So-called conservatives now are playthings of the rich who benefit most but contribute least

Dr. Mark Hendrickson’s article in last week’s Citizen is, I believe, representative of present day conservative intellectualism and its selective choices. The difficulty with intellectually selective choices in the end are their wrongheaded conclusions.

Example: WWI taught French military intellectuals that war favored a strong defense. They convinced the French people and political establishment to spend inordinate sums building an “impregnable” line.

The German military learned different lessons and were not too proud to borrow from the writings of a simple British Army captain on mobile, fast moving armored warfare. France surrendered in 40 days not because her men were poor fighters or her technology deficient. France was defeated by her intellectual myopia.

Someone titled the article “Honoring Bill of Rights Day,” but the article really had little to do with the title and everything to do with Hendrickson’s axe grinding.

He began with the premise: “To the founders, government’s sole legitimate purpose is to protect our rights.” Historically I have no idea where he got that premise and naturally Hendrickson doesn’t say.

I do know the Bill of Rights were proposed and adopted after the ratification of the Constitution by 11 states. If enumerated rights were number one on “the founders” hit parade, how did they manage to miss these ten articles over an entire summer of debate?

Dr. Hendrickson quickly segued to the Declaration of Independence, which is perhaps the most recognized and least read document in the world. Since the Constitution doesn’t mention God, he naturally went to the document which does. Curiously, though, when the Declaration of Independence talks about God given inalienable rights it mentions “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Jefferson originally mentioned property but the drafting committee changed it to “the pursuit of happiness.” I wonder why?

Anyway, the point of all this selective historic misinterpretation by the good Dr. Hendrickson seems to be his aversion to social programs in general, and his aversion to paying the taxes required to sustain those programs in particular. He doesn’t mention any specific programs so we have to assume he doesn’t want any whatsoever.

So let us go back to theme number one. Hendrickson asserts that the founders thought the only purpose for government was the protection of our rights. However the foundation for the U.S. Government is the Constitution.

The Preamble states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ...”

Hendrickson, George W. Bush, the bloated drug addict Rush Limbaugh, the half-wit Glen Beck, the Tea Party and a vast number of the citizens of this county miss what the “founders” actually could and did agree on.

They revolted against the king of England because they did not feel themselves represented. However, their attachment to ultimate state sovereignty threatened the very fabric of society and propelled them to fashion a new form of government.

In the letter to Congress recommending the adoption of this Constitution and signed by George Washington, Goeverneur Morris had written: “It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these States to secure the rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained ....”

The Founders disagreed on almost everything, but they agreed that ultimately government must assure society. The Constitution is purposely obtuse and was left for the ages to meet whatever exigencies society and government encountered.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution have played an immense part in the formation of our national character and protecting individual liberties. Dr. Hendrickson’s assertion that government’s efforts to assure a just and stable society are somehow a prima facie violation of those immutable rights is either gross ignorance or a bald-faced lie. I am inclined to believe the latter.

I believe we are building our own societal Maginot Line. The so-called conservatives in this country have become the intellectual playthings of the very rich who benefit most from our society but wish to contribute proportionally the least.

At the same time they haven’t the fortitude to name the cuts which must be made to balance the giant shift of assets without the giant shift of obligation. We are then stuck adding to a dangerous national debt, lacking the will to act.

In the end we will find what the founders knew all along. Government must assure stable society, and there is no way to assure anything in the absence of this stability.

Remember that the next time you read a piece from the Center for Myopia and Delusion at some crappy little college in Pennsylvania.

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City, Ga.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Start at the top

I will start at the top of this string, we seem to be running out of room at the bottom.

Your question is why don't we get rid of insurance and let the invisible hand of the market do its work in the HC industry. You also state that the only difference in Medicare and private insurance is their source of funding.

So, let’s take the last statement first as it will help understand the answer to your question. The source of funding is important because as we stated earlier the government is attempting to allocate these funds based on its priorities not based on what the consumer (customers) of those services want. This is a subtle but important point. Since the government cannot possibly know what each consumer of healthcare may want at any point in time they spend money on what they think groups may want. I think intuitively you can see that this cannot ever satisfy all of the consumers of healthcare but only some groups. Other issues with public funding center on cost, one deals with the idea that funds are not “earned” to support Medicare they are “taken”. When something is not earned it generally is not valued as much as earned income to the person spending it. This leads to a wasting of resources and higher costs. The other issue is that there is no zero based budgeting system within the government; therefore, if you spend a certain amount one year then it is expected and required that you will need even more next year. Thus these two factors alone accelerate the “ballooning” of the costs in government run healthcare.

Let’s go back to your question now. Insurance is a product that is demanded by consumers in the market for the reduction of risk to individuals or families. It is part of the free market. Each time you pay your premium, the insurance company is “betting” that you are going to stay healthy and you are “betting” that you’re not. The real problem with insurance companies is that we don’t have enough of them and the competition among current insurance companies has been diminished by government regulation. For example, you can’t buy or sell insurance across state lines. There are many, many more regulations on insurance companies. The fact is that insurance has been part of our capitalist system for hundreds of years. I would say that insurance could work much better if we had more competition among insurers and less regulation.

On a side note, the preexisting condition provision in the new healthcare legislation will begin driving insurance companies out of the healthcare business. It is akin to asking that your fire insurance company cover the loss of you home after your home has burned down. You will find more and more insurance companies in the future getting out of HC as will companies that provide company benefits. This will leave us one option the government.

I hope I have answered your question.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I was wondering what

PTC_0, I was wondering what we were going to do. It was driving me crazy when I proofread my last vertical post for the last time. I felt like a quality control inspector at a spaghetti factory!

