fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You love to tout your high income don't you. It must be tied to your self esteem. I sincerely hope you don't lose your high income or else you might be in trouble emotionally.
219 to 212
- Thread starter foxpaws
- Start date
The only one citing selective "facts" here is you.
My views are based in a thorough understanding of the worldviews in play here, as well as applying critical thought to the facts and how they are interpreted.
Your view is dominated not by critical thought but by ignorance and whatever seems plausible and/or appealing to you.
You are embarrassing yourself.
Again:
It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion
-Edmund Burke
-Edmund Burke
Yes, comrade, we know you don't value human life like we do.
No I more equally value life than you do.
For you certain circumstances mean someone's out of luck and it's tough sh.t.
Since you brought it up in this little dig of yours how do you value life the way I allegedly don't?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Aren't you 'pro choice?'
'04 - you might want to also read "The Age of the Unthinkable: Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us And What We Can Do About It"
Sowell is pretty good at not taking one side over the other, however his book is rather repetitive, as well as being very much 'either - or'. You are either totally left (socialist/communist/fascist) or you are totally right (classic liberal). There isn't any middle grown with Sowell. However, in real life, there is plenty wiggle in the middle...
Hopefully one day you can put your education to further use than bringing up confusing quotes.
This almost looks like some words I may string together that come across as either too clever or cryptic.
Ah the angst of genius, too smart to be understood and appreciated by the common folks.
When I was in school people used to hide their own lack of informity and call me the bottomless pit of useless information.
Conservatism is not on the rise in the rest of the world and here in America I am positing that the passing of healthcare will make it less attractive to regular folks who may find they like a little more socialism in their lives.
...yet you really don't understand Conservatism or socialism. So your postulation is not based in reality and is not worth the time it took for you to type it.
If you understood conservatism and how it is unique to each country you would know that pointing out that conservatism is not on the rise in the rest of the world is absolutely meaningless; like pointing out that the sky is blue because my car is running. It is a red herring.
You don't understand liberalism, you have made that abundantly clear. You don't understand socialism and how and why it is ultimately incompatible with many other ideas like the rule of law or individual liberty. Ideas who's benefits you take for granted.
In short you are utterly clueless when it comes to worldviews and political philosophy, yet you seem to think you know enough to pass judgment on them. That would be fine, in and of itself, but you actually vote and we have to suffer for your foolishness.
That is like someone who thinks they need to rotate the air in their tires arguing with a automotive mechanic with 40 years of experience about how to overhaul an engine.
You are not only utterly ignorant, but presumptuously ignorant and petulant about it. You should be embarrassed but are too clueless to even grasp why.
If you actually were interested in overcoming your ignorance, I would be happy to assist, but you revel in your ignorance and lash out at people who shine a light on it. You are a fool who prefers his own clueless delusions to the truth and reality.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
...but he is a rich man, so he can say anything he wants.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And what happens when the US Government runs out of money?
Rewards do have their priviledges, like an almost 50% tax rate and an over million dollar tax bill for last year
My bleeding heart has hardened somewhat now.
But, Rich man, Poor man
all can say whatever they want on the internet.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You are such an idiot.
When it comes to politics, the former usually leads to the latter.
Your question is a supposition.
You're supposing the US Government will run out of money.
That in itself is a simplification.
The government may run down on money but it won't run out.
If the government runs down on money and no one will lend it more it will have to cut spending elsewhere in the budget.
Of course this has never happened yet on the federal level but school boards are shutting down schools and sending staff home due to running out of money as you would put it.
Even if the money was to become worthless for whatever reason there's all the assets of the country in people materials and real estate.
All the stuff has value for what it's used for beyond it's monetary value and absent money can be traded and bartered as things are restructured and revalued.
A country may run out of money at some point but it won't run out of value.
You are trying to argue an "if"; if these programs become insolvent. However, you need to show that is a viable possibility and history does not support it.
Every welfare program is insolvent or on it's way there and this bill is simply speeding up the process. You can look at other countries and see this as well. And it is not a surprise because it is simple economics that these programs are ultimately ponzi-schemes on a massive level.
If you can't show that your "if" argument is anything more then a supposition, then the issue becomes "when" and "how". When will these programs become insolvent and how will the government deal with them?
