Massachusetts elected a republican to the senate? Holy shit.

[ClakarEQ]

Kaiine you use sooo many systems from roads to power, from water to internet that only exist because of GOV regulation and/or control, yet for you, healthcare is over the line.

[KaiineTN]

Right, so the problem is just me and my views. My perception of rights and freedoms doesn't matter. I'm just an obstacle in the way of the "progress" you want to see, "progress" that would impact my own life in ways that I don't want it to.

Clearly I am just misinformed or irrational and you know what is best for me, and everyone else, and the way you want things should be forced upon myself and others like me.

Yeah, I like Ron Paul. I went so far as to be elected locally as a Republican delegate for him. That doesn't mean I have some man-crush, or that I'm a 9/11 truther, or a conspiracy theorist. Don't try to paint me as some fanboy or group me with people that I have little in common with.

It simply means I admire a politician who has proven himself to be principled through consistency over some 30 years of public service. I certainly don't agree with him on everything, however, I do see him as the only person in government that truly is a champion of individual rights and freedoms, which government exists to protect. Everyone else I've ever looked into seems to have a point where they compromise on principle, which I see as a fatal flaw.

When it comes down to it, what do you value more? Life, or liberty? If you value life more, you probably have no problem with giving up liberties (in the form of keeping less of what you earn, or having less choices, or being forced to participate, etc.) for the sake of life in the context of healthcare. Personally I believe they are of equal importance, and that a gain in one at the expense of the other is not a gain at all.

This debate has to come down to principle, and I don't think pro government healthcare people can win it on principle. They need to win it on emotion (not surprisingly how politicians win these days). Saving lives makes you feel all warm and tingly. It makes you feel like you're the good guy. Who cares what it costs or how we pay for it? Everyone should share the burden!

You do not have the right to force me into a system where I contribute my resources towards anyone else's healthcare any more than I have a right to force you to donate to my Collector's Edition Lego Millenium Falcon fund (seriously, that thing would be awesome to build). It is not my responsibility as an individual to take care of others. I can certainly CHOOSE to, but when you take that choice away, you're forcing a value system on other people, which is NOT what a free society does. The freedom of the individual is always of more value than the well being of the group, so long as the individual respects the freedoms of the other. That line is the only one you need to win an argument against for me to concede.

[KaiineTN]

Kaiine you use sooo many systems from roads to power, from water to internet that only exist because of GOV regulation and/or control, yet for you, healthcare is over the line.

It's much more difficult to fight against systems that are already in place than it is to fight against proposed systems.

Roads, electricity, and water are all under the jurisdiction of the States, and rightfully so, according to our constitution. If you wanted things done differently, you could work at changing things at the local level. You have options. When things are imposed at a federal level, your options all but disappear, and power is centralized. You become insignificant to the process. Besides, you have a choice to use roads or not. You have a choice when you buy gasoline that has the tax that goes towards maintaining them. You can choose to use pre existing water utilities, or you can dig your own well on your own land and use that. You can choose to use electricity or not, and even generate it yourself if you want to. Where is my choice when it comes to healthcare?

I'm not sure what you mean by including the internet in that list. I'm certainly opposed to any regulation or control of the internet. But I'm also opposed to the government sponsored monopoly that makes legitimate competition in the telecommunications/cable/internet industry impossible. That is a fight I would love to be involved in. If you look at other parts of the world, we should be able to get 10-100x current broadband speeds for the same price.

[Zanchief]

Yeah, I like Ron Paul. I went so far as to be elected locally as a Republican delegate for him. That doesn't mean I have some man-crush, or that I'm a 9/11 truther, or a conspiracy theorist. Don't try to paint me as some fanboy or group me with people that I have little in common with.

No, that's pretty much exactly what you are. Your little movie clip implied that the government is purposely creating monopolies simply to make a profit. This is a wild and illogical conspiracy theory based on 0 facts. You are the one trying to appeal to peoples emotions rather then reason, because any reasonable person can clearly see you’re full of crap.

You do not have the right to force me into a system where I contribute my resources towards anyone else's healthcare any more than I have a right to force you to donate to my Collector's Edition Lego Millenium Falcon fund (seriously, that thing would be awesome to build). It is not my responsibility as an individual to take care of others. I can certainly CHOOSE to, but when you take that choice away, you're forcing a value system on other people, which is NOT what a free society does. The freedom of the individual is always of more value than the well being of the group, so long as the individual respects the freedoms of the other. That line is the only one you need to win an argument against for me to concede.