But, once again, I’m afraid I have not made myself clear. I tried to do two things with my last post. First of all, I was agreeing with you. I too, do not see any way of getting from what we have today, to a pure “Free-Market” economy.

Second. The “invisible hand of the free market,” is too weak to stand up to any pressure. It bends like a reed in a breeze. My example points out, “The survival of Health Insurance industry is dependant on the high cost medical care?” To survive, they will use every social, political, and economic resource at their disposal to prevent the cost of medical services from going down to a point that people would not need to buy health insurance.

Without getting into details, your argument revolves around the premise that government has no right to inject itself into the free market because it distorts natural forces in the markets. My argument is, the markets are already distorted by competing special interest. If you take the government out of the equation you still have a distorted market. But, social and economic pressure on the political process will never allow the government to stop injecting itself into the process.

Ah, I see you believe that health insurance companies will be driven out of the market leaving only the government to provide health insurance? I don’t see it happening in my lifetime, and can’t even imagine it happening in my children’s lifetime. Opposing social and economic pressure on the political process will never allow it. If I learned anything last year, I learned that.

That leaves us with what…, “Catch-22” ? 8 - )

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Catch 22 - Gort

It is indeed a Catch 22, but I do believe the more freedom we give the market to operate the better the healthcare and the lower the cost. Let's just say that as government becomes more involved in healthcare the less competition we have and the more costly HC becomes for everyone.

Can we agree on these fundamental principles?

On the issue of insurance companies leaving the HC market for "greener" more profitable ventures, they are already doing this and more are going to follow. Some very big insurance companies may stay, but because they won't have much competition the prices and services will deteriorate for the average consumer.

Here’s a link to a fellow that believes that these big insurers will simply turn into highly regulated public utilities, which as you know becomes a government created oligopoly with higher costs and poor service.

http://covertrationingblog.com/weird-fact-about-insurance-companies/more...

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I appreciate and

PTC_0, I appreciate and respect your point of view. Mine just happens to be a little different than yours. I believe markets are never truly free. Social, political, and economic force are always present.

I haven’t read were any companies have exited the market but I suppose it could happen? If they can’t make money they should exit the market. Me personally, I would rather see the money go into making medical services cheaper so people could pay for them out of pocket without insurance companies.

As a practical matter, I understand there would be medical conditions and procedures that would always remain too expensive for people to pay for out of pocket and require some sort of insurance. What we have today is almost all medical procedures are too expensive for most people to pay for out of pocket. (I wonder how hard it is to get a doctors appointment if you don’t have insurance. Fortunately, I don’t know.)

The only way I see to cut the cost of medical insurance, on a per unit basis, is to increase the size of the risk pool. For that reason, it may be necessary for there to be only a few insurance companies in the market, or for that matter a regulated utility.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Well

Well Gort all I can say is that if this is what you believe then you should get ready for higher and higher costs and poorer and poorer service. This is what happens when you limit competition to a few providers. When you have only one (monopoly) like the government.....well you get the idea.

I too appreciate your position and I too believe you are wrong.

I would encourage you to think more about it. Look around you, where do you see prices going down and quality improving every year. Is it in industries that have a lot of regulation or are they industries that have a lot of competiton? Look at electronics for example, think things are improving there year after year? Why? Plenty of compeition across the globe. Now let's look at the Social Security System, think things are getting better there year after year?

Look at it this way there has never been a monopoly in private industry, the only monopoly that can exist in society is an entity that is formed and protected solely through the power of the government. I believe it is Mr. Obama's goal to create a monopoly in health care, if successful we will surely not like the results.

Want to discuss some other issues?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I have no doubt I will

PTC_0, I have no doubt I will pay more no matter what happen or even if nothing happens at all. I’m old enough to know, ten years from now, these will be the good old days!

Actually, I would like to discuss something else. Unless you’re exhausted about discussing health care insurance issues are you still interested in hearing what I would have done? 8 - )

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Yes

Always interested in other ideas as long as you don't mind a reply.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC OBSERVER
Quote:

The sooner we recognize this fact and take care of it at the voting booth the more secure our freedoms.

Who do you suggest we vote for in 2012?

I have found the aspects of libertarianism a definite threat to my hard earned 'freedoms'. I find your definition of socialism, (Frederich Hayek) interesting. Actually there are other definitions that contradict his definition and your interpretation of his definition. I have observed very little in the behavior of American citizens that denotes lack of personal responsibility. . .but you're entitled to your view. As with democracy/capitalism/communism/socialism - time has changed the implementation of ideologies. Cuba's Fidel has acknowledged that his view of total government ownership did not work. China has used 'capitalism' to its advantage - and its economic superiority to 'our' version. China has become our 'company store'. Looking at results and current practices will be most important in solving the global economic turmoil that we are now experiencing - and I don't see libertarianism alone to be the answer.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - and

And what "aspects of libertarianism" do you find as threats to your freedoms?

Actually, I was not trying to define socialism, I was attempting to give one aspect to the socialist dogma as voiced by F. Hayek. I have defining socialism a number of times ont his blog.

Have you ever been to China? I suppose not or you would not be calling them superior in any way. China has become our company store mainly due to our own government's folly.

Since you don't see "libertarianism alone to be the answer", then can we agree that freedom is better than enslavement to the state? Or do you have a better "answer"?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC OBSERVER - China

CHINA? Yes I have been to China - have you? I was there in 2002 - before the Olympics. I do not believe in 'communism' - but China has used capitalism to form a class of consumers that has their urban cities thriving. I also visited their small towns - not too different from our rural areas in California, Georgia, or Mississippi. Both countries have the 'poor'. You don't know what government 'control' is until you visit China. I found it frightening - and love the freedom that we have here in the United States. China's factories (those that we could see and those that were 'hidden') are producing TOO MANY products that are being consumed by Americans and many countries around the globe. We saw evidence of American companies using Chinese (cheap) labor. I believe we've sold our soul to the 'company store'.

