Dennis Prager on American Exceptionalism
June 13th, 2010 | by Frank Turek
With wit, passion and clarity, radio talk show host Dennis Prager unearths one of the root problems in America today– the failure of our schools and parents to teach why America is exceptional. American exceptionalism is not elitism but the admission that certain moral values are better than others.
Note: those who say that certain moral values are not better than others are making a value judgment, thus defeating their own case. In other words, saying that we should prefer “multiculturalism” (whatever that means) to the moral values legislated in our Constitution (yes, all laws legislate morality), is itself a value judgment. On what moral grounds does one make the case that multiculturalism is better than the Bill of Rights?
June 14th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Prager is pretty sharp but he’s wrong on one thing - modern liberals do hate America and they do hate their own children.
Prager, an Old Testament “expert”, should at least recognize/acknowledge the reality of their hate for their own children.
June 14th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Prager is pretty sharp but he’s wrong on one thing - modern liberals do hate America and they do hate their own children.
Hate Propaganda — part of a complete Ubercon Breakfast(TM)!
June 15th, 2010 at 1:01 am
Yes. Yes, I hate my child and my country. My goodness, how did you ever find me and my brethren out?
June 15th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Very interesting comments to say the least. I would agree with him that the upcoming election is very important. However, my concern might run past his in one respect. I have long ago given up on the Democratic party but have also in recent years been increasingly disappointed in the Republican party as well.
I view the Democratic party as the party of bankrupt ideas and the Republican party as the party of hypocrits. The Democrats simply have an view of America that changes this country into something I do not like or want. The Republicans say they want an America that at least resembles the America I like and want, but when they get in a position to do something, they instead do nothing and wind up allowing the march toward what I do not like or want. We need a complete and total overhaul of the political parties and our federal government.
His comments about teaching the next generation were also interesting to me as well. I would like to hear him articulate what those values are and why he views them as such.
June 15th, 2010 at 8:23 am
“The Democrats simply have an view of America that changes this country into something I do not like or want.”
I think this is common to most people’s view of other political parties, regardless of their affiliation or nationality. Certainly many on the left will believe the GOP want to change America into something they don’t want, and indeed would point to many ways Bush started the process.
It’s easy to compare America to North Korea, Russia, or China, and say that USA enjoys much greater freedoms. And of course it’s a lot better off than the third world. But it’s not just USA vs those countries. Western Europe and the other English-language nations (Aus/NZ/Britain/Canada) are just as free as the US by most methods of comparison, and enjoys just as good health. I’d be interested in hearing the details of the US’s superiority over those countries.
That said, I believe every nation would benefit from hearing about the founding of America and the story of how the Founding Fathers put together that extraordinary document. Even as a Brit, I was very excited on my visits to America to see the original documents in museums. But reverence for what they did is not restricted to any political party, and neither is the crime of forgetting their original intentions.
June 15th, 2010 at 9:25 am
I think a large problem in this country is the overpowering influence of money on our government officials. Even if they seem to be doing it for their constituents. Like arguing on behalf of a company in their state that makes parts to a fighter jet that the department of defense doesn’t even want. One side seems to forget that the government is of the people, for the people, and by the people (tea baggers that say they want to get rid of the IRS and Department of Education), basically a reflection of the people. The other side can’t seem to figure out how to tell people they don’t need to carry guns in churches or national parks or that we’re going to go cold turkey off the oil teat and come up with something better.
Businesses have the right to spend as much as they want to buy a congressman? How is that exceptional?
June 15th, 2010 at 10:33 am
For the record, I view George Bush in a very negative light. I was very disappointed with most of his decisions. He did nothing to address the problems I see as important and in fact went opposite on many of them. I am seriously considering being decidedly anti-incumbent in most future national elections. Times like these make me wish we had term limits.
June 15th, 2010 at 10:39 am
At least your presidents only get two terms. In Britain we got stuck with Thatcher and Blair for over a decade each.
And look at those African countries where it’s one vote, one man… once. And then you’re stuck with some idiot for 35 years, until he dies of old age.
June 15th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Yes, Nathan, I agree that the crime of forgetting original intent is a great one. When original intent is not followed, the people lose their power to govern themselves.
Blessings,
Frank
June 15th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Our founders are often touted as the smartest men of our government’s history. Perhaps their intelligence also recognized that their documents had a fluidity that would allow future generations to interpret it based on those generations’ ideas of freedom.
I support term limits. Two terms for senators and reps and maybe a limit of 10 to 15 years for supreme court justices.
As an off subject question: there will be a run off election in South Carolina for the repubs . . . doesn’t that seem like an incredible waste of time (and money) seeing as one of the candidates had a clear majority? Seems as useless at the electoral college.
June 15th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Whether the founders intended the constitution to be subjectively interpreted is in reality unimportant. It is quite obvious that it is being interpreted in exactly that fashion today. Beyond that, the constitution is ignored or interpreted in a watered down fashion repeatedly if the current elected officials deem such action as supporting their self interests.
I see this problem as one of many we have today. I support a strong traditional interpretation of the constitution tempered by common sense and self reliance. The current Federal government weilds too much power and influence backed by too much money at the disposals of too few. Trillions of dollars per year are spent by a few hundred people. The temptation to abuse power is overwhelming to most of them.
June 15th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Beyond that, the constitution is ignored or interpreted in a watered down fashion repeatedly if the current elected officials deem such action as supporting their self interests.
I don’t buy that. “Self-interest?” Perhaps if by “self” you mean “political groups.” I don’t think there are a whole lot of politicians who even try (much less actually get away with) deliberately distorting the constitution for their own unique personal benefit. In fact, I can’t really think of any examples of someone who has done that.
In any case, acting to advance your political group based on your interpretation of the constitution is a perfectly acceptable political move. That’s why we have the Supreme Court — to decide whose interpretation is acceptable and whose is not. I feel fine with that.
June 15th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
“I don’t buy that. “Self-interest?” Perhaps if by “self” you mean “political groups.” I don’t think there are a whole lot of politicians who even try (much less actually get away with) deliberately distorting the constitution for their own unique personal benefit. In fact, I can’t really think of any examples of someone who has done that.”
Yeah, I second this. By self-interest do you mean that they’d get something, some grant, some project, for the state they represent and thereby make themselves look good to voters . . . by looking out for them . . . which is one of the reasons they are elected.
June 15th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
I personally believe that we have a new breed of politician that is growing in numbers in Congress. We have a group that truely believes in a statist form of government. What I mean by that is they believe that the federal government holds the solution to our social and economic problems. As a result they are willing to use the federal government’s power, wealth, and influence to solve those problems by using the state to intervene in any way they can get away with.
Obama is just such a person even though I see him as a forerunner of this new breed. It is sometimes hard to distinguish this new breed because of all the money being poured into Washington, but I am beginning to see it. The health care legislation was just the beginning. It is the first major test case to see how far Congress can go passing legislation that the people neither want nor understand. If the Democrats can weather the political storm through this next election cycle and maintain control of Congress, there will be other pieces of legislation passed with the majority of Americians not approving of it.
So what I mean by self-interest is they are true believers in a statist form of government and if it requires diluting, distorting or ignoring the constitution to achieve it, they will. The Supreme Court is supposed to take care of this but it is slowly being stacked with judges who believe the constitution to be what they call a ‘living document’ whose interpretations change based on the situation. Using that kind of subjective standard, it is not hard to justify basically anything except a blantant contradiction of what is written.
I am an anti-statist. I want balanced budgets, debt reduction, federal powers limited to a strictly traditional view of the constitution, a much smaller federal government that focuses on enforcing federal laws and providing a strong defense and a federal government who focuses on domestic issue first, strenghtening our sovereignty as a nation next, and international issues last. It is no wonder I am dis-satisfied. I see no national candidate that even suggests they suppport a few of these things, let alone all of them.
June 15th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
I guess I am a little surprised that each of you guys picked out one little phrase from the post to comment on and did not comment on any of the other stuff. I probably used the wrong term to discribe my position. Perhaps I clarified it.
These are my personal opinions and I have found few who agree with much of it. But whether you agree with most of it or not I think we should all be agreeing to this: Unless we get a grip quick on government spending, the deficit, and the national debt, the rest of this stuff is not going to matter much.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:08 am
It is the first major test case to see how far Congress can go passing legislation that the people neither want nor understand.
I think this is wrong. I think most Americans don’t understand most legislation passed, not just now, but since the beginning.
In regards to statism . . . I don’t believe it. I think you have one side that wants to not pay taxes and then you have another that thinks we have a government, we pay for it, and it should work on behalf of it’s citizens.
I’m a healthcare worker and I and many coworkers think we should go single payer (i.e., medicare for all). If you hear doctors decrying this it’s not because they are afraid of “the government coming between them and their patients (all of the five minutes you see them in an office visit)” it’s because they’re afraid they’ll have to buy a Lexus rather than a Porsche.
I see you said, “providing a strong defense”. I don’t get that. Conservatives will wail on and on about government spending, but god forbid you cut military spending. It’s so sacrosanct you barely even hear it mentioned. Every few years you hear about base closings. You should look into Alan Grayson’s The War Is Making You Poor Act. It’s got HUGE tax cut potential in it which you’d think would appeal to conservs, but it’s for cutting additional funding for Iraq and Afghanistan and making the pentagon pay for them out of their existing budget. I’m for cutting government spending on the military. We pay out nearly half of the money spent on the entire planet for military every year. We could halve our military spending and still no other country in the world would come close to us. Look up “Rep Alan Grayson Introduces the War Is Making You Poor Act” on youtube.
June 16th, 2010 at 5:49 am
“I don’t get that. Conservatives will wail on and on about government spending, but god forbid you cut military spending.”
Yes, I’ve never understood why state healthcare is supposed to be socialism, but having one of the world’s largest state military organisations is not socialism. They both come down to spending tax money to protect the citizens.
Kyle, did you think that the US health system before Obama needed fixing in a different way, or not at all?
June 16th, 2010 at 7:08 am
I just read up on Prager. If the following is true, it’s odd that Prager is defending the constitution:
“Prager in early 2009 opposed Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim, of taking the oath of office in a photo-op reenactment of the actual oath, with the Islamic Quran. Prager stated that America was “imperiled” by Ellison taking the oath on the Quran in substitution of the Bible, as the Bible, “the moral basis of American civilization” in Prager’s view, had never before replaced by another religious work.
Some conservative commentators, such as Tucker Carlson were critical of this position, pointing out that the US Constitution requires no religious test. Tucker stated: “I’m no great defender of the Koran, but I’m not sure why America is imperiled by Keith Ellison’s taking the oath on it. …it’s hard for me to believe I’m defending the Koran here. But that document [the Constitution] says very clearly no religious test will ever be required for holding office and you’re implying holding up a religious test”"
So does Prager agree with the ‘no religious test for office’ rule or not? This seems to be a perfect example of “forgetting original intent” of the constitution.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:41 am
Hi Nathan,
I can’t speak for Prager, but I would guess that his opposition to taking the oath on a Qu’ran could be because the idea of lying to infidels (non-Muslims) to achieve an objective is a doctrine that has its origins in the Qur’an. There is an article on this here: http://www.answering-islam.org....._sin.html.