Then you are an anarchist. If you had your way we would be living complete and total chaos. And you’d be free as a bird. And likely dead because you’re a weak nerd who has no money.

[KaiineTN]

Governments don't make a profit. Nor do they have the incentive to make things efficient to maximize a profit. However, businesses that lobby government or that have become a part of the system certainly do use their position to their advantage.

That video didn't imply that the government would be making a profit, it implied that once competition is gone, there is no way of telling what the appropriate price should be, and as efficiency deteriorates, prices will increase. You obviously interpreted the video incorrectly, and you're using your inaccurate assumption to say that I'm an illogical conspiracy theorist. Fail.

I am not an anarchist. Anarchy implies no government, while I see a vital need for government. My concerns are of the size and scope of government at various levels, out of a belief that ultimately providing more choices to people results in a better society to live in, and more choices are provided through the decentralization of power.

[Drem]

i hope when you turn 23 and lose mommy and daddy's insurance coverage that soemthing horrible happens to you like a herniated disc and you get left in pain and miserybecause you can't find a couple thousand bucks laying around to get xrays and surgery.

i wish there was a tiny little island for self-absorbed cocksuckers like flink that have no clue about life or helping your fellow man. good health should be a priority. no one's going to get anything done if they always feel miserable and can't do anything about it

denying someone good health because of money is ludicrous. you're a real piece of work if you think business is more important than life

[Drem]

i hope when you turn 23 and lose mommy and daddy's insurance coverage that soemthing horrible happens to you like a herniated disc and you get left in pain and miserybecause you can't find a couple thousand bucks laying around to get xrays and surgery.

i wish there was a tiny little island for self-absorbed cocksuckers like flink that have no clue about life or helping your fellow man. good health should be a priority. no one's going to get anything done if they always feel miserable and can't do anything about it

denying someone good health because of money is ludicrous. you're a real piece of work if you think business is more important than life

[KaiineTN]

I'll be 25 this year and haven't had health insurance since I was 18.

So because I don't support a government takeover in healthcare I think business is more important than life?

I just happen to think that markets, driven by a profit motive, when truly competitive and free, can certainly deliver higher quality goods at a lower price than anything government managed can.

You are entitled to life, you are not entitled to healthcare that will extend or improve the quality of that life. If you want to voluntarily donate your time and money to improve the quality of life of others, that is your own business, but to force someone else to do the same by abuse of government power is wrong, and anyone should be able to see that.

[ClakarEQ]

Who pays for you, if you say, got in an accident and required medical attention, who would pay for that RIGHT NOW TODAY?

Profit motive bestows profits not benefits, not innovation, and as already stated, profits and companies driven by them historically STIFLE innovation for the sake of profit. The only innovation created is driven by the means for increased profits and competition with other profit driven companies. Even when multiple competing for profit companies "innovate" they often "rig" the system to maximize profits. This again has been proven across a broad spectrum of industry, from autos to medical. Yet you, for an unknown reason, still have this completely unfounded reason that profit is what makes things tick.

Have you ever seen a road map, do you know what that is? I will speak towards "tech" because that is what I know and live. I'm no all knowing tech guy but there are some bits that you may find "humor" in.

Ever heard of Cisco? or Intel? or Microsoft?

Do you know that these companies initially delay and slow what you would call innovation for the sole purpose of profit? Do you realize that if Cisco and Intel were ethical companies that wanted to help humanity we'd be running 100Gb networks at the costs of our 1GB networks. I know what I can buy, but the price points set are not for the R&D they want you to believe. I've been on the inside of some of these meetings, you know where you sign NDA's and all that stuff and I can promise you, these type companies are driven exclusively by profit and any means to maximize it.

Do you realize it costs ZERO difference to make some of the cores Intel ships but they'll price one more than the other, for no other reason than profit? Do you know they have road maps and hardware "today" that they just aren't releasing for the sole purpose of profit?

Have you heard of Microsoft? Do you think they do what they do to improve things or do you think they do it for profits?

You just don't get it, maybe you never will. But I can promise you one thing, I'll be paying to fix that broken body of yours. And you can thank me for when or if that happens. The funny part is, you'll be chanting my words the very next day.

[Jay]

I just happen to think that markets, driven by a profit motive, when truly competitive and free, can certainly deliver higher quality goods at a lower price than anything government manaaged can.

