failures to meet obligations to workers, governments can also, but it is a lot harder.
“… we don’t necessarily have to copy the Canadian model.” Actually, the Canadian system is one of the better fully government-run healthcare failures. We use that system as an example more because so many Canadians come to this country seeking an alternative to it. That has more to do with a shared, uncontrolled border than it being a worst case example. The U.S. care, for that matter, is also about 60% socialized (Medicare, Medicaid, mental health mandates, hospital admissions who can’t turn away patient regardless of means, can’t turn away non-citizens of no means, government regulated insurance industry, government regulated standards of care, SCHIP, &c). It is only that pesky 40% of citizens (who refuse to fall in line) who are gumming up the socialist utopia. So when you insinuate we aren’t enough like socialized countries, you couldn’t be more wrong. Ours is a socialized country, just not one of the basket cases (yet).
“… you guys know exactly what I mean when I say “we’re all connected!” No man is an island. Another platitude for sure, but it is true. No clue to where you are trying to go with this unless trying to imply we’re selfish (yaddy-yaddy-yaddah – heard it all before). This is what we call a non-sequitur; seems to say something, but is ultimately meaningless. It’s like one of those bumper-stickers liberals are so fond of plastering on perfectly good cars the better to promote rust.
The fact of the matter is, being unwilling to go along with foolishness worse than that which it proposes to supplant is not being stingy. It is being responsible. You cite doctors as being the better judge of the merits of UHC. In fact, many (if not most) doctors are pretty ignorant of the financial aspects and not terribly moved by the loss of autonomy it represents. A doctor’s main focus is on providing care, and generally leaves it to others to administer cost. Doctors are also natural idealists, perfectly willing to throw objectivity out the window the at the mere suggestions of ‘unlimited care’. I have had occasion to discuss this topic with my own doctors, and am amazed at their relative ignorance of the consequences; not only to the quality of care, but to their own jobs.
He, who controls the purse strings, calls the shots. A century ago, patients paid their own care out of pocket. That put them (us) firmly in the driver’s seat. If we did not like the care, we took our business elsewhere until satisfied. If we felt the care was good but overpriced, we had the option of seeking cheaper, comparable care. Today, we have a situation half way between socialized-care and market-care. We no longer have direct control, but do have some indirect control through our choice of insurance. To the degree we give up control over quality, we gain a measure of cost control. In this situation, we are sharing the driver’s seat and there is a trade-off worth pursuing as long as we don’t forget the main object is a reasonable level of health. Government takes this even further, taking over total control of both quality and cost. That takes us completely out of the driver’s seat and at the mercy of others both for the quality of care and its cost.
I once did an analysis of the total cost of healthcare to the average American and Brit. I did that while debating a UHC proponent much like you. Another reason I researched this was, I am a long time pain sufferer (trigeminal neuralgia) and many of my fellow sufferers keep asking ‘Why can’t we get socialized care in this country?” My answer to them has been – be careful what you ask for.
Britain has had full socialized healthcare since the 1950s. Everyone in this country assumes Brits and Canadians get ‘free’ healthcare. That’s bunk. They pay for their care same as us, but pay it to government with no choice in the matter. What surprised even me, though, was the average Brit pays slightly more than we do (in additional taxes plus non-covered self-care, prescriptions, and incidentals) than the average American pays in medical taxes (payroll taxes), direct cost, insurance, alternative care and uncovered incidentals. There are winners even in the British system, but far fewer than here. In Britain, if you opt to get private care, you still have to pay NHS taxes, but may thereafter be barred from NH services (including hospital emergency rooms) and may take years getting back in. This creates a lot of anxiety for Brits who are forced to decide between waiting it out (possibly missing a tumor until too late) or opting out only to find they can’t afford the cure. Quality of care in Britain went from second-best in the world to among the lowest of industrialized nations. The reason this happened is there is no longer any incentive to maintain or make improvements to their system. That’s what happens when you remove that ‘evil profit’ from the equation. It is also what happens when the person making the decisions what services are allowed is not the person whose health depends on those services. Those who can afford to, get private care and write-off their national health taxes as a dead loss. There are only a handful of MRIs and CAT scanners in all England, and access to them is severely restricted. Older equipment gets scrapped but rarely replaced. Hospital sanitation is so abyssmal it takes no encouragement getting patients to recover at home, even when unwarranted. Many people take private cars or taxis to the hospital rather than pay high fees for ambulance conveyance (that’s right, not covered). British doctors are often indifferent to patients to whom they are no longer unaccountable (only accountable to government, and government is still more indifferent). Some Brits I have read say the hospital staff is better (friendlier, greater personal concern) than here, but I’ve read others who say that’s exaggerated (grasping at straws for something positive to say about the NHS?), and I have known some great staff here as well. People have died in Britain from neglect in situations which, here, would not be tolerated. Others have already spoken of how long it takes getting a simple examination in Britain. You really should read some of the horror stories circulating among British patients before judging our less-than-fully socialized-care unaffordable. How affordable is death? How affordable is staying sick and unable to work for many months to years? I pay thousands of dollars each year in non-covered medical costs. If anyone should be attracted by the lure of ‘free’ care, it would be those like me. After a good, hard look, however, I am only the more convinced government-managed care is a huge mistake, and not at all ‘free’.