Libertarianism vs. my freedom? A legislator by the name of Paul (MD) said it all for me.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - China

I am sure you went on a nice tour bus tour of China. You haven't seen the China I have seen. China does not live under a capitalist society, it is fascist. It has a command and control economy directed by the central government to the Communist party’s benefit. Its main client is the west and without the west's wealth it will collapse. I have a lot more to say about this but not in this forum. Let's simply say that China is having a lot of problems, a lot.

I am sorry but I don't know of a Paul of Maryland. Did you mean to say KY? Or TX? Anyway, what specifically did he say that you object to? It should be pretty simple to say what you object to in their philosophy.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC OBSERVER - China

I was not on a 'bus tour'. Your comprehension appears to be lacking today. Please re-read what I wrote. I never stated that China lived under a capitalist society. . . but they have used capitalistic procedures to ensure that they have consumers to support their economy. I stated that I found the Communist government frightening - and so appreciated the freedom that we have here in the US. (Did you bother to read anything that I wrote?) My dear - the world is having a lot of problems economically. Ron Paul, MD (Medical Doctor) Geeeez. Thanks for your input.
Why don't you look up Dr. Ron Paul of Texas and his published views on the Civil Rights Bill? THAT BILL WAS NOT TO IMPROVE RACE RELATIONS - BUT TO GIVE EVERY CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY EQUAL RIGHTS REGARDLESS OF RACE, OR GENDER. Dr. Ron Paul feels that we no longer need these protections - and individuals have the right to discriminate based on race/gender/etc. Simple enough? As long as there are people who express the ideas that some have expressed in this forum, minorities and women still need the protection afforded them in the Civil Rights Act.

What China have you seen? When were you there? What parts did you visit? I, my husband and members of our family have visited China often over the past few years – business; church; education; pleasure. China is a diverse country. Visiting a few of their large cities or some of their rural areas, can leave one just as misinformed about the ‘real’ China –as visiting just a few of our large cities or a few of our rural areas would not inform a visitor about the diverseness of our great country. If you have an opportunity to travel you will find that there are aspects of ‘superiority’ in many foreign lands. We are a great country – and other countries around the globe also have much to offer. What the United States has accomplished is the ‘blending’ of many different cultures living together as one – AMERICANS.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Well

To answer your specific question, I have been traveling to China for many years; my first visit was in 1983. I have visited many coastal cities, towns and villages but have been as far as villages surrounding the cities of Changchun in the north and Chengdu in the western interior. In fact I have traveled to many countries throughout the world, there are no countries that I have visited that can compare to the USA. None.

So, to stick to one subject:

Notwithstanding what Dr. Paul may have said or not said, what specifically do you disagree with concerning the Libertarian philosophy? You seem to think that the philosophy is about one man and it is not. I certainly can find quotes from Democrats which I am sure you would diagree. Start with your most important and striking objection to Libertianism first. Let's hear it DM.

As far as Dr. Paul is concerned he claims to be a Republican and I believe he has been a Republican for nearly thirty years. Am I wrong on this?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC - to continue

I find it interesting that for almost 28 years you have not noticed the tremendous change in the architecture of the cities in China. I know of NO US city skyline that compares to a few of the current skylines one views in China. There are aspects of China - metropolitan and rural that are very different from our country - and I'm always glad to come home - where I feel comfortable. However, travel broadens ones concept of the world - and hopefully develops an appreciation for 'home'. Appreciating 'home' does not mean one cannot appreciate the home of others. I have had the honor of visiting homes of Chinese farmers, businessmen, teachers, religious leaders, and local leaders. I feel very uncomfortable with the 'communist' government and their strict and what I consider stifling governance - but it works for the people who live in China at this time. As time progresses, as in our democracy - actions and attitudes change. There are few countries that can compare to the 'freedom' that we enjoy here - but there are aspects of other countries that are admirable, IMO.

As for Dr. Ron Paul - be he Republican, Libertarian, or a follower of Satan - anyone who believes that an American has the right to discriminate based on race or gender will get an argument from me and many others in this country. I will always discriminate based on character and actions of an individual - and will teach others to do the same. I feel that this is the American way. I have had discussions with Libertarians who believe as Dr. Paul has stated - that a person serving the public in his private business has the right to discriminate based on race. I do not believe this - that is why there are private 'clubs' - where people can associate with whomever they please. If one's business is serving the public, the color of IMPORTANCE is GREEN. If you agree with Dr. Paul regarding a citizens right to discriminate based on color and gender - that is your right. Thank heavens; there are many who disagree with you – if this is your belief. (And like Strom Thurmond, I think Dr. Paul will change his public stand.)

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
DM

" If one's business is serving the public, the color of IMPORTANCE is GREEN."

Tell that to race pimp Senator Brown of Georgia.

Sen. Brown needs to Apologize for KKK Remarks

"Two or three days prior to an election, I’ve had people say, ‘My wife came home from church, and there was this flier that they were putting out saying I’m a baby killer.’ And then, in less than three weeks after the election, this guy goes over to the Republican Party, the folks who had called him a baby killer. I mean, what does the wife do then, put on some red sheets on the bed and say ‘You know we can get rid of the blue sheets, but keep the white one over there because we might need that one for the midnight meeting."