Moreover, submission to Islamic law (”Islam” means submission) would be a violation of the United States Constitution– the very document Congressmen are supposed to take an oath to defend. The very goal of Islam contradicts the basis of our government.
Finally, with respect to original intent, I highly doubt any of our founding fathers intended anyone to take an oath on the Qur’an. They established Christian Chaplains and even spent tax dollars evangelizing native Americans and building churches for them (we cover this in detail in our first book, “Legislating Morality” http://www.amazon.com/Legislat.....t_ep_dpi_2). It’s true that Christianity was not prescriptive in early America, but it certainly was descriptive.
Blessings,
Frank
June 16th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Toby, I am not saying the government should not work for the citizens. What I stand for is a government limited to only those actions spelled out in the constitution.
As for your strong defense comments, let me be clear. I am not a strong proponent of the current mid-East wars. I see them as a misuse of the military historically. The military exists to fight wars and although many see those efforts as a war against terrorism, war has never been officially declared and we are not fighting in those areas as though there is a war. People like to link comments like a ’strong defense’ with ’spending a huge amount of money’, but they do not have to be linked. We could do a lot more for a lot less if we really wanted to.
Nathan, to answer your health care question. Absolutely we need to fix a lot of things. What I wanted to see in the debate is for both sides to come together to do a short list of things most everyone could agree on and implement those things first to see what effect we could have on the situation. The bill should have been shorter and easier to understand. When you start messing around with a system that touches so many people, the first order of business should be to address the issues almost everyone can agree on in a short, easy to understand bill that has lilttle to no effect on government spending. It could have been done, but the statists insist the government knows better and so the Congress did what they did. If only around half the country wants the legislation to pass, and the legisaltion effects basically everyone, it is the height of stupidity (at least to me) to pass it anyway.
I note still no comments about deficits, debt, or fiscal responsibility. The bottom line is the current path is unsustainable without either reducing government or finding large amounts of income to fund the efforts. THe latter is not possible IMO.
June 16th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Nathan, I also noticed another comment in your post and it causes me to ask this question.
Do you really believe the government has the resonsibility to provide personal healthcare under the guise of protecting the citizens?
I can certainly agree that the government should provide standards and regulations to protect the food supply, medicines, and other things like that and should enforce those standards. However, personal healthcare should be each person’s own responsibility IMO.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:05 am
“I note still no comments about deficits, debt, or fiscal responsibility.”
I think the cutting military funding kind of addressed that. Healthcare would be paid for easily by cutting military spending in half. Plus we could probably rebuild every bridge in america that needs work. Close tax loopholes for large businesses and individuals. Tax outsourcing. Close all military bases around the world (do we really still need to be in Germany and Okinawa?). I somehow doubt the original intent of the founders was that we’d keep military presence all over the world. We can get just about any naval ship anywhere in the world within 24 hrs and we have these great things called transport planes that I hear are pretty fast.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:26 am
“Do you really believe the government has the resonsibility to provide personal healthcare under the guise of protecting the citizens?”
I live in Britain, where any move by the government to reduce healthcare would result in riots in the streets. In return we’ve got greater life-expectancy than our TransAtlantic cousins - i.e. you - and lower rates of infant mortality. To me, health is as basic a government responsibility as education, if not more so.
Can I assume you believe that all education from age 4 upwards should be paid for by the students or their parents/guardians? How’s about a police or firefighter force that only calls on houses that have paid a ‘police insurance’?
Isn’t a major (main?) cause of bankruptcy in your country inability to pay medical bills? How can this be good for your economy? Someone gets sick and therefore loses their job; losing their job nixes their medical insurance, meaning they can no longer pay their medical bills, thence to bankruptcy… it seems like a crazy system.
I don’t get your use of the word ‘guise’ either. Healthcare isn’t in the ‘guise’ of protecting the people, that’s what it does!
June 16th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I disagree Toby. That is not fiscally responsible. I am not talking about exchanging one government payout for another. I am talking about spending less than you make and paying back the debt. I also think the cost of the type of care you speak of would far out-strip military spending.
Nathan, thanks for your reply. I thought from a previous post you were from overseas so you bring a different perspective.
You attribute to your system a greater life-expectancy. I disagree. I think the poor personal health of Americians plays a far greater role in life-expectancy than the availability of health care. Americans have a terrible diet, exercise far too little and eat too much. I maintain this factor plays a greater role in lilfe expectancy than the type of health care you get. I can go to the doctor any time I want and get treated, there is no shortage of care.
Education and civil services have been government funded and supported a long time in this country, your examples there are not valid. The issue before us over here is government running and funding a system that has always been private. Big difference my friend.
As far as your question about bankruptcy. I do not know the statistics. But bankruptcy is for the most part a personal decision. But I am sure it is true people do this. In a nation of 300 million people I am sure there are a ‘lot’ relatively speaking. But why on earth would the solution be government run health care to solve this? There would have to be easier and more smart solutions than that.
I have no confidence the government can run health care any better than it does anything else. There is no proven track record of success to point to. It is madness to even propose such a thing IMO.
June 16th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
“Americans have a terrible diet, exercise far too little and eat too much.”
And you think this has a big effect on INFANT mortality too? I guess some, but not enough to account for the disparity
“I have no confidence the government can run health care any better than it does anything else. ”
If it ran it as well as it runs the military, would you be happy? I had believed that the US military was well-thought of as an organisation, but perhaps you can give me a more direct perspective. Sorry, I’m being disengenuous, and you’ve been most polite and honest with your responses to me, but you get my point. I trust governments more than I trust insurance companies.
“As far as your question about bankruptcy. I do not know the statistics. ”
Quick google:
“Medical Bills LEADING Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds”
“The cost of health care causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds”
June 16th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Infant mortality rates have multiple causes and those causes can be debated. I would say a poor diet and unhealthy lifestyle of the mother would certainly increase the chances of it.
And no, I would not be happy if healthcare was run like the military. Let me give you an example. If there was any group of people who should be getting the best care possible, you would think it would be veterans. The government would only be caring for a finite number of people who have served in the military. But this is not the case. Most veterans I know and have talked to despise the quality and timeliness of health care given in veteran hospitals. I do not trust the federal government to run anything efficiently or effectively. The costs are too high for the services rendered.
You may trust governments more than insurance companies but the government should be well equipped to regulate and police insurance companies, that should be part of their job.
June 16th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
So you think the American military is poorly run?
“I would say a poor diet and unhealthy lifestyle of the mother would certainly increase the chances of it.”
Fair enough.
June 16th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Define ‘poorly run’ and I can better answer your question. Do I think the military can defend this nation? Yes. But another question is at what cost? Do I think the military can defend this nation in a cost effective and efficient manner? No.
I am sure we can implement a government run system that covers everybody. But what is that going to cost and how are we going to pay for it? Nobody has answered that yet.
Before I will even consdier the federal government implementing national health care, I want a valid demonstration that the government can balance the budget and pay down the debt. If we cannot do that now, then we can certainly not do it by adding another HUGE line item to pay for.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
I personally believe that we have a new breed of politician that is growing in numbers in Congress. We have a group that truely believes in a statist form of government. What I mean by that is they believe that the federal government holds the solution to our social and economic problems. As a result they are willing to use the federal government’s power, wealth, and influence to solve those problems by using the state to intervene in any way they can get away with.
Problem for me is, *everybody* (you, ubercons, liberals, super-liberals, etc.) has been saying that for a very, very long time now. It’s become somewhat of a fad in recent years to accuse politicians of conspiracy and wrongdoing at the slightest opportunity. I’m not exactly confident in politicians (generally speaking), but I also believe in the benefit of the doubt — which is to say, I don’t really go for conspiracy theories. It was irritating when the far left did it during G.W.’s presidency, and it’s irritating when people do it now — sorry, I just don’t believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and I don’t believe that Obama is a secret communist bent on taking over the world. Maybe it makes me a jerk to say that but so be it.
So what I mean by self-interest is they are true believers in a statist form of government and if it requires diluting, distorting or ignoring the constitution to achieve it, they will.
I simply don’t buy that. For one, we have constitutional scholars and lawyers at the forefront of debates like this; the people you’re accusing of this sort of intent are NOT constitutional lawyers or scholars (except the President…oh wait). I don’t see *anyone* who is in any way affiliated with constitutional law blatantly (or even covertly) attempting to “distort” or “ignore” the constitution. I don’t even see people really truly disagreeing about what the constitution says. All I see is people disagreeing about what that means, and that is a perfectly acceptable debate.
Furthermore, what I see on the far right is the same Sore Loser policy adopted by the far left after Bush won in 2004 — the “right” president didn’t win, so people just hold every little tiny thing that he does against him, whether it makes sense to do so or not. People accused him of being a NAZI because he wanted to pass health care reform, for cryin’ out loud! I always wonder what these people would say or do if Obama actually did do any of the things they’re accusing him of doing now — it would be like the boy who cried wolf, or the Ubercon Who Cried Conspiracy. How would they distinguish between his actions now and his actions then?
The Supreme Court is supposed to take care of this but it is slowly being stacked with judges who believe the constitution to be what they call a ‘living document’ whose interpretations change based on the situation. Using that kind of subjective standard, it is not hard to justify basically anything except a blantant contradiction of what is written.
1) This is the kind of thing that I’m talking about; Presidents “stacking” the Supreme Court with judges whose judgment they respect is exactly how the process works. There’s nothing wrong with the president appointing someone to the Supreme Court because he likes the way that judge thinks; and if they have a different interpretation of the constitution, as long as it’s consistent, I say what harm is there? What good would the Supreme Court be if all of the judges thought exactly the same about every issue?
2) The constitution is a fluid document; all the proof you need is in the fact that the founding fathers allowed for amendments. As long as nothing contradicts what is in the first 10 amendments, then it’s considered “constitutional” (after that, it’s debatable — for example, the repeal of prohibition). The founding fathers allowed us to add amendments because they acknowledged the possibility that they were wrong, or that their points were biased by circumstance and tradition, just as ours may be. You seem to be afraid that somebody will one day pass an amendment that goes against the constitution; if that were the case, then there would be debate and it would eventually be repealed with enough backlash (just like what happened with slavery).
3) What bothers me the most is that any one political faction thinks that they have the “one correct interpretation” of the constitution. I can only hope that our Supreme Court never comes to reflect that mindset; if they had done so in the past, we would still have slavery in the US.
I am an anti-statist. I want balanced budgets, debt reduction, federal powers limited to a strictly traditional view of the constitution, a much smaller federal government that focuses on enforcing federal laws and providing a strong defense and a federal government who focuses on domestic issue first, strenghtening our sovereignty as a nation next, and international issues last. It is no wonder I am dis-satisfied. I see no national candidate that even suggests they suppport a few of these things, let alone all of them.
I’ve come to believe that “statists” are a group of people made up by extreme libertarians. A statist is supposedly “skeptical of individual civil rights,” for example, and supposedly believes that “Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state.” I don’t know of anyone who has expressed these beliefs; what I have seen is people who portray their political opponents as believing thusly, simply because they don’t agree with their opponent’s views.