You admit you are less than knowledgeable regarding the intricacies of what you propose, yet are perfectly willing to go along with and irrevocably commit your fellow Americans for all time to something with no track record of success anywhere. Why would you do such a thing? We do know something about this because we took the time to research it. You don’t have to be a doctor to see this is a huge mistake. Do you have to be an expert to know when a car salesman is pushing an obvious lemon on you? Even if it’s not a lemon but is just the wrong car for you, would you buy it anyway because all your relatives think its ‘shiny’, politically-correct and, hey, the car guy wouldn’t steer you wrong would he? You don’t trust statistics because they can be manipulated, but defer to ‘expertise’ without much thought that it is you (us) who ultimately reap the consequences. Expertise is great for bringing us up to speed on what is what, but ultimate you can’t dump decisions like these on the experts to make for you. Moreover, they are no more ‘expert’ than you outside their narrow specialty, even when it seems related. You have to listen, ask the right questions, weigh, and only then decide.
Mickey and Bob: Five will get you ten that all the facts and issues we three have raised will be met with another lyric from a 1960′s rock and roll song. This will of course confirm John’s discovery that all Conservatives are just blind idealogues adhearing to a heartless, selfish view of the world that denies the intrinsic connection all humans have with the life forces surging through the universe. What more do you need to know than that anyway to make intelligent policy?
I’ll have to sort through all the facts and specifics you guys have raised and respond on another day. You’ve thrown a lot at me. But trust that I will! It’s just that I have other more important responsibilities at the moment. I will, however, take the time to say this …
Most of the posts I’ve read here are thoughtful, thought-provoking, well-written – except for mine, of course. (Just sophomoric drivel!) Our discussion thus far has at least served to highlight the differences in the way we think – the conservative mindset vs. the liberal mindset. Which comes closer to the truth? I’m impressed that you all would respond so vigorously to all my nonsense. I have a sneaking suspicion it’s more about gang warfare and playing the game than it is about trying to understand each other, and finding common ground and common sense solutions. The tone of your responses tells me that either I’ve gotten under your skin, which was not my intention, AND I’m therefore hitting awfully close to home. OR … you’re trying hard as hell to get under my skin. If that’s the case, I wish you good luck!
John: Once again thinking with your emotions has served you poorly.
We value vigorous debate. But, we have no tolerance for fools.
If you come to us with an intelligent argument, we’ll respond to it. If you come to us with a sincere desire to understand an issue, we’ll respond to it and help educate you. But if you come to offer inane comments like many of the drive-by Libs do who pop in occasionally, you’ll be ridiculed and made fun of.
Like I said earlier, you seem like a decent guy. But you have no clue about the depth and complexity of the issues you paper over with generalizations and feel-good platitudes.
You haven’t gotten “under our skin”. We started off treating you like an adult, then once it was clear you had no idea what you were talking about, we treated you like a sincere person who simply doesn’t understand the difference between a slogan and a policy and tried to educate you on the difference. Finally, we dismissed you as a bit of a self-superior jerk. You purport to tell us about our deficiencies without addressing any of the substantive issues we raise in critiquing your “analysis”.
If you want to enter into a real discussion, either address issues of substance, or cut your losses and move on. Otherwise, you’ll just be made fun of again for thinking rock song lyrics are meaningful windows into the body politic. This isn’t the Daily Kos. We don’t care about your feelings or opinions, only your informed judgments and observations.
As for what the real difference is between Liberals and Conservatives, you might want to look at some things I’ve written in the past on this very subject. Here’s a link to the first 2. There are 13 chapters in all, which can be found in the IC archives under my name.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/10/24/the-loony-liberal-chronicles-chapter-1/
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/11/03/the-looney-liberal-chronicles-chapter-2/
I thought I’d have a quick check of this forum before hitting the sack. You guys are still responding to my liberal drivel! You should know that I don’t mind being made fun of, though it’s not something I usually engage in myself. Making fun of people creates divisiveness and is counter-productive. As adults you should all know by now that it only serves to provide the giver with the illusion of superiority. It is a tactic used by schoolyard bullies when their buddies are around to back them up.
I haven’t really read anything from anyone here that’s different from the usual conservative surface noise regarding policy. I’ve heard much of it all before. And we could go round in circles forever. But working toward and achieving that breakthrough when both sides actually walk the same path even for a moment – is a much more difficult and rewarding endeavor. That’s where I’m trying in my own humble way to educate you.
What an idiot.
John Ross, et al:
Re: “I see no one offering concrete solutions to the healthcare crisis, if they even recognize one exists. … If anyone here can outline a real way to reduce healthcare costs, I’m listening. … I’m a reform advocate.”
If you are a reform advocate, then it’s up to you to justify the reform; it’s not up to those who favor the status quo to justify not changing.
Having said that, and as long as you are listening, I will offer a suggestion [something no one ever talks about WRT solving the health care “crisis”]: Health care is expensive because it is in short supply [compared to the demand], so increase the supply! Just making everyone have health insurance, or nationalizing the industry, will not solve the problem; it will aggravate it because it will increase the demand for more care. My wife has been an ER nurse for over 30 years, and she tells me the local community college has only five openings for new nursing students next year. There is a crying need for nurses [to name just one health provider]; and meanwhile, we have the University of California Irvine lobbying the state for a new school, not for doctors or nurses, … but for lawyers! Just what we need, more lawyers.
Oh, and one other comment. Regarding Phil’s remark about buying a cheap TV so you could afford health insurance, both my sons delivered pizzas while in school, and they both told me the most expensive satellite packages they saw were in the poorer areas of town.
Sedona, don’t waste your breath. Unless you can quote a 60′s R&R song, you obviously have no grasp of the complexity of the health care “crisis”, and are just adding to the usual conservative “noise”.