With medicare and medicaid they simply start setting arbitrary reimbursement rates; price controls. That is probably the biggest factor in the increase of health services because it shifts those costs to people not covered under medicare and medicaid. This setting of reimbursement rates is an example of what Milton Friedman famously said:
Your argument also takes quite a bit for granted when it comes to money and wealth. You seem to assume that we will never run out of wealth. However, the more restrictive an economy, the less wealth is created. The more entitlements you have the more wealth is needed. That is the fatal economic flaw with entitlement; wealth input and output.
You stifle the wealth creating mechanisms in an economy while creating more dependents on that wealth. When the wealth stops flowing you start getting rationing, etc. History has shown this to be true. In fact, a few different analogies have been used to demonstrate this. Choking the goose laying the golden eggs. More people in the cart then pulling it.
This ties back to the basic difference in world views I keep harping on and you seem to have no interest in; should poverty or prosperity in society be viewed as the norm with the other treated as the exception to the rule? Why? There are a lot of basic questions that have to be answered before that can be answered. You cannot simply gloss over that and expect to be able to accurately distinguish between propaganda and legitimate points.
Every welfare program is insolvent or on it's way there and this bill is simply speeding up the process. You can look at other countries and see this as well. And it is not a surprise because it is simple economics that these programs are ultimately ponzi-schemes on a massive level.
If you can't show that your "if" argument is anything more then a supposition, then the issue becomes "when" and "how". When will these programs become insolvent and how will the government deal with them?
With medicare and medicaid they simply start setting arbitrary reimbursement rates; price controls. That is probably the biggest factor in the increase of health services because it shifts those costs to people not covered under medicare and medicaid. This setting of reimbursement rates is an example of what Milton Friedman famously said:
Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government.
Your argument also takes quite a bit for granted when it comes to money and wealth. You seem to assume that we will never run out of wealth. However, the more restrictive an economy, the less wealth is created. The more entitlements you have the more wealth is needed. That is the fatal economic flaw with entitlement; wealth input and output.
You stifle the wealth creating mechanisms in an economy while creating more dependents on that wealth. When the wealth stops flowing you start getting rationing, etc. History has shown this to be true. In fact, a few different analogies have been used to demonstrate this. Choking the goose laying the golden eggs. More people in the cart then pulling it.
This ties back to the basic difference in world views I keep harping on and you seem to have no interest in; should poverty or prosperity in society be viewed as the norm with the other treated as the exception to the rule? Why? There are a lot of basic questions that have to be answered before that can be answered. You cannot simply gloss over that and expect to be able to accurately distinguish between propaganda and legitimate points.
Canada has been able to sustain it's expensive imperfect social and healthcare programs for 45 years and currently has the best balance sheet of the G8 countries.
Healthcare should not be lumped in as a general welfare program but also thought of in terms of the value it returns in the quality of life of the population and the value that ads to the GDP.
There's a respending factor to investment in some healthcare that isn't readily apparent.
Staving off childhood obesity so people don't become diabetics in their 20's come to mind as an example.
Canada has been discussed on this forum quite a bit and it is not what you are characterizing it as. It is already having the economic crunch being talked about. Simply because they have the "best balance sheet" doesn't negate that. It simply means they refuse to pay for it and/or find other ways around it that don't show up on their balance sheets. Those ways have been documented ad nausseum on this forum and I am not going to go through them again. You can look them up. Hint; waiting lines.
Yet that is precisely what socialized medicine does!
Ultimately it has to view human life as simply a means to an end of fiscal solvency. That is why rationing is prevalent in single-payer systems.
Are you talking about preventative care?
The empirical evidence supporting that is questionable at best and even the most optimistic estimates on that don't show enough to make a long term difference. At best, it is simply a way to kick the can down the road to serfdom.
It comes back to basic economics. Socialized medicine is not economically sustainable; your suppositions asside. Free Market healthcare is economically sustainable. The problem with the system we had until last night was that nearly 50% of medical expenses came through the government in some way; resulting in a shifting of the actual cost burden to the non-government entities paying for medical expenses.
If people can go to the doctor without having to pay as a consideration they're more likely to go if they think they need to especially if they have school age children.
So this can vaguely be called preventative care of sorts.
We already have this problem with insurance provided by an employer. People don't pay the cost of the care directly. So the price mechanism loses it's essential function of conveying information to the consumer. Therefore the market is distorted because people use more health care then needed or is reasonable given the actual costs. Costs do not go down, they go up.