It’s like the musical genre, “emo.” I don’t really know a lot of bands that identify themselves as “emo,” but I hear a LOT of people call just any band “emo” if they don’t like that band. It’s not so much an accurate label as it is a slur used to distort and confuse the debate and make it harder for people who are honestly seeking information about either party.
Unless we get a grip quick on government spending, the deficit, and the national debt, the rest of this stuff is not going to matter much.
Well for one, I don’t see what all the hoo-ah about Obama’s “big spending” is about. For one, there’s a plan to pay for every red cent of his health care reform bill, and it will not draw up the national debt — people just seem bitter that they have to start paying FIRST and see benefits LATER. Which seems odd to me; where do they think the money’s going to come from? They get mad if he cuts from any existing programs, but they get mad if he starts setting aside money for it in the future instead? I mean, I thought we all agreed that we needed SOME kind of health reform; but it seems that people are simply mad that Obama (or a democrat) might get credit for it. They seem to arbitrarily oppose anything he comes up with.
Conservatives will wail on and on about government spending, but god forbid you cut military spending.
I think it’s part of the image of masculinity in the more exreme Conservative subcultures; in those circles, the most “manly” (and therefore respectable) thing you can do is to join the military. That in itself is not such a bad thing (I, too, have plenty of respect for people who are willing to fight to protect democracy), but the problem is that people can become so OBSESSED with it — to the point that to even criticize something that a soldier (or the military in general) has done is put on par with “hating the military.” And if you suggest cutting funding for military purposes, then that’s put on par with “you hate the military and are therefore against all the values that being in the military represents to us.” It’s almost like it’s made into a personal issue.
I can’t speak for Prager, but I would guess that his opposition to taking the oath on a Qu’ran could be because the idea of lying to infidels (non-Muslims) to achieve an objective is a doctrine that has its origins in the Qur’an. There is an article on this here: http://www.answering-islam.org….._sin.html.
In itself, that’s an interesting point about the Quran and lying. However, I don’t think it’s really legitimate grounds for concern here because, from a legal standpoint, the Bible is just a figurehead — the oath is supported by law, so even if a non-Christian were to take the oath (or use a Quran instead of a Bible), they are still bound by the law behind it. My (very Christian) law and society teacher in high school actually first explained it to me by saying (to paraphrase), “the idea was originally that you would swear an oath to god and therefore put your own soul in peril if you lied, so most people wouldn’t lie for fear of their own soul. But once people (read: the government) found out that there’s nothing about that belief that inherently requires someone to tell the truth — they may lie anyway, or they may be inconsistent in their beliefs or whatever — and therefore there’s no way to guarantee that they are, in fact, telling the truth, they decided, “maybe we’ll put a law there, just in case.”
The moral of the story being: if the Bible were the main reason they took the oath, then what would be the point of making it illegal to lie? You *could* just require them to take the oath on the Bible, and make it legal to lie under oath. If you had that much faith in the Bible, I mean.
Toby, I am not saying the government should not work for the citizens. What I stand for is a government limited to only those actions spelled out in the constitution.
Yes, and that is a perfectly legitimate point of view. What I want to make clear is that the other perspective (which I do not really share, but I’m speaking on principle here) — that the government should, in certain times when a decent case can be made thusly, be able to act in ways that are not expressly forbidden by the constitution — is also, in the eyes of our founding fathers, a perfectly legitimate point of view. The founding fathers didn’t want one group of people to completely control the philosophy of the public debate; they wanted EVERYONE to contribute, the majority to rule, and the government to mediate. I see dishonesty and malice in this method of characterizing “the other side” as lacking moral foundation, or of being concerned only with control and power. I think that’s a dishonest way to portray people just for disagreeing with you.
The bill should have been shorter and easier to understand.
Ideally, yes, a simple solution is desirable. But a simple solution is not always complex enough to tackle complex issues. I’m not saying you’re wrong, here, but I am saying that simplicity is not *necessarily* the absolute best answer all the time. You have to make sure all the bases are covered as well, so to speak.
I note still no comments about deficits, debt, or fiscal responsibility. The bottom line is the current path is unsustainable without either reducing government or finding large amounts of income to fund the efforts. THe latter is not possible IMO.
I dare say it’s in fact quite sustainable; if G.W. Bush could get away with spending as much on Iraq from 2003 to 2008 as he did, and we didn’t go bankrupt from that (something like 2 billion every month or two, I read somewhere at one point), then I hardly see how this reform will do the same, much less any worse. The biggest problem about this bill is that the money doesn’t exist YET, so nothing can really be done until several years later, so the only way to really pay for it is to start setting aside money NOW in order to pay for it by the time it kicks in. It’s more like layaway than a loan because, in a way, we’re not actually SPENDING any money on it yet. The program isn’t really active yet. Rather, it’s the opposite — we’re SAVING money for use in the future. From a fiscal perspective it seems like spending because the money isn’t there to use right now (because it’s in the pool that the program will draw from once it’s active), but it’s not actually going anywhere yet.
Do you really believe the government has the resonsibility to provide personal healthcare under the guise of protecting the citizens?
I know you asked Nathan, but FYI: I believe that the government has a primary responsibility to, above all else, protect the lives of its citizens, whether against violent dissent or against disease and injury. We protect people from crimes, from fires, from national disasters and from “acts of god” all on the government’s dime, so why do we not protect people from disease and injury? Why all of those and not the other?
I can go to the doctor any time I want and get treated, there is no shortage of care.
Well I’m happy for you, but unfortunately, *I* make about 400$ a week, my rent alone is $300 a month (plus utilities), and I just had to pay about 450$ to get my back taken care of (which I messed up while I was at work) — 60$ for the initial doctor visit; $30 for the pain meds to hold me over until I could see the specialist that my local physician referred me to, 250$ to see the specialist, 70$ for the follow-up visit, and another $30 for the meds he prescribed me. All this in about two weeks, mind you. Because you see, I can’t afford $80-90 a month for health insurance provided locally.
So yes, I’m glad that you are financially independent enough to be able to afford to “go to the doctor any time you want and get treated,” but it seems to me that you take this for granted. We are not all that lucky or well-off.
I have no confidence the government can run health care any better than it does anything else. There is no proven track record of success to point to. It is madness to even propose such a thing IMO.
Unfortunately for you, the majority disagrees with you.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Crap, I accidentally quoted Mr. Turek’s link in my last post, thus it’s trapped in Moderation Purgatory. Here it is without the link:
I personally believe that we have a new breed of politician that is growing in numbers in Congress. We have a group that truely believes in a statist form of government. What I mean by that is they believe that the federal government holds the solution to our social and economic problems. As a result they are willing to use the federal government’s power, wealth, and influence to solve those problems by using the state to intervene in any way they can get away with.
Problem for me is, *everybody* (you, ubercons, liberals, super-liberals, etc.) has been saying that for a very, very long time now. It’s become somewhat of a fad in recent years to accuse politicians of conspiracy and wrongdoing at the slightest opportunity. I’m not exactly confident in politicians (generally speaking), but I also believe in the benefit of the doubt — which is to say, I don’t really go for conspiracy theories. It was irritating when the far left did it during G.W.’s presidency, and it’s irritating when people do it now — sorry, I just don’t believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and I don’t believe that Obama is a secret communist bent on taking over the world. Maybe it makes me a jerk to say that but so be it.
So what I mean by self-interest is they are true believers in a statist form of government and if it requires diluting, distorting or ignoring the constitution to achieve it, they will.
I simply don’t buy that. For one, we have constitutional scholars and lawyers at the forefront of debates like this; the people you’re accusing of this sort of intent are NOT constitutional lawyers or scholars (except the President…oh wait). I don’t see *anyone* who is in any way affiliated with constitutional law blatantly (or even covertly) attempting to “distort” or “ignore” the constitution. I don’t even see people really truly disagreeing about what the constitution says. All I see is people disagreeing about what that means, and that is a perfectly acceptable debate.
Furthermore, what I see on the far right is the same Sore Loser policy adopted by the far left after Bush won in 2004 — the “right” president didn’t win, so people just hold every little tiny thing that he does against him, whether it makes sense to do so or not. People accused him of being a NAZI because he wanted to pass health care reform, for cryin’ out loud! I always wonder what these people would say or do if Obama actually did do any of the things they’re accusing him of doing now — it would be like the boy who cried wolf, or the Ubercon Who Cried Conspiracy. How would they distinguish between his actions now and his actions then?
The Supreme Court is supposed to take care of this but it is slowly being stacked with judges who believe the constitution to be what they call a ‘living document’ whose interpretations change based on the situation. Using that kind of subjective standard, it is not hard to justify basically anything except a blantant contradiction of what is written.
1) This is the kind of thing that I’m talking about; Presidents “stacking” the Supreme Court with judges whose judgment they respect is exactly how the process works. There’s nothing wrong with the president appointing someone to the Supreme Court because he likes the way that judge thinks; and if they have a different interpretation of the constitution, as long as it’s consistent, I say what harm is there? What good would the Supreme Court be if all of the judges thought exactly the same about every issue?
2) The constitution is a fluid document; all the proof you need is in the fact that the founding fathers allowed for amendments. As long as nothing contradicts what is in the first 10 amendments, then it’s considered “constitutional” (after that, it’s debatable — for example, the repeal of prohibition). The founding fathers allowed us to add amendments because they acknowledged the possibility that they were wrong, or that their points were biased by circumstance and tradition, just as ours may be. You seem to be afraid that somebody will one day pass an amendment that goes against the constitution; if that were the case, then there would be debate and it would eventually be repealed with enough backlash (just like what happened with slavery).
3) What bothers me the most is that any one political faction thinks that they have the “one correct interpretation” of the constitution. I can only hope that our Supreme Court never comes to reflect that mindset; if they had done so in the past, we would still have slavery in the US.
I am an anti-statist. I want balanced budgets, debt reduction, federal powers limited to a strictly traditional view of the constitution, a much smaller federal government that focuses on enforcing federal laws and providing a strong defense and a federal government who focuses on domestic issue first, strenghtening our sovereignty as a nation next, and international issues last. It is no wonder I am dis-satisfied. I see no national candidate that even suggests they suppport a few of these things, let alone all of them.
I’ve come to believe that “statists” are a group of people made up by extreme libertarians. A statist is supposedly “skeptical of individual civil rights,” for example, and supposedly believes that “Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state.” I don’t know of anyone who has expressed these beliefs; what I have seen is people who portray their political opponents as believing thusly, simply because they don’t agree with their opponent’s views.
It’s like the musical genre, “emo.” I don’t really know a lot of bands that identify themselves as “emo,” but I hear a LOT of people call just any band “emo” if they don’t like that band. It’s not so much an accurate label as it is a slur used to distort and confuse the debate and make it harder for people who are honestly seeking information about either party.
Unless we get a grip quick on government spending, the deficit, and the national debt, the rest of this stuff is not going to matter much.