Can and will are 2 different things. Pharmaceutical companies and Exxon post record profits annually and guess what? Medicine and gas are still expensive.

I understand what you're saying about individual freedom Flink I really do. I just think that for all the giant heaps of horseshit our tax dollars are squandered on I'm glad to finally spend it on something that we'll all benefit from. The idea in itself is what our country stands for. Remember the "Ask not..." quote.

[Drem]

no shit. R&D can be funded by private benefactors anyway if that's what it really came down to. canada, lucky them, has a gov't-set price cap on all drugs. R&D is still recouped. "incredible! let's sell them for 5x as much here in America. because profit and money are the most important things above all else!"

PhRMA and Pfizer dropped $13.1 mil and $11.7 mil in 2009 trying to turn this bill into obama's waterloo. the big companies have had many victories as far as changing what's on the overhaul bill. i believe harry & louise ads of the clinton administration are back now, but this time they're for reform. all because the big companies are in on the deal now, and they've scaled the healthcare bill back so far that they're now in favor of it. here are some of the highlights and victories the big pharmaceutical companies have had during senate finance committee meetings. they're really impressive (lol) as far as free-markets are concerned (cough):

no cost-cutting, no cheaper drugs from canada allowed, no direct negotiations from the Fed with companies trying to lower medicare drug costs, and giving the biotech industry 12 years of immunity on every new product before generics can compete

all these companies you seem to want to protect, flink, are just fucking everyone over. all they want is money so the company execs can have expensive shit at home. they obviously have money to spare, right? first they drop $20+ million trying to make everyone hate the bill. but now that the bill has been dramatically scaled back, they drop $4 million per harry & louise commercial trying to get people to vote for it

WTF

[Arlos]

I just happen to think that markets, driven by a profit motive, when truly competitive and free, can certainly deliver higher quality goods at a lower price than anything

This in and of itself is absolute bullshit, and completely voids any attempt you make to build arguments upon it. Have you ever looked at the history of business in this country, pre-1900?

Completely free and unregulated markets lead to MONOPOLIES. These form because it is THE way of maximizing profit. If you control every step in the production of something, AND are the only source, you can set the price at whatever you want to, regardless of any other market conditions. If any other companies try and challenge your dominance, you merely abuse your dominant position to buy them out and take them over if they're public, or bankrupt them with lawsuits if they're not or won't sell.

Ugh. The idea that "unfettered capitalism" produces some marketplace utopia where everything is at the lowest possible price point is sheer idiocy. Pollyanism of the highest order. IT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE.

Hell, look at modern examples. As I quoted in my original post: for-profit insurance companies operate at a 20-30% overhead. ie, only 70-80 cents of every dollar actually go towards care of the sick. Medicare, the completely government-run health insurance operation, operates at a 3% overhead. 97 cents of every dollar are used for actual health care. WHICH of these is the most efficient, and provides the best dollar for dollar value to their customer? Hmmmmm? So what was that about the government is never more efficient than private enterprise? Hmmmm?

Goddamn. Wake up and smell reality sometime.

-Arlos

[KaiineTN]

Medicare is essentially bankrupt and unsustainable in its current form. Just like social security. They're basically government ponzi schemes.

Sorry Arlos, I don't buy it. There's nothing wrong with big business, or big business using their established dominance in their favor. That's all fair. What is wrong is big business using the government to establish and maintain unfair advantages, which many do today. That is where restrictions and regulations should be.

No matter how established a business is or how much dominance they have over a market, if they start to rip off the consumer, new businesses will overtake them if the government ensures a fair playing field. The field is far from fair when it comes to many subsets of the healthcare industry as a result of government interference.

[Drem]

[Harrison]

You mean to tell me that monopolies are alright with you? Ouch.

[Drem]

also the reason medicare is failing is because of corporate greed and people that think as fucked-up as flink that caused the recession. and i know this is like rocket science, so bear with me, but record unemployment rates = less taxes going into medicare and social security

it's like you live in the present and only think about what's going on and not what caused any of it. so you start promoting the shit that got us into the mess we're in in the first place. unbelievable

[KaiineTN]

Wait, corporate greed caused the recession? Really? Wow, it's so simple! Why didn't I think of that!