Only twice in three years, since I’ve been writing for IC, have I found a liberal or moderate actually willing to engage in political debate and analysis, rather than just telling us how he feels. Those exceptions are yonkel and raymond Ingles. Most libs are just inane drive-by’s like Dr. K., or vitriolic flamethrowers like taguba. But every once and a while we get a complete boob who thinks that poetic platitudes are actually substantive insights into the political soul. Amazing.
sedonaman, I attempted to justify the need for healthcare reform in several of my posts, most notably post #49 where I responded directly to Phil’s questions from post #48.
My remarks were predictably dismissed as sophomoric and ignorant.
And Phil, I’ve been called an idiot before, but never by anyone who was truly interested in actually listening to another point of view. And I’ve also been called a jerk, but not a “self superior” one. Reacting with such emotion serves you poorly. The thoughfulness of most of what you write, and the understanding that occasionally comes through tells me you’re better than that.
Phil was only partially correct when he said “But, we have no tolerance for fools.” This forum provides evidence that many, if not most of the participants here have little tolerance for anyone who doesn’t agree. That’s a toxic atmosphere for healthy, positive, challenging and productive exchange.
And Phil, I hope you realize that many of the labels you’ve used to describe either me or what I’ve had to say can be equally applied to much of what you state. I’m surprised you don’t see it? (Remember, you’re the one who used the words “blind idealogue.”)
And that’s OK. Often the ground is hard and brittle, the view obstructed. It takes time and much effort to clear the air, dig beneath the surface and expose what’s really there.
I’ve been told I’m pretty good with a shovel.
John. You have no ability to move a thought beyond a platitude. That’s not an “ideological” statement. That’s a recognition that in the end, you’re just another empty suit who thinks that feeling something strongly is the same thing as understanding an issue.
You may be a nice guy compared to the ususal lightweights who pop in every once and a while to quote 60′s rock songs and tell us this has deep political meaning, but once you start projecting your obvious lack of knowledge about an issue (other than what you “feel”)on to us, and telling us that Conservatives are just a bunch of ideological louts because you can’t respond to any of the subatantive points we raise, then it’s time to call your bluff and label your comments for what they are: idiotic.
I do not doubt that you have indeed been called an idiot before. To you, that’s just an emotional reaction. But if you weren’t an idiot, you’d understand that it’s not meant to hurt your feelings, but rather describe your thought process. If I wanted simply to call you a name, I’d have called you an a**hole.
You are a self-superior fool. But as a self-superior fool, you don’t recognize it, because all you do is express your emotions when you write; and to you, one emotion is as valid as the next emotion. I’ve accepted formal challenges to debate my ideas (just look at the IC archives). I welcome an intelligent discussion, but have no time for, or tolerance of, manifest idiots. Even nice guys who can’t form a conclusion without invoking another lame platitude. ["Often the ground is hard and brittle, the view obstructed. It takes time and much effort to clear the air, dig beneath the surface and expose what's really there.]
Gag me if this is what passes for real analysis.
And John, just to say it again clearly so you might possibly understand this time, no one here cares about listening to “your point of view” when all you express are feelings and opinions. I repeat, no one cares how you feel. No one cares about your personal opinions. They are completely irrelevant to a debate about ideas.
Personally, I despise Obama. But analyzing his actions, I see that he is already backing away from many of his radical campaign promises. His cabinet is about 75% of what McCain’s cabinet would have been. From this I can draw further conclusions about the new Administration’s actions.
This is what we call “analysis”. It doesn’t require any metaphores about hard and brittle ground, or rock and roll lyrics. It doesn’t rely on what I “feel”, or whether my opinion of Obama is positive or negative.
THis is what this website is all about. If you want to play by these rules, you’ll have your analysis debated. If you don’t, you’ll be dismissed as an empty suit.
The Daily Kos and Huffington Post is filled with emotion-driven platitudinous idiocy. If you can’t appreciate the difference between platitudes and analysis, you might find a more receptive audience there.
>This forum provides evidence that many, if not most of the participants here have little tolerance for anyone who doesn’t agree.
*** Hey Bob, so I apparently have no tolerance for you because you disagree with my “Farewell, Israel” article. And I must also have no tolerance for Mountain Man, Steve Sabin and others who disagree with me about things I’ve said regarding politics and religion, or Katzen on the constitutional underpinnings of federalsm, or any of the countless other people I’ve debated these past three years.
You must now all renounce your opposition to anything I’ve said and agree with my “opinions” (because, after all, an opinion is just an analysis by another name), so John’s cartoon version of Conservative debate won’t suffer from another bone-headed, sophomoric observation.
Maybe one day we’ll actually come across a liberal who can think, instead of emote. But I wouldn’t put any money on it.
Sedonaman,
The phrase healthcare “crisis” is part of the problem in discussing health with ideologues hell-bent on a ‘one-size fits all, top-down’ solution. This starts from the assumption there is a crisis and, as we all know, crises are things to which government absolutely must respond. Therefore, the overuse of this one word (crisis) has become a potent political weapon.