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Racism - Joe

Unfortunately - this ugliness in our society is an 'equal opportunity employer'. We all have been exposed to it. With all of our positives - our racist attitudes unfortunately still come forth. No one should be surprised that those who have been raised in a racist society exhibits signs of racism

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
David's Mom
Davids mom wrote:

No one should be surprised that those who have been raised in a racist society exhibits signs of racism

Are you saying that Georgia is a racist society, and therefore all it's citizens are racist, or are you saying that America is a racist society in general and therefore we should not be surprised and therefore just learn to accept that type of behavior.

I could be misunderstanding your response, but it almost sounds like you are making excuses for the Senator.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kawfi -Excused

If anyone is being 'excused' in my statement - it's you and me. We have both been accused of 'racism'. The Senator is not alone - nor are most Americans. I feel that Americans as a whole have improved immensely regarding the 'racial' issue. That 'race' is still an issue in our country is a result of attitudes that have been fostered by our American history. Georgia is one state among 50 - with a racist history. Surely you know this - but you must remain in your cantankerous character. I feel the writer who used the word 'cantankerous' to describe your contributions was 'right on'!!!!

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
DM - no excuse

I am aware of the dark history of the south, but also know that we have moved well beyond that. There are those that refuse to move beyond that dark period and bring it up as an excuse for bad and/or unlawful behavior.
You bring it up all the time even though very few living today had anything to do with it.

Yes, race still is an issue, however the Senator's remarks were hateful and he should resign from office. You stated that he was brought up in a racist society. What racist society was he brought up in?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kawfi - you answered your own question
Quote:

I am aware of the dark history

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Wrong - DM

If I knew the answer, I would not have asked you.

Based on how old Senator Brown looks, I highly doubt if he was alive during that dark period in the South, so it is highly improbable that he was "brought up in a racist society" as you claim in your effort to excuse him.

Senator Brown is a race pimp and is not fit for office and should resign. (imho)

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Senator Brown/segregation

I think he is old enough to have been around in the 1980's when Fayette County was considered off limits for blacks. That is part of the dark history of our country. You have your right to your humble opinions - but at least get some knowledge about the history of segregation in this country. The passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 did not automatically conclude the practices that were prevalent in our 'dark past'. I'm not going to continue to respond to all of your cantankerous comments based on ignorance. Have a good day.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Thanks

Enough with this, I can see it's going nowhere.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC - You're welcome

. . .just answering your questions and expressing my point of view based on my experience. Evidently we have areas of disagreement. :-)

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Many

Many

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC

Many - obviously. Thanks for sharing your experience and attitudes towards the present and future of these United States.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM

You're welcome and thank you for illustrating your ideas.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
A Season gift for Joe Kawfi

Gallup Poll: Obama the most admired man in the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/27/AR201012...

normal
normal's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2009
most admired

Barack is the most admired one term president

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Admired

. . .one term president. Well, we’ll see. Some here didn't even think he had a chance to be elected. . .and certainly wouldn't be able to navigate the legislative process and get some issues passed for the American people. The American people are watching. . .not only the President - but also the Republican House. It will be an interesting year.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Right back atcha, DM

Gallup Poll: Obama’s Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low

He needs to just keep on doin' what he's doin'- shoving his socialist principles that he learned all his life down the throats of Americans.

That'll surely get him re-elected in 2012...........not!!!! hahahahahahahahahaaaaa

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kawfi - 70%!

Gallup Poll: Obama’s Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low With Liberals--At 70 Percent
Thursday, December 09, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey

70% of the liberal vote still gets him elected. Do you even bother to read and analyze what you share? (And this poll was taken on the 9th of December - before the passage of the 'liberal' lame duck Congress legislation.) I'm sure you'll have a different spin on this - but I'm not giving you misinformation.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Down from 92%

Only in liberal la-la land would someone like DM see a 22% drop in popularity as something positive.

So, 70% of the liberal vote gets him re-elected DM? How do you figure that when Liberals make up only 20% of the population? You must be using one of them gubbermint calculators to come up with that whopper.

Here's a more recent one for you from one of the more liberal rags -
Huffington Post - Obama Job Approval

No misinformation, DM - just facts. You do like facts, don't you?
Haaaahahahahahahahaha

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kawfi - Apples/Oranges

Admiration/Approval. Facts.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Those wacky tea partisans!

So Joke Awfi is taking a page out of the spineless liar oofu's book and distorting a legitimate news site's article. I'm wondering if this distortion trait is more common amongst tea partisans than I first thought.

It's interesting that the Jokester (and the wildly partisan CNSnews) took a single data point about President Obama's popularity and ignored the trend. I suppose it was just a coincidence that this data point occurred BEFORE President Obama's recent string of legislative victories. Looking at liberal approval of President Obama post-repeal of DADT, for example, shows his approval among liberals jumping back up to 76%.

Ominously for the party of Satan (republicans), approval among "independents" has risen from 41% to 45%.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kawfi

The wonderful thing about being an American and living in a democracy is that you can admire a person - and not agree with some of their political actions. You just don't seem to get it - and your 'hate' as exemplified in your words is getting old. As for me and 'Bacon' being one in the same: there are people participating in this discussion who know me and have seen me. I am who and what I say I am. It is a shame that you say you represent the 'conservative' American point of view. You, Kawfi, don't. You represent dangerous 'hate' - and I've lived long enough to see what that can do to our wonderful country. I think others have seen through Kawfi's attempt to win debates by misinformation. I will continue to try to bring a balance to the discussion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion without being called a 'liar'. You, Kawfi, never thought that Obama would be elected in the first place. (hahahahahaha) You represent a reprehensible thought in our country - and anyone who cares to goggle other sites realizes that you are not sharing original thoughts. But you will continue - and I will continue to point out your 'hate' - without calling you a liar. It will be an interesting year. Happy New Year.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Hate, DM?