And here I was thinking it was due to interest rates being kept artificially low during times when even Keynesian economic theory tells you they need to be high. That it was due to easy credit flooding the markets for decades. That the government forced lenders to make risky loans with the brilliant idea that everyone should be able to buy a home. That our response to bubbles bursting has been desperately trying to reinflate them rather than allowing corrections to take place. That the government insures against losses, which makes us not even care about what acitivities our banks are involved in using our money.

What the hell do you think is going to happen when the government takes all the risk out of speculating by providing cheap money? If anyone is to blame, it's the Fed, but they were pressured by Congress and Presidents. In the end, who is more dangerous, the drug user or the drug supplier? Blaming greed is like ignoring the supplier entirely and going after the user.

And medicare/social security haven't become unsustainable recently, they have been for a long time. Even if they were sustainable, is it really a system that you want? One that is dependant upon the next generation contributing to it? It's like depending on your children to fund your retirement.

[brinstar]

When it comes down to it, what do you value more? Life, or liberty? If you value life more, you probably have no problem with giving up liberties (in the form of keeping less of what you earn, or having less choices, or being forced to participate, etc.) for the sake of life in the context of healthcare. Personally I believe they are of equal importance, and that a gain in one at the expense of the other is not a gain at all.

it's funny how you like to use this absolutism to your advantage, but the irony is that you're ignoring half the argument. see, look at how easy it is to flip it around: if you value liberty more, you probably have no problem with giving up life for the sake of liberty in the context of healthcare.

if the balance between life and liberty is really that clear-cut to you, how can you deny implying that you'd rather see poor people die than give up the choice you have over who provides your health care? do you really not understand how egocentrically classist that sounds?

[KaiineTN]

Apparantly you missed the part where I said that I believe they are of equal importance and that a gain in one at the expense of the other is not a gain at all. Thus if I valued liberty more than life and sacrificed the lives of others for that liberty, it becomes just as bad philosophically as sacrificing liberties for the sake of life.

I don't believe it has to be one or the other. We can have our life and our liberty and we can find a way to provide healthcare to those in need that doesn't require such a sacrifice to be forced on others.

[Gypsiyee]

Right, so the problem is just me and my views. My perception of rights and freedoms doesn't matter. I'm just an obstacle in the way of the "progress" you want to see, "progress" that would impact my own life in ways that I don't want it to.

yes, this is correct. at least until you get your fucking ass to work at a real job that isn't on the internet and start paying taxes.

seriously, why do you keep posting in these threads when so long as you're sucking teet in endless pursuit of the latest get rich quick scheme your opinion is moot.

I've given up on these threads because everyone always says the same thing and between your unjustified self-righteous libertylibertylibertylibertyronpaulsdicktasteslikecottoncandy interjections and Diekan's conspiracy theories I feel my brain melt every time I read one.

[brinstar]

we can find a way to provide healthcare to those in need that doesn't require such a sacrifice to be forced on others

SUCH...


AS....


???

[Gidan]

I was still waiting to see if you would answer the direct question you have been ignoring.

If you were to get into an accident today and required major surgery, who would pay for it? If your not conscious, then your will be rushed to a hospital and provided the care you require. Since without any form of medical insurance I find it highly unlikely you can pull $40K + out of your pocket to pay for it after the fact. If you are conscious will you tell them not to take you to the hospital because you can not pay for it? Are you the person who will stand by your belief of liberty and give your life as to not infringe on the liberty of others when it really counts? Or are you the person who will accept that medical care, and then continue to preach that people should be free to not have medical coverage.

[brinstar]

pretty sure you already know the answer gidan

[Harrison]

I'd be in jail if taxpayers didn't cover my some-odd 16k+ ER/Hopsital bill...

(or dead in the street outside the bar lol)

[Diekan]

The government taking control isn't going to fix it. The morons can't even deliver your mail without somehow fucking it up. And, they're going to run health care?

Since when has our government ever done ANYTHING right? Other than passing the Civil Rights act, et al?

Our government doesn't have a great track record, ya know? They tend to put band-aids on the problem rather than identifying the root causes and treating the issue from the very foundation up. Perfect example... gun control. Rather than actually doing something about crime, they just pass more laws that do nothing to resolve the issue, but everything to annoy those of us who already obey the law.

Government run health care will be a disaster of epic-fucking-proportion.

Besides - show me where in the Constitution it says we have a "right" to health care? Our sense of entitlement is out of control. Next we'll be screaming for the government to provide us with housing and to pay our utility bills for us.