Well for one, I don’t see what all the hoo-ah about Obama’s “big spending” is about. For one, there’s a plan to pay for every red cent of his health care reform bill, and it will not draw up the national debt — people just seem bitter that they have to start paying FIRST and see benefits LATER. Which seems odd to me; where do they think the money’s going to come from? They get mad if he cuts from any existing programs, but they get mad if he starts setting aside money for it in the future instead? I mean, I thought we all agreed that we needed SOME kind of health reform; but it seems that people are simply mad that Obama (or a democrat) might get credit for it. They seem to arbitrarily oppose anything he comes up with.
Conservatives will wail on and on about government spending, but god forbid you cut military spending.
I think it’s part of the image of masculinity in the more exreme Conservative subcultures; in those circles, the most “manly” (and therefore respectable) thing you can do is to join the military. That in itself is not such a bad thing (I, too, have plenty of respect for people who are willing to fight to protect democracy), but the problem is that people can become so OBSESSED with it — to the point that to even criticize something that a soldier (or the military in general) has done is put on par with “hating the military.” And if you suggest cutting funding for military purposes, then that’s put on par with “you hate the military and are therefore against all the values that being in the military represents to us.” It’s almost like it’s made into a personal issue.
I can’t speak for Prager, but I would guess that his opposition to taking the oath on a Qu’ran could be because the idea of lying to infidels (non-Muslims) to achieve an objective is a doctrine that has its origins in the Qur’an. There is an article on this here:
In itself, that’s an interesting point about the Quran and lying. However, I don’t think it’s really legitimate grounds for concern here because, from a legal standpoint, the Bible is just a figurehead — the oath is supported by law, so even if a non-Christian were to take the oath (or use a Quran instead of a Bible), they are still bound by the law behind it. My (very Christian) law and society teacher in high school actually first explained it to me by saying (to paraphrase), “the idea was originally that you would swear an oath to god and therefore put your own soul in peril if you lied, so most people wouldn’t lie for fear of their own soul. But once people (read: the government) found out that there’s nothing about that belief that inherently requires someone to tell the truth — they may lie anyway, or they may be inconsistent in their beliefs or whatever — and therefore there’s no way to guarantee that they are, in fact, telling the truth, they decided, “maybe we’ll put a law there, just in case.”
The moral of the story being: if the Bible were the main reason they took the oath, then what would be the point of making it illegal to lie? You *could* just require them to take the oath on the Bible, and make it legal to lie under oath. If you had that much faith in the Bible, I mean.
Toby, I am not saying the government should not work for the citizens. What I stand for is a government limited to only those actions spelled out in the constitution.
Yes, and that is a perfectly legitimate point of view. What I want to make clear is that the other perspective (which I do not really share, but I’m speaking on principle here) — that the government should, in certain times when a decent case can be made thusly, be able to act in ways that are not expressly forbidden by the constitution — is also, in the eyes of our founding fathers, a perfectly legitimate point of view. The founding fathers didn’t want one group of people to completely control the philosophy of the public debate; they wanted EVERYONE to contribute, the majority to rule, and the government to mediate. I see dishonesty and malice in this method of characterizing “the other side” as lacking moral foundation, or of being concerned only with control and power. I think that’s a dishonest way to portray people just for disagreeing with you.
The bill should have been shorter and easier to understand.
Ideally, yes, a simple solution is desirable. But a simple solution is not always complex enough to tackle complex issues. I’m not saying you’re wrong, here, but I am saying that simplicity is not *necessarily* the absolute best answer all the time. You have to make sure all the bases are covered as well, so to speak.
I note still no comments about deficits, debt, or fiscal responsibility. The bottom line is the current path is unsustainable without either reducing government or finding large amounts of income to fund the efforts. THe latter is not possible IMO.
I dare say it’s in fact quite sustainable; if G.W. Bush could get away with spending as much on Iraq from 2003 to 2008 as he did, and we didn’t go bankrupt from that (something like 2 billion every month or two, I read somewhere at one point), then I hardly see how this reform will do the same, much less any worse. The biggest problem about this bill is that the money doesn’t exist YET, so nothing can really be done until several years later, so the only way to really pay for it is to start setting aside money NOW in order to pay for it by the time it kicks in. It’s more like layaway than a loan because, in a way, we’re not actually SPENDING any money on it yet. The program isn’t really active yet. Rather, it’s the opposite — we’re SAVING money for use in the future. From a fiscal perspective it seems like spending because the money isn’t there to use right now (because it’s in the pool that the program will draw from once it’s active), but it’s not actually going anywhere yet.
Do you really believe the government has the resonsibility to provide personal healthcare under the guise of protecting the citizens?
I know you asked Nathan, but FYI: I believe that the government has a primary responsibility to, above all else, protect the lives of its citizens, whether against violent dissent or against disease and injury. We protect people from crimes, from fires, from national disasters and from “acts of god” all on the government’s dime, so why do we not protect people from disease and injury? Why all of those and not the other?
I can go to the doctor any time I want and get treated, there is no shortage of care.
Well I’m happy for you, but unfortunately, *I* make about 400$ a week, my rent alone is $300 a month (plus utilities), and I just had to pay about 450$ to get my back taken care of (which I messed up while I was at work) — 60$ for the initial doctor visit; $30 for the pain meds to hold me over until I could see the specialist that my local physician referred me to, 250$ to see the specialist, 70$ for the follow-up visit, and another $30 for the meds he prescribed me. All this in about two weeks, mind you. Because you see, I can’t afford $80-90 a month for health insurance provided locally.
So yes, I’m glad that you are financially independent enough to be able to afford to “go to the doctor any time you want and get treated,” but it seems to me that you take this for granted. We are not all that lucky or well-off.
I have no confidence the government can run health care any better than it does anything else. There is no proven track record of success to point to. It is madness to even propose such a thing IMO.
Unfortunately for you, the majority disagrees with you.
June 16th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Most veterans I know and have talked to despise the quality and timeliness of health care given in veteran hospitals.
My first job out of college was in a VA hospital and I can tell you that it was a good system. We had every bit of the best modern equipment you would find at private facilities (which there were three huge hospitals in the immediate area, a university hospital, a children’s hospital and a county hospital). I can guarantee that, at least in my area, we worked as fast and hard as any of the others (because I worked through all of them in school). We weren’t plagued by any kind of inefficiency that I could see. We didn’t have any sort of extra paperwork that a private hospital wouldn’t have. We even got loads of work from multiple outpatient VA clinics. We were well staffed and the facility was modern and clean . . . except for the smell of old men (cigarettes, pee, farts, and spent alcohol). If people were complaining about waiting times it’s because the place was so busy because everyone wanted there due free/cheap healthcare. It’s easy to complain about something when it’s free/cheap.
I have a friend that was in the navy and he loves that he doesn’t have to carry health insurance at work. Saves him loads of money.
I always wonder what these people would say or do if Obama actually did do any of the things they’re accusing him of doing now — it would be like the boy who cried wolf, or the Ubercon Who Cried Conspiracy. How would they distinguish between his actions now and his actions then?
I think it’d be a lot of smug faces and excitedly proclaiming, “SEE! I TOLD YOU SO!”
June 17th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Man you guys seem to like writing very long replies. But just to clarify. I am not talking about conspiracies. I am simply talking about people who truely believe the way they do. I do not doubt the sincerity of Obama. I think he really believes the way he wants to do things is the correct way to do it. I respect the guy for that. I just happen to strongly disagree with him about it. So please quite trying to portray my comments in the light you are, that is just plain wrong.
Also, the comments about fiscal issues and the budget seem to indicate that you guys think I am railing against Obama. Not so. This mess we are in began many administrations ago and is a pattern of overspending. What I am talking about is a fundamental change in the way the federal government handles and spends money.
Maybe we cannot agree about my constitution comments. Fine by me. But why do you guys continue to gloss over the growing federal debt and the continued deficit spending? Do you really think it is OK to continue doing this?
June 17th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Kyle, I’ve enjoyed the discussion with you, and have found your opinions enlightening. I’m not trying to catch you out. I think perhaps Healthcare is an issue that comes down to fundamental differences of opinion on the role of the government, and I don’t see either position as being obviously wrong in a ‘gotcha’ sense.
However, Insurance is just another hugely expensive layer of bureaucracy to add to the health system. Worse, those involved in it have making money as their main concern rather than saving lives. I hear so many stories of people who have done what you think they should and paid for their insurance, only to have care denied on a pretext by bean-counting loss-adjusters, just when it is needed most. Or who lose their insurance after losing their job due to illness! This just doesn’t happen under the NHS (for all it’s many faults).
As for the federal debt etc, I remember telling an American acquaintance about the US’s looming crisis back in 2005 (during a most enjoyable visit to the Grand Canyon as it happens), and him being surprised when I told him the full extent of his own countries’ debt problems. So I’m certainly not in denial about it. Frankly, my own country’s debt issues look are even greater right now, so it’s hardly something I can bury my head in the sand about. Though even the new Conservative government has had to reassure the public that whatever gets cut, frontline health services are ringfenced.
June 17th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Nathan and Kyle,
From Prager to Healtcare, who knew there was a connection?
Anyway, I wonder what you both think about the idea of connecting the patient with the provider. It seems to me that’s the best way of improving health care and reducing costs. For routine physicals and doctor visits, individuals who are paying themselves have the most incentive to shop for the best value. Obviously, emergency care is different, but much of the problem could be alleviated by putting the people closest to their own problem in charge. This entitlement idea that someone else must pay for the most routine care kills incentive, reduces quality, invites fraud, and raises costs. Your thoughts?
Blessings,
Frank
June 17th, 2010 at 9:04 am
“This entitlement idea that someone else must pay for the most routine care kills incentive, reduces quality, invites fraud, and raises costs.”
I’ll have to think about it.
When my daughter has a medical problem, so far only minor problems, I book with our local GP, and take her along. He then prescribes something, or refers us on to somewhere else local that deals with the problem. This is all free on the NHS, and it strikes me as quality care.
I don’t see what this has to do with incentive or fraud, and I’m fairly sure that the cost to the state is low too (I’m pretty sure that the NHS accounts for less of my tax than Americans pay for healthcare out your YOUR tax, even before you’ve started paying for your insurance). And not surprisingly, as the whole insurance layer is removed from the cost structure.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Frank, I think this issue you brought up would have to be seriously considered along with a host of others if we really want to fix the system and bring costs down.
I would share from my own experience. Last year the company I work for was bought out and the new company offered a type of health insurance I had never seen before. I have family coverage and the company gives me 2,000 every year as a fund to use for medical expenses. In addition, I contribute to an FSA on a per paycheck basis. If I can finish the year with money left over, it rolls over to the next year and accumulates. This factor alone has completely changed the way I look at medical care. I find every way I can to keep from spending the money so it will grow. This company is self insured and only uses an administrative entity to process the claims. I think this type of thing is a smart way of encouraging frugle-ness and serves as a small example of one thing to consider.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Nathan, I too have enjoyed the dialouge. I agree that insurance companies can be a problem but as my personal example shows, other solutions are possible in the private sector.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Kyle and Nathan,
Yes, Medical Savings Accounts seem to create the right incentives to keep costs down and everyone honest.