Whenever we hear this word we all need to ask one simple question – What crisis? If hospitals are shutting down, is it because of a crisis in resources, or is it because of a politically provoked situation unconnected with healthcare (e.g., alien invasion improperly dealt with). Otherwise, our healthcare system is among the best in the world and about as far as you can get from systemic crises in any form. Are people dying in the tens of thousands from medical neglect? No. Have we experienced wave after wave of killer virus (other than media hype)? No. Have we experienced a sudden Midol shortage lasting many months? No. Are the lawyers suffering from a lack of frivolous suits they can exploit? Hardly! Are our drug companies unable to satisfy demand? Not even close. By every measure, our healthcare providers exceed any reasonable demand and continue expanding the boundaries of medicine. Where, then, is this ‘crisis’ we keep discussing.
Affordability is another matter. We have already discussed in considerable depth the causes of high medical costs (i.e., cost of advancement, incentive, litigation, over-use by patients, &c), so I will skip most of that. Regardless, medical costs have significantly increased and continue to increase. Naturally, this worries people and stimulates the (seemingly reasonable) demand for government to intervene. The problem, here, is this is pure mob response to a perceived problem where none really exists. The alternative to paying for the latest and greatest health solution is to buy the old but still adequate solution.
Today, you can buy the latest in electronic gizmos, but may well put off buying it until the price drops to something reasonable. In the meantime, you may feel a little envious of your neighbor with his brand new, 300” HDTV wall screen, surround sound, and choice of 9,000 satellite stations, but will still congratulate yourself on being the savvier consumer. Your old tube TV with converter box will still pull in enough stations to satisfy any reasonable person and you won’t feel the agony your neighbor will when some half drunk football buddy throws a long one right down center field of your big-a$$ HDTV.
Healthcare is no different except behavior. If we are experiencing buyer’s regret when the doctor’s bill arrives, maybe it is because we didn’t bother asking ‘how much?’ or whether there might be a cheaper, yet still acceptable, alternative. Insurance is great, but has created a situation in which most people never bother to question whether the cost they incur (and ultimately comes back on everyone in some form) isn’t an abuse of care. Likewise, most doctors never question they should ever offer their patients anything but the very best. Every one of us wants Cadillac care, but no one wants to pay the Cadillac price of that care. Don’t get me wrong, I love all this new technology endlessly rolling out, but let’s not then complain it’s too costly.
Converting all this to government management takes this even further. With insurance, we are, at least, made aware of the cost by insurance companies complaining of their cost, periodically raising rates, and occasionally making changes to claim-processes to get in our (and our doctor’s) faces with our out of control spending. With government running things, that two-way essentially ends. If government experiences cost overruns, it just jacks up taxes, borrows, or prints more money (inflationary). Soon, government freezes the level of care and medical innovation takes a dump. But, does government management really control these costs? Yes, but only in the near term. Pretty soon patients catch on there’s no more direct cost to them, so they start seeing doctors for everything from backache to acne. Frivolous demands for services multiply far beyond initial levels, eating up resources and forcing an inflexible government to respond by restricting services. The taxpayer/patient has learned to think in terms of ‘free’ services, despite he’s paying exorbitantly (in additional taxes) for these services. As we all know, anything deemed free is exploited until gone; creating scarcity. Eventually, a new equilibrium is reached with quality low, bureaucracy high, and cost meaningless. That is the situation in Britain and other healthcare managed countries.
The “need for reform” is predicated on two things. First, that something is broken and, second, something exists capable of reform. I have already addressed with John the nonsensical notion we have a healthcare ‘system’ (private market is not a reformable ‘system’). Rather, we have a plethora of systems ranging from tiny to large, and consisting of everything from self-help to ‘Big-Pharma’. With this, I hope I have addressed the idea our healthcare means are ‘broken’ (they aren’t). There is no need of reform, and attempts at reform can only make our situation worse. The only health systems in need of or capable of ‘reform’ are those created by government (Medicare/Medicaid, CDC, NIH, &c). Please don’t add to the hysteria we have a health crisis when we don’t. That’s just one more invitation to government to micro-manage us, and we know how well that works.
John Ross, et al:
Re: “I’ve always tried to put myself in the other person’s shoes.”
Does this consideration extend to the helpless targets of abortion? Just curious.
Bob Stapler:
Re: “Please don’t add to the hysteria we have a health crisis when we don’t.”
That’s why I put my use of “crisis” in quotes. The other uses in my post are references to Mr. Ross’ statements.
Re: “Frivolous demands for services multiply far beyond initial levels, eating up resources and forcing an inflexible government to respond by restricting services.”
This is correct. Let me add that the way government responds to any shortfall in meeting its promises is by rationing. Any way you cut it – reducing benefits, limiting payout, etc. – are all forms of rationing. I like Phil’s description: “triage”.
I agree with the rest of what you have said. I will use a hypothetical to illustrate my prediction of what will happen under a government run health care system, based on my first-hand experience as a manager of government resources.
Suppose you are in charge of a medical imaging facility. The Washington manager in charge will want to know how many x-rays, MRIs, ultra-sounds, etc. you plan on doing next year. The only way you can estimate them is to use recent history, namely how many you did last year and this year. To keep it simple, let’s say you expect to do 100 MRIs next year. He will give you funding for less, say 95, because he thinks you inflate your estimates like everyone else. Fast forward to near the end of next fiscal year, and you have done only 60, and at the current rate you expect to do only 70 by year’s end. You don’t dare go under 95 because 1) your allotment [yes, that’s what it is] for next year will be 65 [70-5], and 2) you will have “lied” to the Washington manager. Your only solution is to call up all the doctors who use your facility and ask them to request an MRI on all the patients they send you. Everyone gets an MRI, even if he doesn’t need it. [All along your secret goal is actually to exceed 100 to 1) show the Washington manager that you were right, just a little conservative in your estimate, and 2) justify increased funding. While you are wasting MRIs, imaging centers across the country are falling short. Perhaps the ones that are falling short are those areas that voted the “wrong” way in the last presidential election.