The basic problem distribution of scarce resources. Health care is a commodity. Costs are a reflection of the demand and the supply of that commodity. Costs are lowest when the most efficient allocation of that commodity is achieved.
So the question is; what is the best way to allocate that resource?
Is the free market better at allocating it or are the best economic minds with the best technology and techniques at their disposal able to better allocate those resources?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
This just shows what an idiot you are - quote mining and never listening to Rush's show, you totally missed the context of his statement. I'll give you a hint - not that it will help your obtuse, doddering intellect - his statement was in response to a woman who called and said her medical center was going to set up operations in Costa Rica.
here is the whole transcript - from Rush's site....
You notice - Rush says that it is a guy (Whose name is Richard Naples - from Florida - not a woman who called) and it was in regards to the 'mandate' part of the bill, and how doctors might get around the mandate - to opt out of the government programs, not a medical center that was going to set up operations in Costa Rica.
RUSH: The Huffington Post, you remember we had a call here from a guy, we're talking about health care and what's going to happen after Obama puts private insurance out of business, how all the fines that businesses and individuals pay are much cheaper than having to go out and buy health insurance itself, and that people will naturally pay the fine. If they don't have to go to jail they'll pay the fine rather than incur costs, especially if the Senate bill says, which it does, that the day you have the auto accident, you get covered. You don't have to have any coverage before that, but the day you're in the crash you go to the hospital the insurance company has to pay for your treatment. Well, that's not insurance, that's private sector welfare and nobody could afford it and they'll go out of business, which is the purpose. So a guy calls up and says, "If all this happens, what are you going to do?" And I said, "Well, if doctors are not permitted to opt out of the government insurance pool and so forth, Medicare, Medicaid, whatever it is, and if they're not allowed to establish a private practice with private sector patients paying their own way, then I'll go to Costa Rica."
Well, that has been turned into I'm going to leave the country for Costa Rica and move there if Obamacare passes. I've had all kinds of reporters: "Are you serious? Do you really mean this?" So I've had to patiently explain today to people who do not bother to stay informed on this stuff what the genesis and the primary context of my comment was. I said, "Look, there are insurance companies who don't want to be put out of business." We've talked to them on the program. I've talked to them privately. They are establishing health care clinics with quality doctors in places like Costa Rica. They're going to continue to sell policies to people who have the ability to fly down there and get treatment. If I have to get thrown into this massive government health care insurance business and end up going to the driver's license office every day when I need to go to the doctor, yeah, I'll go to Costa Rica for treatment, not move there. So they're just in a tizzy out there, between Costa Rica and Eric Massa. So -- (laughing) -- it's going to be a fun day. Heck, it already is a fun day.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You know, I am in such hot water now. People in New Zealand are sending me e-mails: "How come you're not coming here? You've been telling everybody you're moving to New Zealand and now you're saying you're going to Costa Rica." I did not say I'm going to Costa Rica. The stupid people in the media who cannot trouble themselves to read my transcripts or listen to this program, listen to out of context stuff. I was asked yesterday where will I go for health care if Obama's health care passes, and I said if doctors here are not permitted to form private practice little clinics with individuals paying a fee, a retainer, and for services, then I'll go to Costa Rica to get major medical health care. I didn't say I would move there. They're all over these websites: "Limbaugh says he'd move to Costa Rica. Why, what more incentive do we have to pass health care to get Limbaugh to move to Costa Rica?" Now, New Zealand is reading about this and they're all bent out of shape that I'm somehow not coming there, all because of the stupid media. They are not competing for me because Costa Rica doesn't think I'm going to move there, which I wouldn't. Gosh.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You missed the original caller, a woman, who called before that show. She called back today as well.
So once again, you missed the context. Be sure and go to his site after 5:30 today and read the transcript. I'm sure it's saved into your favorites.
Welcome to irrelevancy as usual, fox.
I did no such thing foss - exact context - exact words - he said he would go to Costa Rica for health care... It was even from the show where he was defending himself against the very misconception that '04 had stated that apparently was at the very least on Huffington's site.
Or maybe it is irrelevant because 6 days ago a dog called about the flea problem in Honduras...
Get real...
I was defending Rush. He never said he was moving to Costa Rica as '04 stated - but he did say he would go there for health care if certain things happen...
Got anything that would disprove that foss? Or, since you have some sort of special connect with Rush, perhaps you know something beyond the realm of his exact words, denying the very thing that '04 was saying.