What is so often forgotten in the health care debate is that socialist systems like the UK’s and Canada’s live off the innovations provided by the free market system. Without the incentives inherent in the free market system, many of the medical advances we enjoy today that are used by socialist systems would never have been invented. Moreover, few who have serious illnesses go to the UK or Canada to get treated– they come here.
Unless I’m missing something (a distinct possibility), I don’t think health care is a right. Like food, health care is a good. Rights are something that an individual inherently possesses by virtue of being a human being that no other individual should take away (e.g. life, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.).
A good is something that someone else must provide to an individual (like health care). Every good requires an imposition on someone else, and thus that person should be compensated for it. Now, one can make the case that as a society we will attempt to provide that good to everyone. But let’s not muddy our thinking by confusing it with a right. People have rights, but they receive and must pay for goods.
Blessings,
Frank
June 17th, 2010 at 11:10 am
“I don’t think health care is a right.”
One could say the same about education. But the state in general benefits from having citizens that are well-educated and healthy. This is nothing to do with socialism. Your education system is ’socialist’ in that sense, as is your police system, your libraries etc. They are all paid for by taxes - it’s not like I’m demanding or getting something for nothing.
“Without the incentives inherent in the free market system, many of the medical advances we enjoy today that are used by socialist systems would never have been invented.”
Do you have a cite for this?
As a side point, do you think that the US will refuse to take advantage of medical advances that originated from countries such as the UK as a result of their more liberal attitude to stem cell research?
June 17th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Nathan,
A citation? Yes, this article, written by a native of the Netherlands, points out that medical innovation is much greater in the states than in Europe. The article is called, “Science Pioneer Cautions Europe on Declining Medical Innovation” http://www.medicalprogresstoda.....p?id=1696.
With regard to embryonic stem cell advances, if there were any the private sector would be making them with a profit motive. There have been scores of advances using adult stem cell research, but none for embryonic. An unintended consequence of the government doing all the research is that it prevents more advances that could be made by a free market.
The problem we have with secondary education in the U.S. is precisely because it is a socialized monopoly. Our undergraduate education system is much better because it is free market. Choice and competition always improves quality. That’s basic economics based on an accurate understanding of human nature.
Blessings,
Frank
June 17th, 2010 at 11:35 am
I will allow that it makes sense to me that a competition-based system, that also charges people more, would almost certainly be more likely to come with innovations. That said, isn’t it more universities rather than hospitals that are coming up with the new techniques and innovations? Then it would just come down to which are the best-funded? Is there any reason why a well-funded Canadian university is less-likely to come up with something new than an American one? I’ll admit ignorance on this issue, and am willing to concede this point (I’m a big supporter of competition as innovator - it works in biology after all!).
I would add, by the way, that the NHS recognises the benefits of competition, and is organised in such a way to encourage and take advantage of it. I’m fairly sure this is not uncommon in other European nations too.
As for which countries people go to to get treated, again I don’t know, but I would like to see figures before I accept automatically that it’s America.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:38 am
So why tax for anything? Why not set up everything along free-market principles? I’m sorry, but this sounds exactly like ’social Darwinism’. As asked before, do you think the military is an exception to this?
June 17th, 2010 at 11:46 am
If school education became organised in the same way as universities - all parents pay for the children’s education - wouldn’t you get a large number of idiots saying they can’t afford it, or that training the kids in the family business is more important? Perhaps some parents genuinely COULDN’T afford it.
So there’d be more money for the lucky kids whose parents value education, but it would also damn a generation of kids to ignorance, and would have a profound negative impact on the country as a whole a few years down the line.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Nathan,
Of course the military is an exception. You can’t have competing militaries protecting a landmass any more than you can have competing governments (although some will note a healthy competition between the services). The central purpose of government is to protect innocent people from evil forces inside the country (that’s what police do) and outside the country (that’s what the military does). So taxation for those protections is necessary and good. Government can do a good job providing this service, but it usually does a poor job of providing goods.
I’m not saying that education should be optional; I’m saying that education should be competitive via school choice. If we applied the same concept of school choice to the secondary education system that we apply to the college system, we would improve it immensely. Let each parent take the tax money that would be spent on their kids in the public system and let them keep it there, or take it to another school of their choice. Don’t you agree that parents should have that choice?
Did you read the article on medical innovation?
Blessings,
Frank
June 17th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
“Did you read the article on medical innovation?”
No, I take it as read as being true, and concede that point to you! As I said before, I’m a believer in competition to get results. However, I will read it when I’m not at work.
Are you sure the system you discuss wouldn’t simply lead to children of wealthy parents getting a much better standard of education? Or is the idea that all would benefit by an objective standard? I’d rather a two-tier system, where both tiers were superior to a single tier.
As a tangental point, I believe competition in business CAN also be like competition in nature - it produces innovation and great results, but often at great cost and with many casualties. Waste can come from fighting your competition rather than for a common goal, and as many economists can explain, it doesn’t always lead to the ‘best’ product gaining prominence (eg VHS vs BetaMax). A forest of trees would be a lot better off if they all ‘agreed’ to stop growing at 10 feet. They all grow to 30 feet in an effort to out-do each other, at great expense of resources, and all end up no better off.
June 17th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Nathan,
“Are you sure the system you discuss wouldn’t simply lead to children of wealthy parents getting a much better standard of education?”
Children of wealthy parents are already getting a better education because their parents can and do send them to private schools (just like wealthy people in the UK can get better health care). Monopolies distribute misery equally, and only the rich can escape them. I’m saying, we ought to give all kids a better opportunity by allowing school choice.
Clinton, Gore and Obama, all being opponents of school choice have sent their kids to private schools in DC. In fact, Obama just shut down an experimental school choice program in DC that had won rave reviews and results from parents and kids, and most of them are poor and minority. Why did he shut it down? Teachers Unions, who give him and the Democrats millions, were threatened by the competition.
BTW, I’m not saying that business should be completely unregulated. There need to be reasonable protections and regulations to protect consumers and the environment.
If you’re at work, we can pick this up later. Thanks!
Blessings,
Frank
June 17th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
“Children of wealthy parents are already getting a better education because their parents can and do send them to private schools”
I know - I went to one myself - but the important thing is that this doesn’t lead to worse education for the poorer kids. It should be levelling up, not down.
June 17th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Agreed. Monopolies level down. Competition raises standards for all.
June 17th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Man you guys seem to like writing very long replies.
Well, if people write too much you say their posts are too long, but if people write too little you accuse them of cherrypicking points. Which would you prefer?
I am simply talking about people who truely believe the way they do.
It’s a conspiracy theory because it is not based on actual, available information. It’s based on a decidedly liberal interpretation of things that the prez has done thus far. Nowhere has Barack Obama ever said that he believes the way you say he does — that’s a label people have slapped on him, based on conclusions drawn from very surprisingly little information (such as concluding that “Obama is a Proud Statist” based on “Obama supports health care reform”). That’s why I call it a conspiracy theory — it’s based on the idea that, for whatever reason, Obama is “hiding” his “Statism.” Because he certainly isn’t admitting to it. So if he IS a “statist,” as you say, then it must be that he is conspiring in some way to hide that while carrying out his agenda publicly.
Maybe we cannot agree about my constitution comments. Fine by me. But why do you guys continue to gloss over the growing federal debt and the continued deficit spending? Do you really think it is OK to continue doing this?
I was responding specifically to comments made about Obama’s “extravagant spending,” which I can only assume is referring to the health care bill (which is about the only major thing he has even done since coming into office); many criticisms of the current administration stem from allegations that the cost of *this bill* is going to somehow bankrupt the nation, which is obviously false for anyone who has taken more than a passing glance at the actual bill.
The other big thing is of course the bailout, which I did not support. That’s a different discussion altogether, of course~ As for “continuing” to do that, I don’t think that’s an issue because it’s been pretty much established that this will not be a recourse in the future. After that CEO bonus fiasco, I think everyone has decided that what happens to those companies is their own fault (IMO they should’ve done so in the first place, but I’m just some guy~).
This entitlement idea that someone else must pay for the most routine care kills incentive, reduces quality, invites fraud, and raises costs. Your thoughts?
You know, I hear all these capitalistically pragmatic explanations for why “universal healthcare is bad,” but I never hear the explanations for how people who are the EXCEPTIONS to this kind of thinking should be treated under the current system. If I bring up a case of a single working mother who makes about $300 a week (and has rent in excess of $300, plus utilities, gas, grocery, childcare and other expenses), and can’t afford to shell out $80-$100 a month for health insurance for both her and her child….I can’t help but notice that people tend to just completely ignore cases like that. It’s like you’re saying, “Yeah, that happens, but that’s justified because it sounds good on paper.”
My “thoughts” would be that, yes, there are capitalistic arguments which can be made in favor of privatized healthcare (and the same can be said of private Police insurance, or private Fire insurance, as well), but if we *only* examine it from a money-making, capitalistic perspective, we are completely ignoring the more practical aspects, such as what to do with people who do not fit into the idealized, capitalist-utopian version of the story touted by so many people who, coincidentally, can afford expensive health care.
An addendum to that would be, I find it odd that most of the people who support a purely capitalistic view of health care are Christians, who supposedly believe in the value of life, and in helping people who can’t help themselves. They say, “It’s not charity if it’s required by law,” but what they don’t ever address is that we choose what laws to pass and what laws not to pass, so if we vote to help those who are in need, then that is a form of charity. It irritates me that people are so petty that they say things like, “I give money to charity when *I* want to, not when someone else says to!” As though it made *any difference* to the people who need it (which is supposedly the *entire point*; if we sacrifice the well-being of the needy just to satisfy our own insecurities about our ability to give freely, then doesn’t it defeat the purpose?). I mean, I would gladly give a little more (or even most) of my disposable income if it meant that people would be guaranteed access to life-saving healthcare. But maybe that’s just my non-Christian “liberal hate” at work ]:/
Unless I’m missing something (a distinct possibility), I don’t think health care is a right.
I simply don’t understand this. Do you believe that police protection is a right, or that firefighter protection is a right? Do you believe we should abolish those systems? If not, then I simply don’t understand how you can say “health care is not a right.” It’s much more like police and fire protection than it is like food.
Like food, health care is a good.
Example; we could easily say the same of police protection and firefighters. Their services are marketable skills that they are paid to practice personally. So why are those skills socialized? Aren’t they ‘goods’ as well? I mean, what’s the difference?
Every good requires an imposition on someone else, and thus that person should be compensated for it.
That argument is *exactly why* I don’t understand how you feel one way about healthcare, but a different way about fire and police protection.
An unintended consequence of the government doing all the research is that it prevents more advances that could be made by a free market.
That sounds more like a human philosophy assertion than anything factually-oriented — that humans are more productive if they’re working for money than if they’re working to save lives. On what do you base this?
Our undergraduate education system is much better because it is free market. Choice and competition always improves quality. That’s basic economics based on an accurate understanding of human nature.