I have used this example on my liberal friends to no avail. One in particular, who favors socialized medicine, had to retire early and is on reduced Social Security and not much else [I think he has an HMO besides Medicare]. He thinks it is “stupid” that he loses SS benefits if his earned income exceeds $12,000 a year while receiving those benefits. I pointed out that the same mentality that wrote the “stupid” SS regulations will write them for a government run health care system. I asked him if he was willing to turn over care of his body to the government in view of the fact that its care of his retirement is “stupid”. I also pointed out that, being a male over 60, he is probably not the constituency of those who will be in charge, and that he will more than likely end up like Phil’s aunt. He refuses to listen. All he can see is “free” health care. He is the quintessential Homer Simpson exclaiming, “Whoo hoo! Free money!” [And yes, Phil, he has a 50-inch late model Sony TV with and an upgraded satellite package.]
Sedona … yeah, but what song lyric best expresses the point you’re trying to make? Without that it’s just more “conservative noise”. :)
Phil:
This one comes to mind:
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one.
And to think I wasted 5 years getting a Ph.D. in political science, and another 13 years working with state, local and national governments, when all I had to do was listen to John Lennon!
Maybe we can channel his spirit to figure out if GM needs $37 billion, or we should just let them fail. I’m sure the answer is in there somewhere. Holy crap! It IS there! “Imagine no possessions”.
So, we should let them go Chapter 11!
That was easy.
Bingo!
You guys actually “think” you’re debating ideas? I see nothing here except an inability to move beyond a very small conservative box. I also see a childishness that is unbecoming of an adult, let alone a man with a PHD. You label my responses to your childishness as “emotional.” Odd? If you read through the exchanges we’ve had thus far, you may discover that many of your “contributions” could be labeled “emotional” as well, and probably even more so.
I seem to have created such a stir!! I’m flattered sedonaman would take the time to cut and paste the lyrics to John Lennon’s “Imagine,” one of my favorite songs! Millions of people around the world are still inspired by it. You all could use a little of that inspiration – and a bit of originality as well.
With the election of Obama and the democratic majorities in both houses of congress, the “ignorant” electorate of which we are all a part has reputiated conservatism, at least for now. That’s gotta really bug you guys. I “feel” for you.
Ever notice how the person who continually professes that money and material possessions are not important to them are the first ones to want to redistribute your income to fulfill their sloganeering?
Irony is lost on the ironic.
Phil:
Yes. Somehow I find it difficult to “Imagine” John Lennon putting his money where his mouth is.
John Ross:
BTW, did you send your Bush tax-rebate checks back to the government, or did you keep the money?
Sedona: You forget. For liberals it’s the intention and politically correct position that matters, not the result.
Phil:
We found out that “Imagine” is one of John Ross’ favorite songs, but I’m still waiting for his answer to my question if putting himself “in the other person’s shoes” applies to the helpless targets of abortion. Can he “Imagine” a world without abortion? Inquiring minds want to know.
“Irony is lost on the ironic.” – Phil … you’re not resorting to platitudes, are you? (I’m just pointing it out. I’d never hold it against you.)
sedonaman, I didn’t really need the rebate money. But being a liberal I couldn’t refuse the free handout. So, I put the money in my checking account where it still sits. Could come in handy if the economy really craps the bed.
I am pro life. (Inquiring minds?)
Some ironies are more ironic than others. We call those people moronics.
“Some ironies are more ironic than others. We call those people moronics.”
You learn something new eveyday….I never new ironies were people…..is that a new tribe/culture that has been discovered? For a man that brags of his Phd you really don’t know how to use the language….and to think I was going to pick up your book.
I guess they give anyone a doctorate these days.
I just figured that anyone who couldn’t tell the difference between a platatitude and an analysis, or an observation and an insult, or a feeling and a reasoned thought, wouldn’t see any distinction.
Thank’s for helping to prove the point.
I realize that some things just have to be spelled out for certain people who have a limited ability to think for themselves, so here it goes.
1. Irony is lost on the ironic.
2. More irony is lost on the truly ironic.
3. People with “more irony” are therefore “moronic”.
4. Therefore, we call people with “more irony” moronics.
That’s the joke. My advice to omgucbs is to have his mom read it to him slowly, explain to him what a play on words means (like Barney Frank’s “post-partisan depression” joke yesterday), and then maybe seek out a community college course or two if he’s still confused.
As for my book, it has some big words in it, so I wouldn’t recommend it to you. But thanks for thinking about me anyway. With Liberals, it’s always the intention that counts, never the follow-through, so no one really thionks you ever intended to actually buy it. It would cost money, and that’s something you spend when it belongs to other people, not yourself.
John Ross:
Re: “I didn’t really need the rebate money. But being a liberal I couldn’t refuse the free handout. So, I put the money in my checking account where it still sits. Could come in handy if the economy really craps the bed. … I am pro life.”
The only thing liberal about these positions is that you looked at the rebate as a “free handout” when it is a partial refund of taxes you paid, unless you paid nothing in prior years, in which case it is a free handout. By putting the money in the bank, you have invested it, which is conservative; liberal thought requires you to spend it because that’s the only way they believe the economy can be stimulated. And being pro-life is about as far away from liberalism as you can get.
>And being pro-life is about as far away from liberalism as you can get.