When have I ever implied that I hated Obama? I may think that he is immature, narcissitic, lacking in common sense, incompetent, a liar, a racist, and pathetic, but I would never stoop so low as to hate him. Hate is a sin, Davids Mom. Remember your commandments? Thou shalt love thy neighbor? I can state that Obama is a complete nincompoop and still love him as the bible teaches, after all. God loves all people, and we are to follow his example. Even if means loving imbeciles like Barrack Obama.
Now, you state that I exemplify 'hate' in my words. Can you be more specific? What specifically did I say that exemplified "hate", or are you one of those people that miscatergorizes disagreement with "hate". That's one of the main Liberal talking points these days- If you disagree with Obama, you must be a racist, and therefore a "hater". You also stated that I said that I "represent the conservative point of view". Please send me a link to the post that shows I stated that.

What's that? You can't find a post where I stated that? Well that doesn't surprise me. You must have been off of your meds that control your dimentia, so all is forgiven. You were right about one thing- I did think that Obama would not be elected. I actually had more faith in Americans and thought they would see behind all of his lies and hope n' change nonsense, and see him for the socialist that he is. I was wrong, however the recent November shellacking has renewed some of that faith.

And a hap-hap-happy New Year to you too. Keep spreadin' the love.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Joe Kawfi

I apologize for misrepresenting you. You are so full of 'love' - I'm so sorry that I misinterpret your 'loving' attitude for hate. Why you have NEVER said anything that could be considered 'racist'. You are truly an example of a loving person. I know that many here agree with me. Have a wonderful New Year.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Thank you for the apology, DM.

I hope that this has been a lesson for you not to lie by stating things that people never said.

Hap-hap-happy New Year!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Hey Joe

To bad you never learned not to lie, by stating things that you did say. Not to impugn or anything, wait, cancel that, I did mean to impugn. What you going to do about it?

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Hutch

Hutch, a.k.a., Cal's little blog boy, (CLBB)

I'm not going to do anything about it. Little weasels like yourself don't mean spit to me so why should I care what you say?

Uh-oh. Was that statement "hateful"? Your call DM.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Joe

It was a rhetorical question, because there is actually nothing you can do anyway. You said I was all talk last week, on here what else is there?

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Just as I thought

DM is full of it. She accuses me of stating thing I never said and doesn't have the guts to respond.

Pathetic, just like Obama.

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Joe, please

do not love the carbonunit. When characters like you get ahold of love, it is not love anymore.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Parker

If the socialists aren't burning history they are re-writing it.

Congratuations on upholding the highest ideals of the socialist philosophy.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Socialist

In the Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek made several points on the characteristics of the socialist mind; one is the denial of individual responsibility. The unending march of socialism thus always attacks individual responsibility. If the concept of individual freedom can be banished from the minds of men. If they can be made to feel not responsible for their actions or helpless, then according to the socialists their lives should be controlled by the state. They must be regulated, regimented, and controlled - for their own good, and the good of the general welfare of the state.

Mr. Parker is excellent at double speak and clouding the issues surrounding this fundamental idea. Like Bacon, Mr. Parker is a socialist and the only way that socialists can succeed is for us all to believe that the state is the answer to our problems, when in most cases it is the cause of our problems. Our willingness to give over our personal responsibility to the state is the first step in enslavement. All one has to do is read personal histories of those that have lived under socialist states to find out. Or better yet talk to those that have lived under the socialist philosophy.

The ultimate end to this process of class warfare is another Warsaw ghetto, to suggest otherwise is simply ignoring facts. Statists with twisted words and hyperbole are dangerous to you and your freedoms. The sooner we recognize this fact and take care of it at the voting booth the more secure our freedoms.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Petey C, there you go again!
PTC Observer wrote:

Like Bacon, Mr. Parker is a socialist

There you go again.

For the record, I'm a Democrat, not a socialist.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Quacks like one, Walks like one, looks like one

must be a duck.

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A socialist society is characterised by a free association, which is not based on wage labour. It is organized on the basis of relatively equal power relations, self-management, collective decision-making and adhocracy rather than hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization in the economic and political systems.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Todays Democratic Party

has been taken over by the so-called Progressives, which are nothing more than Communists without the guts to admit it. -GP

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Progressives are NOT communists
Georgia Patriot wrote:

has been taken over by the so-called Progressives, which are nothing more than Communists without the guts to admit it. -GP

h8riot, that is one of the more asinine comments you've ever made.

Let me lessen your ignorance somewhat:

A progressive is a strong believer in Keynesian economic theory, which embraces capitalism but insists on government oversight.

A communist on the other hand denounces capitalism as "flawed" and replaces it with a state-run economy, where the government controls manufacturing and distribution of goods.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bacon on Progressives
Chris P. Bacon wrote:
Georgia Patriot wrote:

has been taken over by the so-called Progressives, which are nothing more than Communists without the guts to admit it. -GP

h8riot, that is one of the more asinine comments you've ever made.

Let me lessen your ignorance somewhat:

A progressive is a strong believer in Keynesian economic theory, which embraces capitalism but insists on government oversight.

A communist on the other hand denounces capitalism as "flawed" and replaces it with a state-run economy, where the government controls manufacturing and distribution of goods.

Really?????

Has someone contacted Maxine Waters who BTW is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus about this.

I mean after all she was going to "socialize" ah um, ah um - wait a minute - "take over" those evil oil companies.

Yep vote Democrat and look what you get.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cyclist

WOW! What an avatar!! We won't overlook you today!! ☺ Democrats, Republicans, Progressives, Conservatives, Libs - I don't give a rats-a___ anymore about what one is labeled. GET TO WORK IN CONGRESS AND start moving this country forward by using common sense and working together. I hope we focus more on what is actually happening in Congress rather than calling our leaders names - regardless of their political label. Later!