I disagree; when a private “school” teaches things which are demonstrably false (or at best, *highly* debatable), I don’t think anyone benefits from that, except for people who don’t want to re-examine their ideas. Ideologically speaking, I’d say teachers have a duty to teach people how to think, not teach them what religion to follow (as many homeschool courses do) or spend a bunch of time going over why “mainstream society is lying to you to support a liberal agenda” (which many church-supported homeschool texts do). I don’t believe in private schools that attempt to politicize science itself. But that’s another debate.
Why did he shut it down? Teachers Unions, who give him and the Democrats millions, were threatened by the competition.
That’s what I mean when I say “conspiracy theories.” When did Obama say that?
Agreed. Monopolies level down. Competition raises standards for all.
For all who can pay for it, that is. You’re still completely ignoring the people who are the exceptions to this profit-driven paper utopia you’re speaking of.
June 17th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Tim, I have never accused anyone here of cherrypicking anything. What I would prefer is for you to calm down and stop falsely making accusations against me. Can you do that?
Tim:
It’s a conspiracy theory because it is not based on actual, available information.
Kyle:
No it is not a conspiracy theory. I am not accusing Obama of a conspiracy nor am I accusing him of hiding anything. I have defined a statist as a person who believes the state (in this case the federal government) has the power, knowledge and responsibility for solving societal and economic problems. Therefore using state intervention into society and the economy is accepatble and desireable. I believe it can be quite easily shown that Obama believes this and works to this end. I disagree with him since I am an anti-statist.
I did a poor job explaining my position and so I tried to clarify it better this morning. It is clear you misunderstood me so I respectfully ask you drop this petty point and advance the discussion positively.
On the fiscal point again. You sidestepped the issue raised by me. I explained in another post that I was not directly talking about a single event. I am talking about a clear pattern of government overspending that spans many administrations. Again, I am not specifically talking about ‘helath care spending’ or ‘bailouts’. I am talking about the current REAL debt that exists due to REAL deficit spending. Why do people gloss over this? Do you not see this as a problem? Do you think it is OK?
June 18th, 2010 at 12:22 am
Government can do a good job providing this service (the military), but it usually does a poor job of providing goods.”
I don’t think so. I think the military could be ran as or more effectively with less money. I think the reason so many things cost the government more is that the so call capitalists that provide goods to the military (jets, tanks, all sorts of WMDs) look at the government as an easy mark and overcharging for just about everything. Even the lowest bidder for projects probably puts quite a bit of extra padding into a proposal when they see it’s Uncle Sam that’s doing the shopping.
“Clinton, Gore and Obama, all being opponents of school choice have sent their kids to private schools in DC.
I don’t know anything about this but . . . my initial instinct is that they send their kids to private schools because they’d be safer there than in public ones. There are probably private schools that offer much tighter security just for those reasons and types of clients. The president’s children can’t go to school just anywhere.
June 18th, 2010 at 12:32 am
“I am talking about the current REAL debt that exists due to REAL deficit spending. Why do people gloss over this? Do you not see this as a problem? Do you think it is OK?”
I tend to ignore it because this country has rarely ever not been in debt. Is it okay? I don’t know. I take solace in the idea that if we have a Greater Depression then this recession has shown that we can take the world down with us! And maybe—in a naive moment of wishful thinking—if that happens there will be a lot of countries that look at each other and say, “Well, you owe us and we owe you . . . let’s just call it even.”
June 18th, 2010 at 4:34 am
“With regard to embryonic stem cell advances, if there were any the private sector would be making them with a profit motive. ”
Out of interest, do you think this applies to all science, or just stem cells? For example, if the US hadn’t had it’s space exploration programme in the sixties, do you think the private sector would have taken over and got to the moon sooner?
June 18th, 2010 at 7:59 am
Thanks for your input Toby. I find your response interesting. On the one hand we argue about all the government services and programs that are provided and how needed they are while on the other hand you take solace that we will take the world down with us in a financial crisis. Let me ask you. What do you think the most likely result would be if the government cannot fund all those precious programs people like to rely upon in their moment of need?
That is a speculative question and I am not sure I can fully wrap my brain around the consequences of it. We have lived a very sheltered life in this country for the most part. We have never experienced a massive devaluing of the currency in our lifetime. But I do not want to find out.
June 18th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Toby,
“I don’t know anything about this but . . . my initial instinct is that they send their kids to private schools because they’d be safer there than in public ones. There are probably private schools that offer much tighter security just for those reasons and types of clients. The president’s children can’t go to school just anywhere.”
The school doesn’t provide the security, the secret service does. The president’s kids can go to school anywhere.
Tim,
No one is saying that there is no purpose for government anywhere in health care. I am saying that it’s counterproductive to socialize the entire system to cover a portion who can’t afford it. If you want to add a room to your house, you don’t tear the entire thing down. Moreover, many uninsured don’t take advantage of the programs that are already in place: medicaid and SCHIPP.
Finally, you can’t make laws based on exceptions. If so, the government would have to endorse smoking because some smokers outlive non-smokers. It would have to do away with all traffic laws because sometimes you need to break them in an emergency. You can look for ways to cover the exceptions (like medicaid and SCHIPP), but it’s counterproductive for the country to treat everyone like an exception.
Nathan,
If there were a profit motive to go the moon, perhaps. There is a profit motive in medical advances. That’s why the U.S. system innovates so much more than Europe.
The question we are discussing is health care. Finding an example of something the government can do well (whether it is the military or putting a man on the moon) does not mean that the government can or should attempt to do everything.
Blessings,
Frank
June 18th, 2010 at 8:23 am
“There is a profit motive in medical advances. That’s why the U.S. system innovates so much more than Europe.”
But surely the main reason we need medical advances is to preserve human health? In other words, it would be important even if there was no financial benefit.
I’ve got more to say on stem cell research, but there are links involved so I’ll post separately.
I don’t get your smoking point. We have laws against public smoking to protect the health of non-smokers. This would be the case even if ALL smokers lived longer than non-smokers. Some people not being able to afford health-care is not the same as some smokers beating the statistical odds on their health being damaged by smoking.
June 18th, 2010 at 8:30 am
I don’t buy the claim on stem cell research in the public sector.
This from The Guardian when the law was repealed backs up what I’ve seen elsewhere in interviews with scientists, that when they’re working with a mixture of state and public money, they had to go to absurd lengths to keep two identical sets of equipment separate:
US scientists relieved as Obama lifts ban on stem cell research
“Scientists yesterday welcomed a new executive order signed by President Barack Obama ending the nearly eight-year-old ban on federal funding for most stem cell research, saying it ushered in a new era of possibility.
“It is a relief to know that we can now collaborate openly and freely with other scientists in our own university and elsewhere, without restrictions on what equipment, data, or ideas can be shared,” Harvard University’s stem cell institute co-director Doug Melton said in a statement.
Melton will apply for federal grants to research ways to turn stem cells into heart cells and neurons that could one day yield a cure for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases. “Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government,” he added.
Obama’s repeal of George Bush’s August 2001 ban on federal funding for stem cell research will also have dramatic practical effects, according to Harvard spokesman BD Colen. “This will mean the end of the quite onerous bookkeeping and segregation of supplies, equipment and people that were necessary under the Bush executive order,” he said. “Literally, you could not pick up a pencil off a bench if you were working with embryonic stem cells.”
June 18th, 2010 at 8:32 am
I won’t put the link, but the title is easily googlable, and as always the entire page is worth reading, ad it seems even handed to me:
The impact of federal policy on global competition in stem cell research, from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.
“Historically, it has been the role of government to fund early stage research and bridge the gap between when scientists see potential discovery and when industry may see potential future profit.
The promise that stem cells will lead to cures for today’s incurable diseases instills hope in millions of people who battle for their health every day. But stem cells also show promise in many other layers of society - potentially benefiting a country or state politically and economically, as scientific breakthroughs and the development of new technologies have long been a source of economic growth, new labor markets, and national pride.
In the struggle to maximize its share of this potential, the US has many natural advantages. The majority of the world’s stem cell scientists and companies are in the US, and the combined investment of federal and state governments, private foundations, and individual donors exceeds the investment made by other individual nations. However, this manpower and financial lead may not always translate into scientific results and can easily be squandered if not supported by policy.
In the June 2008 issue of Cell Stem Cell, researchers from Georgia Institute of Technology assessed various countries’ scientific “output”, as judged by the number of papers published peerreviewed journals, across different areas of molecular biology. The study showed that although the US produces the majority of the work in the field of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), it is “under-performing” on a relative basis in comparison to other areas of molecular biology. In the study, scientific publications are grouped by the principal investigator’s country of origin and each country’s relative share of the papers in the areas of stem cell biology, RNAi technology, and molecular biology overall are compared.
While 46% of the molecular biology papers and 47% of the RNAi papers were published by US scientists, this was true for only 36% of the hESCs publications - suggesting the US is not reaching its full potential in this field. In contrast, the United Kingdom was shown to be “over-producing” in the area of hESC in comparison to molecular biology as a whole. Of the 16 countries examined in the study, there was an apparent correlation between “over-producing” and “under-producing” in the area of hESC and public policies that affect the field.”
June 18th, 2010 at 8:43 am
Nathan,
I’m saying use the profit motive to improve health. We can’t ignore human nature and pretend that everyone is going to be as motivated by benevolence as profit. Why not use both motivations?
The smoking point was just an example about the wrongness of using exceptions to make law. Of course, if everyone lived longer because of smoking then it wouldn’t be an exception anymore, and the government should endorse it. Right?
Blessings,
Frank
June 18th, 2010 at 8:51 am
“Of course, if everyone lived longer because of smoking then it wouldn’t be an exception anymore, and the government should endorse it. Right”
I was saying that even if smoking didn’t harm the smoker, it’s the affect of second-hand smoke that forms most smoking policy.
“Why not use both motivations?”
Which is what we have now with stem cell research, a much better situation than before. And people still make a profit working for the state. Doctors are still well paid under the NHS (ask my rich sister). I doubt she’d be saving more lives if you doubled her pay.
June 18th, 2010 at 8:58 am
It depends on what you mean by profit. Technically, there is NO profit working for the state. Tax payers are paying them. Moreover, the sky is the limit regarding profit in the private sector. It is not in the public sector. There is also a quality motive in the private sector that is not as prevalent with public employees. Businesses fold for poor performance much more quickly than governments do.
Gotta go. Have a good day.
June 18th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Thanks Frank, have a good day yourself. I’m off to Devon for a week - The British Riviera (apparently).
As a last point (?), discussing the way to get the best pre-university education doesn’t address the point about whether it should be seen as a right or not.
We originally brought up education to ask if you thought it was qualitatively different from health as being a ‘good’ rather than a ‘right’. This question remains whether or not a more ‘competition-centred’ method is used to deliver education to teens and younger.
To me, basic healthcare is an essential in the same way that education is. While you argue above that you’d like a different method of organising education (which I’m open to in principle), you still seem to be allowing that all kids should have a right to education, even if some get higher quality education. Even from a selfish perspective, we all benefit from having a well-educated population
So we’re still left with the question of why you view health as a ‘mere’ good while education is an essential.