Sedona: another example of liberal moronics. [Or, for omgucbs benefit, "more irony ... MORionics".]
Jeez, it would be a lot easier to expalin things if Liberals had a sense of humor. But, I’d just settle for bthem having some common sense.
Phil, I think omgucbs was making a joke. I’m sure he (or she) understood the play on words.
Regarding your Post #84, I commend you for your skill in judging a person incapable of “tell{ing}the difference between a platitude and an analysis, or an observation and an insult, or a feeling and a reasoned thought,” based upon the limited written exchanges in this forum. I have to tell you, I couldn’t do it! But I suppose that maybe after a time and some very careful listening, I might begin to develop the skill. I usually ignore insults though. They serve no useful purpose other than to make the insulter feel a false sense of superiority.
sedonaman, I was making a joke concerning the tax rebate. I realize it wasn’t a free handout. As for spending it, I honestly don’t know what to spend it on? I haven’t been a very good consumer lately. More of a critic of consumerism, actually. I’ve been trying to run my game down a few notches. Let everybody else spin their wheels if they want to.
Phil, I think omgucbs was making a joke. I’m sure he (or she) understood the play on words.
*** John. I’ve read other things that omgucbs has written. I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Humorless and insipid are phrases that come to mind.
I commend you for your skill in judging a person incapable of “tell{ing}the difference between a platitude and an analysis, or an observation and an insult, or a feeling and a reasoned thought,” based upon the limited written exchanges in this forum. I have to tell you, I couldn’t do it!
*** John, we all know this from the conclusions you’ve drawn about conservative and liberal thought. No need to re-state the obvious (except for omgucbs’ benefit.)
But I suppose that maybe after a time and some very careful listening, I might begin to develop the skill.
*** That, I think, is quite a distant point in the future, based on your past performance.
I usually ignore insults though.
*** Yes, I know. You said earlier that you’ve often been called an idiot for the things you say. I’m sure you’re used to it by now.
They serve no useful purpose other than to make the insulter feel a false sense of superiority.
*** Agreed — when two people are having a real conversation. When one party is incapable or uninterested in having an intelligent discussion, but continues to keep making insipid observations, there’s nothing left to do than illustrate one absurdity with another.
I’ve actually dealt with this issue long before this conversation in http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/11/01/random-thoughts/
“Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not opposed to street fighting and name calling — in practice, or in principle. I do both, unabashedly and unashamedly. My favorite response is ‘idiot,’ which I employ liberally (no pun intended) as the situation warrants. But I will point out two tiny differences in my approach and the comments of those I’ve read in my posts or observed in other essays. First, I don’t lead with an insult, but rather employ such terms only after the manifest stupidity has become too overwhelming to deny. I love a good debate, but have no patience at all for idiots who have no idea what they are talking about, yet continue to make their points even when their original positions have been thoroughly repudiated. [John: or in your case, you never respond to the substance of an objection raised to your point, other than to give us a new platitude]. And second, to show that I am an equal-opportunity characterizer of defective intellect, my nastiest replies have been reserved for the idiots on the Right who substituted their own brand of racist bilge for the ideologically-infused reasoning so often employed by the Left.”
Thus we see another difference between the way a Liberal and Conservative approaches an issue. You value pleasantness over substance. I value substance over pleasantness. [That, by the way, is neither a platitude nor an insult. It’s an analytical observation].
Looks like I’m still getting the nack of entering the proper codes for turning bold and italics on and off.
Have any of my original positions been thoroughly repudiated? I stated the need for healthcare reform based upon rapidly rising costs, and the growing number of American citizens who can no longer afford insurance. These rapidly rising costs hurt not only those of us who can still afford to pay for our own healthcare services, but also impact negatively on entire communities (in the form of higher property taxes), corporations (the auto manufacturers looking for a bailout, for example) and many small businesses who either try to, or are required by contract to provide healthcare benefits to their employees.
In my particular case, I write the checks myself. So, in terms of rising costs at least, I know what I’m talking about. I’ve been doing this since 2002. As I stated in a previous post, my sister is an elected member of her town board. Although I have no desire to run for office myself, I’ve always been extremely interested in the inner workings of government. Knowing this, my sister often calls to get my take on a variety of issues. My sister is a registered republican. Still, we agree on many of the issues, including the need for healthcare reform. (BTW … she supported Obama, but voted for Bush in ’00 and ’04.)
As for UHC, I don’t care if that’s the end result of reform. But it does make sense to me, and apparently to a lot of other people, that by spreading risk throughout the entire population, we can all benefit.
Most important, we all need to take personal responsibility for our own health and well-being. Absolutely! And that includes prevention. I’m a runner. Been doing that since 1968. I used to compete. I’ve run the marathon. I’ve backed off my competitive running routine, but still manage to get in 4 or 5 days a week. My resting heart rate is in the low 40′s. Blood pressure is normal. Cholesterol is low. I watch what I eat. I don’t smoke. I drink in moderation. I get regular checkups and screenings. I’m doing what I can to stay healthy and fit. I fully accept that responsibility. I realize though, that even doing you can is no guarantee you won’t have an accident, or have a heart attack or get cancer. What I always say to those who ask, “Why should I pay so you can have health insurance?” is this: I’m not asking you to pay for me. I’m willing to pay for insurance myself. But I would like see the rates come down so you and I, the Ford Motor Co., Javco Plastics, and the taxpayers in our community can continue to afford them. And btw … why should the rest of us have to pay higher rates because you refuse to take personal responsibility for your own well being? Maybe you’ve been hooked on cigarettes and fast food for 40 years and you don’t exercise. In terms of the cost of healthcare, we all end up paying for that.