I'm going to finish enjoying this beautiful parade - in another spectacular sunny day in Pasadena, CA. on TV - I’m here in gray Georgia. ☹

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Davids mom

Ah yes, the Rose Parade. Of all the years I lived out there I only went to one in 1987. Rode my bicycle some 30 miles up to Pasadena. It was one of those nice Southern California morning's.

I would still rather be here!!!!

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
You are Delusional
Chris P. Bacon wrote:
Georgia Patriot wrote:

has been taken over by the so-called Progressives, which are nothing more than Communists without the guts to admit it. -GP

h8riot, that is one of the more asinine comments you've ever made.

Let me lessen your ignorance somewhat:

A progressive is a strong believer in Keynesian economic theory, which embraces capitalism but insists on government oversight.

A communist on the other hand denounces capitalism as "flawed" and replaces it with a state-run economy, where the government controls manufacturing and distribution of goods.

You last two paragraphs in the answer above essentially say the same thing but with slightly different verbage. Progressives believe in some fantasy economic system where being productive is punished and taxed in order to redistribute to "make things fair". TARP, Stimulas, QE1,2,3 etc are all unconstitutional spending ideas which further the "government is the answer" and the spending will somehow come back and pay for itself delusion. With all of the failures in Europe even the Communist Nation News (CNN) is beginning to see that Keynes was wrong http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/10/news/economy/keynes_economics_europe.for.... Read the article, you might learn something. -GP

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon - for the record?

You are a self described Democrat but in your response to our friend GaPatriot you describe a progressive as 'a strong believer in Keynesian economic theory, which embraces capitalism but insists on government oversight." But isn't this also the position of the Democrat and Republican Parties?

Progressives, socialists and Democrats are the same in their beliefs in government power and control and they are not far from going to the next step of being fascists. Fascists are those that 'embrace" capitalism as long as the capitalists stay in line and produce what they are told to produce. Through regulation or outright purchase, they take over the banks, car companies, power companies, healthcare and other industries and install their crony managers to do their bidding. The cronies get rich and provide a power base for the political elite through political funding. You know, like more fuel efficient cars, or wind power, or “universal” healthcare. Since they know that their philosophy goes against the nature of man to be free they enforce their "ideal society" on others through the force of government. If it all sounds familiar, it is. Fascism always leads to trade barriers, war, poverty, and destruction, all in the name of the state and the general welfare.

As to your definition of Communism, it is only partially correct. Communists are always socialists but not all socialist are communists; they are sometimes fascists and their precursor progressives. Communists believe in state ownership of all property and all the tools of production, for the common welfare of the state. Without exception every nation that has experimented with communism has fallen into poverty, starvation and destruction.

You sir are a socialist, whether you want to believe this or not. You are a dupe for the socialist political elite that award themselves “Peace Prizes” and celebrity. You have no clue what the endpoint of your political philosophy is because you are so immersed in self-delusion and hatred. You and people like you are a danger to our freedom, our property and our way of life.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Right on, PTCObserver

I missed this originally a few days ago when you posted it I guess.

The second paragraph is exactly the route Chavez/Venezuela is taking right now. It's the natural extension of socialism into fascism.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC OBSERVER
Quote:

But isn't this also the position of the Democrat and Republican Parties?
Progressives, socialists and Democrats are the same in their beliefs in government power and control and they are not far from going to the next step of being fascists

Why delete Republicans from your second sentence?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - You're correct

"Democrat" should have been "democrat". I see little difference in the Democrat and Republican parties. They essentially believe in the premise that government should direct our lives. One, the Democrats, believe that government should have a central role and the other, Republican, believe that government needs to be there to protect us.

I agree that the Republicans give lip service to the idea of individual freedom and then they go about destroying it when they are in power.

Until we actually reduce the power and scope of the government, we are all at risk and so is our freedoms. So, next time when you go to the polls elect those that will agree to massively cut government programs, departments, etc. I know you will do this DM because you are a rational woman. ;-)

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
LOL PTC

This 'rational woman' believes that massively cutting government programs in our present economic situation - is irrational. Boosting small businesses - and cutting the consumer pool is not rational.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Well - DM

maybe I was wrong about you.

Keynesian economics is a poor substitute for freedom.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
100% dead-on accurate there, PTC Ob

Until people wake up and realize there is no salvation in the Repub Party and that the Repubs have been for a very LONG time just like the Dems, things will not change for the better. Both have a real problem with concepts like "liberty" and "freedom" that doesn't involve massive governmental control and restrictions.

We'll see what the various Tea Party groups have to offer up and whether they can deliver. They had some notable successes this past election(let's see how they vote now) and some complete nut-jobs like Angle and O'Donnell that goofy Palin anointed. It's early, but if they stick to the fiscal issues and far, far away from the "social" issues, they may have some longevity.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
The Socialist Philosophy

PTC Observer: What is your definition? As for 'our' history; it does not have to be 're-written' - just more inclusive and honest.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
A Kinder, Gentler Communist?

Tried multiple times, it never ends well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism -GP

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hooray for Mr. Parker
Quote:

The difficulty with intellectually selective choices in the end are their wrongheaded conclusions.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
Timothy

I have friends who reside and work in the academic world. Their perspective is similar to yours. Are you an academic by profession?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Should-Congress-regulate-political-ad-money

This debate will have an important impact on all of our elections.

From the Christian Science Monitor

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
Great letter, Tim Parker....

There is a book you may have read, "Deer Hunting With Jesus" by Joe Bageant, that talks about this perplexing phenomena we see going on in our country. The poorest of the poor, voting against their own interests, continuing to vote in the very people and political party that has every intention of keeping them poor and destitute... it makes no sense.