I understand the libertarian view of ‘why should people get something for free when they should be working for it’. It just seems that the idea is applied selectively. It seems that people are against the idea of socialised medicine more because they’re not used to it, while they don’t really question all the services that are already paid for by taxes.
However, I do accept that there is a price to pay for our NHS - there are people who will take advantage of it, there are people who will rely on it. I don’t like resources being diverted to look after self-inflicted problems caused by smoking or drinking.
But adding the extra layer of insurance brings just as many problems. Increased competition is countered by the waste that competition also brings - with groups competing against each other instead of for a common goal. And if profit is key then insurers can be influenced by the fact that they’ll make more money by denying care than granting it. And we’ve seen plenty examples of sick people who HAVE insurance, STILL not getting the care, which defeats the whole object of the system.
It’s a tricky subject. If I had to boil it down, I’d say my point would be that the subject has too many nuances to allow those on the right to dismiss the argument in principle for being ’socialism’. There’s a debate to be had about the best course to take given the goals we all share, whereas many on the right seem to deny there’s even an issue.
Anyway, I’m out.
June 18th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Tim, I have never accused anyone here of cherrypicking anything.
Actually, you did:
I guess I am a little surprised that each of you guys picked out one little phrase from the post to comment on and did not comment on any of the other stuff.
That is what “cherrypicking” is.
I have defined a statist as a person who believes the state (in this case the federal government) has the power, knowledge and responsibility for solving societal and economic problems. Therefore using state intervention into society and the economy is accepatble and desireable.
If merely accepting that any particular form of government intervention into society and economics is acceptable makes one a “statist,” then everyone in America is a statist. We allow the government/state to interfere on a lot of social issues — ranging from how parents treat their own children (child abuse, etc.) to reigning in corporations whose destructive policies threaten the safety of the natural environment and thus the people they are supposedly helping (economic regulations, etc.). In fact, it’s arguable that the very reason government exists is to help solve ever-present social and economic problems, such as violence, threat and theft.
I believe it can be quite easily shown that Obama believes this and works to this end. I disagree with him since I am an anti-statist.
*Any* president “believes this and works to this end” by your definition — by merely holding the office of the president, he’s taking actions on behalf of “the state” which interfere in the social and economic policies of the US, both privately and publicly.
That’s one reason why I can never get along with libertarians in real life — they all seem to hate the very idea of government in the first place; it’s only “necessary” when it gives me something I want, but whenever I have to compromise so that someone else can have something they need, *then* “government control” becomes bad.
I am talking about a clear pattern of government overspending that spans many administrations. Again, I am not specifically talking about ‘helath care spending’ or ‘bailouts’. I am talking about the current REAL debt that exists due to REAL deficit spending. Why do people gloss over this? Do you not see this as a problem? Do you think it is OK?
I think it’s a problem that will always exist. If you oppose policies JUST because “the government is spending money,” well, friend, prepare to oppose every president for the rest of forever. Part of the reason we’re in debt is because running a country costs money — a lot of money. As for rampant spending, I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be — yes, our national debt is horrible, but Mr. Bill Clinton did a pretty awesome job of balancing the budget during his second term so that he left Mr. Bush Jr. a nice little surplus, and even balanced the budget for a short time so that we were paying off on the national debt. A significant portion of the absurd spending (which I of course opposed vocally) came from the last Bush administration, mainly from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (with favor towards Iraq).
So no. I don’t think it’s “OK.” But I do think it’s unrealistic to oppose a policy just because it spends money. ALL policies do that. It’s how a government is run. Show me a policy that doesn’t spend someone’s money.
If you want to add a room to your house, you don’t tear the entire thing down.
That analogy is so warped that I don’t even know where to begin….nobody’s “tearing down” the health care system, they’re making changes to it. They’re not even really significant changes — the system itself, and the management of actual health care by medical staff, is almost exactly the same (any changes that could be considered anything more than “mild” were beaten out by libertarians freaking out and sending in death threats); what’s changed is how the government regulates insurance. I mean, we still have private insurance. There will be no change to the economic system of insurance, and all of these doomsayers will be forgotten….kind of reminds me of that “letter from a Christian in 2010″ that somebody posted here awhile back :/
Finally, you can’t make laws based on exceptions. If so, the government would have to endorse smoking because some smokers outlive non-smokers.
This would correlate if you instead said, “the government would have to enforce smoking because everybody needs to smoke sometimes to survive, and some people can’t afford to.” Which is of course completely untrue, and thus this analogy makes no sense.
It would have to do away with all traffic laws because sometimes you need to break them in an emergency.
Change it so that “we would have to do away with all traffic laws because a significant percentage of the population (more than our unemployment rates, last I checked) can’t afford to obey them.” But that’s nonsense of course because traffic laws don’t cost anything, so this analogy is also D.O.A.
If there were a profit motive to go the moon, perhaps. There is a profit motive in medical advances. That’s why the U.S. system innovates so much more than Europe.
Do you have proof that this correlation is, in fact, also a causative relationship?
In any case, Mr. Turek….a profit motive also invites a fraud motive, does it not? People do it all the time — they falsely advertise a product, or make it cheaply or poorly, just to mass-produce it and sell it as frequently and widely as possible. Sometimes there are class-action lawsuits, and sometimes people (including children) die from simple mistakes caused by lack of oversight, resulting directly from a “profit motive.” Remember the Mattel toy incident from a couple years ago? The lead paint that killed a bunch of children all over the US? Remember what Mattel’s spokesman told CNN? “We can’t be bothered to check every product we make to make sure it’s safe, or else we’d have to slow down production, and we wouldn’t be able to manufacture as widely or cheaply!” She basically *directly cited* a profit motive as the main reason why consumer safety is not important to the company! She said the most reasonable approach was to release items the way the lead-based toys were released, and just recall if there’s a problem.
Problem with that is, they save money on product testing by testing it on the consumer. It’s the same thing that Microsoft was notorious for doing with software in the ’90s — releasing it untested with bugs, then releasing patches later on as the bugs were reported en masse by consumers. The price is still paid for testing the product, but it’s paid by the consumer instead of the manufacturer, and sometimes even at great risk to the consumer.
Point being: I do not trust profit motive alone as an economic “savior” as you seem to. I believe there must be regulation on matters which can determine or influence the outcome of potentially life-threatening matters. So I am willing to allow a small influence on this “profit motive” that sounds so saintly if you only look at it on paper.
“Of course, if everyone lived longer because of smoking then it wouldn’t be an exception anymore, and the government should endorse it. Right”
If everyone lived longer because they smoked, and you could prove that, then smoking wouldn’t be a problem. Although again, doing something that makes you live longer is not quite the same as receiving treatment for something which will make your life shorter if unattended.
June 19th, 2010 at 4:42 am
Nice post Tim.
The smoking analogy is the wrong way round anyway. Laws may not be based around positive exceptions - like some people aren’t damaged by smoking - but they are certainly based around damaging exceptions.
A bridge that one in ever 300 users die on would be closed down, even though that person was an exception. What’s the percentage of people that can’t afford health care? A lot more than one in 300.
June 19th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Tim, you left out the rest of the post where you THOUGHT I accused you of something. I blamed myself for you guys focusing on one phrase because I did not explain myslef very well. So, no I did not accuse you of cherrypicking.
I am fully aware that it costs a lot of money to run a government. I am not stupid. My complaint is spending MORE than you take in. If the government would simply just spend the money it gets, things would be a lot better. Clinton did have a blanced budget several years during his term, but we did not pay any surplus on the debt, you are mistaken about that point.
Tim, you seem to be an all or nothing kind of guy. It is hard to dialogue with you because you will not apply commen sense to my points. I explained previously that I want a government that sticks to only those powers spelled out in the constitution and nothing more. Therefore, by putting two and two together, you should know that I am not arguing for a pure elimination of all state involvement. I fully understand and support limited government involvement. What I reject is too much government involvement.
To explain further, a statist is a person who will go beyond constitutionally established powers of the federal government under the belief that the government is the solution to our problems. Under a statist system, the government gets bigger and more powerful. It also must raise more and more revenue to continue the extension of those powers into the private sector.
You comment that by merely holding office, that makes the President a statist under my definition because he makes decisions for the state. I do not totally agree with that. Our elected officials do not work for the state, they are supposed to work for us. However, you have touched on my main point. Currently we have too many elected officials, regardless of their claimed party affiliation, that lean too far toward the statist viewpoint. We need more elected officials who want limited federal powers so a proper balance can be maintained.
Thanks for the reply, maybe Frank has the time to address your replies to his points.
June 19th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
From each according to their ability (self reliant, productive, responsible adults) to “the percentage of people that can’t afford health care”. i.e. every leach and hanger-on who knows how to work the system to their own gain and the eventual destruction of society as a whole.
But hey, as long as you can scream, “BLOODY CAPITALIST PIGS”, it’s all good, roight mate?
June 20th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Clinton did have a blanced budget several years during his term, but we did not pay any surplus on the debt, you are mistaken about that point.
If you go to cbo(dot)gov and search for the Congressional Budget Office report for the year 2000 (Clinton’s last year as president), you will see that there was a $236 billion surplus for that year. I am not mistaken about that point.
Therefore, by putting two and two together, you should know that I am not arguing for a pure elimination of all state involvement.
Then why would you say something like this?
I have defined a statist as a person who believes the state (in this case the federal government) has the power, knowledge and responsibility for solving societal and economic problems. Therefore using state intervention into society and the economy is accepatble and desireable. I believe it can be quite easily shown that Obama believes this and works to this end. I disagree with him since I am an anti-statist.
You say that you “do not argue for a pure elimination of all state involvement,” but then you say that “anyone who believes that the state has knowledge and power to help solve social and economic problems (i.e. “gets the state involved” in those problems) is a statist.” That is an “all-or-nothing” statement on your part, not on mine.
To explain further, a statist is a person who will go beyond constitutionally established powers of the federal government under the belief that the government is the solution to our problems.
I don’t see how Obama has done anything that fits this description. How, specifically, has he violated or outstretched the Constitution? Which amendment did he violate and how did he violate it? Where are the constitutional lawyers and scholars that would be banging down the president’s door in response to him doing something like that?
You comment that by merely holding office, that makes the President a statist under my definition because he makes decisions for the state. I do not totally agree with that. Our elected officials do not work for the state, they are supposed to work for us.
Bad Religion once said, “you are the government.” We ARE the state.
But seriously….you originally defined a statist as someone who believes that it is permissible, in principle, for the government to involve itself in social and economic problems. That was the definition I argued against. Any president fits that definition because the president makes decisions for the government, whose sole purpose is arguably to assist with social and economic issues. So in principle, yes, the president’s office itself would be “statist” by that definition.
Currently we have too many elected officials, regardless of their claimed party affiliation, that lean too far toward the statist viewpoint.
I don’t care much for vague blanket accusations. Who are you talking about? What do you mean by ‘too many?’ What kind of numbers are we looking at?
We need more elected officials who want limited federal powers so a proper balance can be maintained.