Anyway … that’s a little bit more of my experience, my analysis, and my opinion concerning the need for healthcare reform. The plans are out there. I’m not sure which one is best, but I’m listening.
This thread hasn’t died yet; lets go for 100 posts.
Why exactly should we reform healthcare? Are there some weaknesses in the system? Certainly there are weaknesses almost all induced by government intervention.
Do some people need coverage? Well, apparently not since they have chosen to spend on other items in the wish that others will pay for their needs. Should we cover millions that should not be here in the first place but are counted in the uninsured?
The bottom line is that government is very bad at everything attempted that goes outside the enumerated federal powers in the constitution. Social security is, and has been, a welfare program giving the highest return to the lowest contributers. Now that we have reached the level that voters can gather benefits for themselves through the vote we follow the death spiral outlined in the Federalist Papers.
Rather than all the feel good things uttered in the comments how about a movement to get government out of our lives and back to where it belongs as a necessary evil that is kept small due to constitutional and state restrictions.
Have any of my original positions been thoroughly repudiated?
*** Platitudes are not positions. But then again, I’ve only pointed this out a dozen times.
I stated the need for healthcare reform based upon rapidly rising costs, and the growing number of American citizens who can no longer afford insurance.
*** WHY are costs rising? By HOW MUCH relative to other goods and services, and as a percentage of the GNP. A GROWING NUMBER is not a figure, it is a generalization. In the US, everything “grows” (population, illegal immigrant flow, the GNP, the GDP). You know, little missing details like this. To state the obvious again, I love a good debate, but have no patience at all for idiots who have no idea what they are talking about, yet continue to make their points even when their original positions have been thoroughly repudiated. [John: or in your case, you never respond to the substance of an objection raised to your point, other than to give us a new platitude].
… that’s a little bit more of my experience, my analysis, and my opinion concerning the need for healthcare reform.
Experience is anecdotal, unless it is combined with actual real world data (like the year long Task Force I ran on the public health situation in Dallas Texas).
Calling an opinion or platitude an analysis doesn’t make it an analysis.
And finally, basing any judgment at all on an opinion is sophomoric in a debate about issues. Opinions are like asshol*s. Everyone has one.
This has become a thoroughly worthless thread, except to underatand how liberals feel about things they only marginally understand.
>But I would like see the rates come down so you and I, the Ford Motor Co., Javco Plastics, and the taxpayers in our community can continue to afford them.
*** This is just sophomoric. Ford has a wage and benefit structure that is an outgrowth of collective bargaining. Employer paid insurance benefits arose as a result of President Truman’s wage and price controls. Union legacy contracts provide excessive healthcare benefits (relative to the wages and benefits paid by non-unionized auto companies in the southern US). Going Chapter 11 would nullify Ford’s excessive healthcare payments, and alleviate a fair portion of the “financial” crisis [but it would damage the Democrat party's power base]. Enforcing our borders would alleviate a large portion of the socially-generated aspect of this crisis [but it would damage the Democrat party's power base]. ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THIS is in John’s “analysis”. And yet, John is ready to conclude that “it does make sense to me, and apparently to a lot of other people, that by spreading risk throughout the entire population, we can all benefit.” This is yet another example illustrating the difference between a platitude and an analysis, and why popular opinion does not necessarily equal common sense.
>And btw … why should the rest of us have to pay higher rates because you refuse to take personal responsibility for your own well being? Maybe you’ve been hooked on cigarettes and fast food for 40 years and you don’t exercise. In terms of the cost of healthcare, we all end up paying for that.
*** People who smoke die earlier, on balance, than people who don’t. The resulting savings to Medicaid, medicare, private health insurance and social security payments need to be factored in to any cost-benefit analysis. Again, another sophomoric observation from John that proves nothing. If cigarettes are so bad that they overwhelmingly drive up health care costs, they should be banned. But the government won’t ban them, because they generate BILLIONS of dollars in tax revenue that would be lost! Once again in producing his feel-good analysis, John has no understanding of the true dynamics at play in this issue.
Hopeless.
Damn. I thought I had the coding fixed.
John Ross:
“As for UHC, I don’t care if that’s the end result of reform.”
You had better care because if you have adequate coverage now, it will decrease when the government spreads an already short supply over a larger population that will explode to ever greater proportions when everyone thinks it’s free.
Some of this is happening as we post our thoughts. I saw several examples when I was in the military, which provides “free” health care for members and dependents. The dependent sick call was always filled with mothers who brought their kids in for colds when they could have taken care of them at home. Then there was the air base in Florida that military retirees used; they had nothing wrong with them and nothing to do, so they used it was a social gathering every Thursday morning.
Liberals never cease to amaze me when it comes to understanding how humans respond to incentives. On the one hand, they are all for increasing taxes to modify some economic behavior or other, but are against tax reductions because they don’t believe that John Q. Public’s behavior will be modified at all when he gets to keep more of his money. The same denial comes with their attitude toward UHC. They notice that people spend $X billion on health care each year, so they want to raise taxes by the same $X billion amount and “cover” everyone. They refuse to accept that when something of value is paid for by the proverbial “man behind the tree,” that demand soars. This will result in just watering the milk. My sister works for a health care billing company, and she pointed out that a government takeover of the health care industry to provide UHC will result in nothing more than one giant HMO; and the biggest problem with an HMO is the more service it provides, the more money it loses. That’s why you hear stories of people dying of terminal cancer because their HMO gave them anti-biotics to reduce the swelling.