"...of white have-nots...It is maddening and provocative that the true believers in 'American exceptionalism' and ersatz machismo, side with those stepping all over them." - Studs Terkel

Peace and Happy Holidays, to you and yours Tim.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Santa Cal, my Christmas list is very short..

I've been a good boy, Santa Cal, I haven't been banned once this year!

My Christmas list is very short:

  1. World peace
  2. A Democratic landslide in 2012
  3. A regular column in the Citizen for Timothy J. Parker

.
A column for Mr. Parker might serve as a "reality check" on some of your columnists who have a sadly tenuous grasp on sanity (*cough*TerryGarlock*cough*)

Yours respectfully,
Chris P. Bacon
RealAmerican™

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Chrispy - How

can you ask for a column for yourself? ;-)

Let's be democratic and vote on it.

As for your three "wishes"

I go for #1

but

#2, #3 are dreams or nightmares depending on your philosophy.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
"Promote the general welfare", Mr. Parker?

I guess you are prepared to state that the founders intended by this phrase to encourage out of wedlock young women to have more and more illegitimate babies so they could take (yes, take) more and more of my hard-earned tax dollars? How many of these babies did Adams, Jefferson and Madison think I need to support? At $500 per baby per month, I must of had 5 kids I never met that I was supporting in 1998 - my last tax-paying year.

Next we will be hearing that "Insure domestic tranquillity" is founder-speak for legalization of marijuana.
Are you liberals completely nuts or what?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
RW
Quote:

Next we will be hearing that "Insure domestic tranquillity" is founder-speak for legalization of marijuana

.

What is the ' prohibition' of marijuana doing to our society? I agree with you about the foiled attempt to prohibit liquor.

What is it about my intent to discuss race on this blog that you can't comprehend? You don't have to reply - but RACE is an issue in this country. . . .and always has been. Because certain textbooks 'deleted' racism from content - doesn't mean it didn't exist. I have been made aware during my stay here that there are those who feel very uncomfortable discussing it and feel that there is no need to examine this issue any longer. However, there are intelligent participants in this discussion that feel they have been the victims of reverse racism. There are participants who feel that they are still being discriminated against because of the color of their skin, their religion, or their accent. Not many remember knowing slaves - but many do remember their grandparents and great grandparents who were slaves. That is not the memory that hurts. The memory that brings up 'race' is the practice of segregation throughout our country - not just the south. The joy that this memory invokes is the reality that times are changing - and the most change has been made in the south. I have learned from the past - and rejoice in the present - and have hope for the future. I congratulate you on living within your income. Happy New Year!

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Racism
Davids mom][quote wrote:

Because certain textbooks 'deleted' racism from content - doesn't mean it didn't exist.

.

DM - specifically, which textbooks 'deleted' racism from their content?
Be specific now, don't make stuff up like you usually do.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Time/Constitution/habits - RW

I'm almost sure you may not drink - but would prohibition of the sale of liquor change your personal habits? I was surprised at how many people here in Fayette County serve wine in their homes on Sunday - I won't even mention beer. How is this a 'liberal' issue? Most of the residents here in Fayette County claim to be 'conservative'. Just asking. Do all of our 'service' programs to assist our neighbor fall into the category of unwed mothers (a Palin)?

What is your secret? 1998 your last tax-paying year?

Don't know about Adams or Madison, but some of the heirs of Jefferson are still with us in the U.S. - and doing well. (Their great-great-great,etc grandmother was a slave) {As far as I know, they all pay their taxes and contribute to the welfare of our country} What part of the Constitution were these American leaders (founders) adhering to? Our Constitution and its words of wisdom have survived some ugly days.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Prohibition/Taxes/Founders - Moms

Prohibition is Exhibit A for government meddling in our lives and causing things that were not forseen. Not only did people ignore the do-gooders and the law and continue to drink, but they began by making moonshine and bathtub gin (poorly) which resulted in many deaths. Then the speakeasys and organized crime came along and things got so bad even the fools in Washington knew they would have to repeal that very bad law. I think the War on Drugs is exactly the same thing except no one has the courage to propose ending it.

1998 was my last tax-paying year because that's the last year I worked. Tax-free munis provide me with all I need since then - and my needs are very modest. More people need to learn to live like me.

I guess the Jefferson comment is how you drag race into everything - even this, but my point is the founders didn't even consider welfare programs. LBJ started that stuff - or at least expanded it to the point that it marginalized black males and destroyed black families and created a whole under-class that is now 3 or 4 generations bred-in to living on the dole. Saul Alinsky would approve. Madison and the others would not.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
RW_Morgan, Season’s Greetings

RW_Morgan, Season’s Greetings

Quote:

Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

Nothing like the good old days, eh?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - missed

two of your posts. I could see them on the front page but could not link to them or see them in the string.

If you would like to repost them I will respond.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, tomorrow I'll try to

PTC_0, tomorrow I'll try to find were we left off on the two yarns we were spinning and pick it up again. By chance, do you remember what the topic on the tread was?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - it

had something to do with our wonderful representative Congressman Westmorland I believe.

Chao

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, the second thread was

PTC_0, the second thread was about my personal ideas about how the health care issue should have been reformed. The problem is I couldn’t get back to our last post to see where we left off. If you’re willing, I’ll start again by defining the problem. The way I see it anyway. 8-)

As a percentage of GDP, the US spends too much money on healthcare compared to all other industrialized country. For every $100 of GDP the US spends about $15 on healthcare. All other industrial countries spend about $10.

This leaves the US at a competitive disadvantage with other industrialized countries. Do you understand what I mean by a “competitive disadvantage”?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - are?

Are we competing with the rest of the world for healthcare?