No one here advocating “reform” has yet addressed the supply issue I raised above. The issue discussed by the advocates is only about getting everyone covered as though the increase in supply needed to provide service to an additional 50 million will somehow magically appear. Where is it going to come from to prevent the milk from being watered?
John Ross,
You asked “Have any of my original positions been thoroughly repudiated?”
If you have yet to grasp I (and others here) have annihilated every one of your arguments (including those you restate in this latest post #91), then I despair of you ever admitting the weakness of your positions; or of learning something new from our discourse. I have passed over your retreat into clichés (in lieu of reason) as not worth debating (where others took you to task for it) in the hope you might listen. I appreciate you started out honestly seeking discussion. However, we seem to be stuck here if you cannot, at least, acknowledge it is insufficient to argue from intuition and that debate requires you supply proof of what you propose.
For example, in your latest offering, you said “As for UHC, I don’t care if that’s the end result of reform. But it does make sense to me, and apparently to a lot of other people, that by spreading risk throughout the entire population, we can all benefit.” (which is about as close as you come to making a reasoned argument, the rest being bald statements of interaction with others). Who care whether “a lot of people” favor the idea? Will you follow the mob over the cliff? Why don’t you care? Shouldn’t you care considering the result will be something irreversible and burdensome? If UHC is the end result, how does that constitute reform? What is you see as corrupt and in need of reform? On what basis does ‘it’ make sense to you and to what do you refer by ‘it’ (UHC, reform, reducing the cost of healthcare, inflicting the cost onto others, &c). In what way do “we all benefit from UHC”? I know I sure won’t, and am almost dead certain you won’t either (unless you are a leach on society). That’s delusional to think so unless, by it, you mean your conscience will be salved. Just don’t expect anyone to thank you for it. After all is said and done (and there is no way for you to take it back), the sponsors for all the ingrates on the dole will be forming their plan to take another slice out of you. Meantime, you are still fleecing us to salve your conscience about something you have no reason to feel guilty. As for the plans out there, every one of them starts from the same flawed premise and with the same flawed goal. They all assume, as you do, there is a need to ‘reform our healthcare system’, and, again like you, none of them can see past the holy-grail fantasy of UHC.
If your Republican-sister has drunk the UHC Koolaid, then she’s lost her conservative bearings and needs to get them back. Send her our way and we’ll be glad to restore her mental-health.
Reasoned argument requires you answer questions asked of you, something which, so far, you’ve shown great reluctance to do. We shouldn’t even have to be asking these questions in a debate forum. The successful debater knows to ask and answer such question him/herself, putting to rest all counterarguments before they can be raised; and not leaving it to others to supply the deficiency.
I am not going to dissect all the rest of what you wrote, because you aren’t seriously listening. I have given you the reality, it is now time for you to wake up and smell the freedom from what has become, for you, a slavish ideology.
You guys honestly don’t see a problem with the current healthcare system? OK … we’ve got the best healthcare delivery in the world, if you can afford it. But not every family in the country can manage ten grand a year for insurance. (The cost of the average family plan.) What are those people supposed to do. Give up the Jag and the annual vacation in Martinique? Of course, they can just show up at the local emergency treatment center and get care. Nobody’s gonna let anybody die, right? And then who pays for that? OR … just apply for Medicaid. You probably don’t believe the country is in recession either, or there’s a financial crisis. And what about that company with a net worth of 2 billion and 62 billion in debt? What’s up with that Wagoner guy?
Anyway, I realize the cost of just about everything is going up, and not just the cost of healthcare. In the business I’m in, I can honestly say I haven’t seen wholesale prices rise this rapidly since Jimmy Carter was president. That in itself tells me the economy is in trouble. BTW, I voted for Ford. Jimmy smiled too much. (I hadn’t yet drunk the liberal Koolaid!)
Now, I could open another internet page and google whatever information I need to answer any questions you pose that I might not be able to answer myself, and do it with great skill and in very fine detail. That’s one of the joys of modern technology and a forum such as this. Then it would be fact countering fact, rather than platitudes, sloganeering and irrational emotion vs. sound, unbiased, logical analysis and reasoning. (You see, I agree with you.) But the point is there’s an incredible amount of information out there. The more you read, the more confused you get. And then you find yourself right back where you started.
Perhaps the greatest hindrance to progress in this country is the inability of liberals and conservatives to actually communicate with each other.
John Ross:
Re: “You guys honestly don’t see a problem with the current healthcare system?”
I don’t think you have read my responses. Twice I raised the problem of a shortage of providers and asked you how to address it, but you have not answered.
>Now, I could open another internet page and google whatever information I need to answer any questions you pose that I might not be able to answer myself, and do it with great skill and in very fine detail. That’s one of the joys of modern technology and a forum such as this. Then it would be fact countering fact, rather than platitudes, sloganeering and irrational emotion vs. sound, unbiased, logical analysis and reasoning. (You see, I agree with you.) But the point is there’s an incredible amount of information out there. The more you read, the more confused you get. And then you find yourself right back where you started.
***Translation: I could actually try to educate myself on the matter, dig through conflicting facts, check the sources and underlying assumptions that give rise to them, try to separate the real issues and facts from the BS, but this is hard word. So, I’ll just find the best sounding platitude and stick with that.
This is what passes for informed debate by John.
Hopeless.