A compeititive disadvantage is when you are competing with another enity and that enity has a better techincal solution or a lower cost. Therefore that enity has a competitive advantage over others. In a free market consumers are free to choose between good HC providers and with their dollars vote on which service provides the best solution. In a centralized command and control system the government decides how resources are allocated.

However, with regard to our HC system in the US, I don't believe we are competing with other countries. Or did I miss your point?

What do you think causes our HC system to be so expensive compared to other countries?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, lets park this thread

PTC_0, lets park this thread until we finish our other one, okay?

Quote:

To be continued!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - OK

by me.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I couldn't get back to

PTC_0, I couldn't get back to them either. So, I guess we’ll have to wing it.

On one thread, the last thing you asked me was “What would make me change my mind about the passage of the Obama health care bill.”

I answered something like, "When someone had something better."

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - OK

What if you and everyone with modest means could get HC through the private market?

Those that couldn't would be taken care of through charity.

How about something like that, could you agree to it?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, Thanks for looking out

PTC_0, Thanks for looking out for me but I have insurance through my job and my own doctor. 8 - )

I'm open to suggestions and willing to consider your idea of charity but it leaves me with lots of questions.

What is the name of this charity you are talking about? Where does it get its money from? Do they have enough cash on hand to start services? Can it generate enough cash to pay their overhead, administrative expenses and still satisfy demand to pay for medical services? Will it deliver medical services directly, pay for services directly to private providers, or both? How will it be coordinated to insure that all geographical sectors of the country are provided for?

Running a non-profit charity on the scale you are talking about would be a tremendous enterprise.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - I mean

charity in general.

I'll pose the question again.

What if most people could get good healthcare through private and free enterprise, and those that couldn't would get their HC provided by charities?

Would a solution like this be acceptable to you?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, okay, it would be

PTC_0, okay, it would be acceptable to me, "if" charities could provide the services.

Unfortunately, I know of no charity on earth with the resources to provide that type service on such a large scale. If they could, why aren't they doing it already?

Your not trying to sell me "blue sky" now are you? 8-)

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - nope

Nope, no blue sky.

I don't know how old you are, but the system I am describing is the same as we had in the 1960's. This was prior to the "Great Society" programs of LBJ. We even had doctors visit our homes; it was called "house calls". ;-)

Medicare was a disaster in the early years and it's an even bigger mess now. It was paid on a cost plus basis. So there was no need to hold costs down, if it cost more that was OK because you just added your profit on top and the government would pay.

It wasn't until the late 1970's that government even attempted to get control of the situation. It brought in a payment system that was first attempted in New Jersey call DRG's. (Diagnostic Related Groups). These were diagnostic classifications to set a maximum limit on specific groups of services. It didn't work and costs kept climbing.

Needless to say, when a government tries to regulate something as complex as the healthcare system all sorts of economic problems arise. But who wins? Does the consumer of HC win? Nope. Do the big HC companies win? Yep. Do insurance companies win? yep. How about drug companies, yes they win too. How about the taxpayers do they get what they pay for? Nope.

So, what's the answer? Well I would suggest that we let all these companies compete for our money, if they want to provide a better service, then they get rewarded, if they don't they go out of business. Will the poor get "great" healthcare, no, but do they get it now? The fact is we throw more money away trying to make things equal and we end up with the poor paying the most in terms of poor healthcare. It's the poor that always get the shaft but government is not the answer. It is freedom to choose.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I'm starting to see a

PTC_0, I'm starting to see a little mission creep happening here. Let’s slow down and catch our breath.

In this thread, I thought we were talking about providing healthcare for people with "no insurance" using charity. Are you now saying you want to include all the people that already have insurance through Medicare as well?

Second, I have no problem letting insurance companies "compete for our money." But it’s not clear to me who provides the charity you talk about. Are you saying that private healthcare related businesses have to provide the charity or they will not be allowed to operate?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Mission

Yes there is a mission here and that is to provide you with some ideas so we can discuss them.

As an individual consumer in a free market you can decide what insurance you want, insurance companies would compete for your dollars by providing better and better services. They would have an incentitive to lower costs but if they tried to do this at the expense of service they would lose your business. So, they might run their own hosptials and hire their own doctors to provide for your healthcare in order to control their costs.

My point is that when government becomes involved in anything they distrupt the market. This is what happened back in 1967 with Medicare. Capital flows through government and it is allocated back to the market based on government priority, but not based on what would happen if there was a free flow of capital without government. This money that the government has, is taken from us and allocated. This is opposed to us deciding how we would want our money to be used for healthcare for our families, the government is doing it for us. This is not an effective use of capital.

As far as charity is concerned it too is forced out of "business" by government capital. Since government takes on the role of providing services to the disadvantaged, charities can't compete, nor do they want to. It is true that the disadvantaged would likely not get as good healthcare as those that buy insurance, but then that is why we work, isn't it? To provide ourselves and our families with something better. However, charities providing healthcare to the disadvantaged goes back 100's of years. In fact they had their own hospitals, nurses, and doctors. All in all it worked pretty well and it still has a place in today's healthcare system but not to the extent that it should. You can find charity hospitals throughout the country and they work quite well.

Why do you think Medicare is broken? Do you think that it is because we don't pay enough into the system? Or could it be that government cannot work as well as a market driven system. Why do our costs keep going up? Is it because government has an incentive to hold costs down? Do you think it works as good as the market that is competitive? Do I think we should end Medicare today? No. But I do think that it ultimately will collapse along with Obama care, you simply can't raise the capital necessary to keep it all going. This is especially true if the government has no incentive to reduce costs....there are other factors here that I won't go into.

Gort, let's talk.

Recent Comments