June 20th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
You asked for an example of how Obama is doing that. I do see the health care issue as an example of this. I do not belive that the constitution gives the government the power to provide health care to every American. There are constitutional people who are arguing this point and we will probably see more and more lawsuits about this legislation.
We have seen other examples on smaller scales, you just have to look for them and study the issue.
Since you seem to not have a problem with this type of state intervention. Let me ask you. Where is the line where state intervention becomes a problem for you?
June 20th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I do not belive that the constitution gives the government the power to provide health care to every American.
1) The government is not providing health care to every American. The government is not “providing” health care to anyone. The government is placing regulations on the health care system so that every American can afford to buy private health insurance. There is nothing whatsoever involving actual health care that is being provided under the new bill. So that’s irrelevant.
2) How, in specific terms, is doing what I have described above any different from how the government currently regulates, say, car insurance? The legal infrastructure is almost identical. Do you believe we should repeal the current system of car insurance regulation? Or is there some reason why you think that is okay but the same regulations for health care are not?
There are constitutional people who are arguing this point and we will probably see more and more lawsuits about this legislation.
Such as? I’m listening. If you can find me anyone who has gotten past the process of filing for such a case, I’d be glad to read up on it and follow it for awhile.
Since you seem to not have a problem with this type of state intervention. Let me ask you. Where is the line where state intervention becomes a problem for you?
When it is clearly and plainly obvious that sections of the Bill of Rights have been violated. And when the “evidence” of that which supposedly constitutes a “violation” of said bill amounts to more than hearsay from libertarian conspiracy theorists and hokey/frivolous lawsuits filed by politicians in a desperate attempt to pander to their supposedly “independent” fanbases.
When you can point me to a section of some piece of work which plainly and clearly states an intentional disregard for the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers, of church and state, or any other action expressly and blatantly forbidden by the constitution. Not this meager “debatable” junk. Call me when all the libertarians and “independents” are through crying wolf.
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
You are correct that the bill contains regulatory changes. I applaud those for that is what the federal government should be doiing. However, the bill also includes payments to people who fall between 133% and 400% of poverty level (I believe those numbers are correct) that is supposed to help them buy insurance. Also, the bill contains a yearly penalty for people who do not buy insurance. In addition, the bill mandates to every state that it must cover people that the state has never covered under the state funded Medicaid program. The last one has a lot of governers concerned. Based on what I have read, the government will start requiring this coverage in 2014 and will pay the first two years to the state. After that, the state has to pick up the tab.
Most people who have talked about the constitutionality of the bill argue that it is unprecented that the federal government mandate coverage (buy health insurance) or pay a penalty. Also, another argument is mandating that the states pay for something that is not funded, which in effect forces the state to come up with the funds (forced tax increase at the state level).
Personally, I reject the idea that the federal government collect taxes and then redistribute those monies to another group of citizens based on what the Congress says should be done. Like everyone else who works, I work hard for my money. I do not support taking my hard earned money through taxation and giving it to someone else to buy health insurance.
One other thing that I am trying to find out more about relates to reported income. I have heard that the government is going to require companies to report health insurance coverage provided by them on the employee’s gross income line. This in effect will raise your income taxes even though you are not paid the money. However, I have not been able to confirm this yet or find out any details about what level of income you begin to be affected by this change. This may only be a rumor. If anyone else knows, please share.
June 23rd, 2010 at 7:00 am
Nathan,
“A bridge that one in ever 300 users die on would be closed down, even though that person was an exception. What’s the percentage of people that can’t afford health care? A lot more than one in 300.”
If a pothole on a bridge caused one out of 300 drivers to lose control of his car and die, we would fix the pothole but not tear down the bridge. Obamacare tears down the bridge only to construct something that will be far inferior for everyone. As we have already discussed, removing incentives of the free market, equalizes everyone by making everyone worse off. Why not fix the potholes in a good system rather then make everyone worse off?
Tort reform, interstate commerce, Health Savings Accounts, decreasing the prevalence of third party payers for routine care are all proven ways to repair pot holes in the system. Obama ignored them all for a government plan that will increase costs, decrease quality care, and reduce the liberty of the individual. As Prager has pointed out, “the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”
Blessings,
Frank
June 25th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Most people who have talked about the constitutionality of the bill argue that it is unprecented that the federal government mandate coverage (buy health insurance) or pay a penalty.
It is NOT unprecedented. The government *already does* mandate coverage for car insurance. The government has done this before, and none of these libertarians has made anywhere near as big of a deal about it then.
Personally, I reject the idea that the federal government collect taxes and then redistribute those monies to another group of citizens based on what the Congress says should be done.
Well, I’m sorry that you’re so opposed to taxes in principle, but they are necessary to run a government.
I do not support taking my hard earned money through taxation and giving it to someone else to buy health insurance.
I don’t support allowing people to go on not being able to afford a necessity like health care (or police protection, or fire rescue service, or animal control and safety) because rich liberals and libertarians don’t want to pay taxes. Of course this whole tangent is irrelevant anyway, because it is based on our opinions and not on fact or precedent.
If a pothole on a bridge caused one out of 300 drivers to lose control of his car and die, we would fix the pothole but not tear down the bridge.
False analogy, nobody is “tearing down the bridge.” A better metaphor would be that the bridge is sagging and causing some cars to veer off the edge, so they’re adding suspension cables to help hold it up and keep people safe. Many people won’t need them but it saves the lives of those who do.
Obama ignored them all for a government plan that will increase costs, decrease quality care, and reduce the liberty of the individual.
All of those are false; especially because the bill has absolutely NO effect on health care whatsoever, because it’s insurance regulation. So it can not “decrease quality care,” and I’m curious how you think it would be guilty of “decreasing the liberty of the individual.” How, specifically?
Tort reform
You realize “tort reform” is a form of government intervention, right?
June 25th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
P.S. I’m a bit confused. It was my understanding that, as a Christian, one is supposed to be prepared to give up all of their possessions to “follow Christ,” if necessary, and that materialism (and materialist concerns) were second-tier to the well-being of other humans. I mean, I’ve even heard several accounts of prominent Christian authors and philosophers arguing that Jesus invented the first welfare system (the part about leaving the edges of your crops for the poor to eat).
I always kind of roll my eyes when I see these same “Christians” arguing about legislating morality and whatnot, turning around and saying, “Just because it helps people in need doesn’t make it good,” and citing material concerns as a reason for that. Where in the Bible was the penultimate value placed on property as opposed to life?
Perhaps someone can attempt to reconcile these views for me?
June 26th, 2010 at 12:29 am
//“Just because it helps people in need doesn’t make it good,” //
What? Who says that? Government giveaways don’t help anyone. They cripple people. Jesus, and Jesus’ people, give out of love. Big brother gives for the specific goal of gaining power over people. Jesus offers liberty over ones flesh and sin. BB overs enslavement of your every moment in service to him.
Christianity is about giving of ones self - not having ones property extracted at the behest of the barrel of Big Brothers’ gun. Suggesting that government is a surrogate for the works of God is so infantile a concept, it is hard to fathom that one could even think such a thing let alone say it w/ any sincerity. God gave us free will. Government crushes free will and dictates what is “good” to the exclusion of mans’ independent choice(s). Your willingness to be led to the slaughter notwithstanding.
You really should slow down before you say these insipid statements as they betray any appearance of informed intelligence on your part. Your bigotry and disdain for Christians is so transparent that it is hardly worth it to respond - just couldn’t resist this time.
And this is what really blows my mind: People like you always scream about the myth of separation of church and state while simultaneously whining that Christians are hypocrites for not wanting America to become a bunch of check-writing robots for benefit of the “ministry” of Big Brother. Sheer sophistry, you engage in.
That’s it - I already feel dumber for having explained such basic reality to someone who should know better but simply refuses to accept it.
Pathetic.
(okay, that’s your cue to say, “I know you are, but what am I?” or, “Wow, why are “Christians” so mean?!” or some other womanly embarrassing keg of whine.)
June 26th, 2010 at 7:47 am
Tim,
Briefly:
Car insurance is mandated only for those want the privilege of driving cars. It is not mandated on every citizen. While taxes are mandated on every citizen by the constitution, health insurance is not and strikes at the liberty of citizens who may not want to use their money for such an item. Maybe they are young and don’t have health care needs, or maybe they want to pay out of pocket.
Yes, the bill will have impacts on health care not just health insurance. If it will not, then what’s the purpose of the bill? Money, of course, affects behavior related to all commerce. Unfortunately, people on left don’t seem to understand that. They fail basic economics (don’t know if this applies to you Tim, but check out this study): http://online.wsj.com/article/.....on_LEADTop
Of course tort reform is government regulation. Please understand that no one here is arguing to do away with all government. Christians believe government is necessary. We are only debating the extent of government. And yes, Obama did ignore the calls for tort reform, interstate commerce, health savings accounts, and decreasing the prevalence of third party payers for routine care. You say that is false. Well, which one of these did he implement?
Blessings,
Frank
June 26th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Tim D., do you mean ultimate or penultimate?
As for Jesus’ ethic there are many who argue that Jesus was a proto-marxist, but I think the textual argument is ultimately weaker than the more common treatment of Jesus as communAList, and not communist.
For example, “Thou shalt not steal” presumes there is property whereby “stealing” can be understood as wrong.
The imago dei teaching in Genesis 1-2 entrusts people with stewardship responsibilities, even over the whole earth, whereby we answer to God for how we handle our possessions, and we understand that God possesses everything in the more ultimate sense.
The principle on gleaning presupposes people have property/possessions which they can give to the poor. It is better to personally give to the poor, than to have some institution demand that money from you which they will distribute to the poor in your stead.
As for the “give up one’s possessions” idea, that is for the purpose of following Christ, which, especially at that point, was LITERAL discipleship–ie: following Jesus around in his earthly ministry. It is NOT giving up possessions as a statement against the act of “possessing” or the notion of “property.” The understanding in the church is that one should not be owned by one’s possessions, and prefer giving rather than receiving, and that everything, property included, be devoted to some kind of direct or indirect ministry (for example, eating so one can live enables one to minister another day).
“Love your neighbor as yourself” presumes that people have a kind of healthy self-interest that does not have to be “evil” or “self-centered” but rather can be a gage of comparison to understand how we should treat others.
The Acts 2-3 early church shared all of their possessions, but on a private distributional basis.
Obviously, Jesus never affirmed the atheistic streams of communistic theory.
Nor can it be shown clearly from scripture that Jesus ever advocated physically violent governmental revolution. The strongest verse I’ve encountered in that vein are “I did not come to bring peace but a sword” (which Jesus explains refers to how faithfulness to Christ, and reconciliation to God may sometimes require ‘cutting ties’ with loved ones). But this is soon answered with the overwhelming, and clearer, passages where Jesus encourages people ot “turn the other cheek” and “pray for your enemy,” etc.
Jesus was in some ways counter-revolutionary and peaceable, approaching pacifism. For example, they still were encouraged to pay their taxes (ie: “Give to caesar what is caesar’s).
John the Baptist, instead of telling the centurion to quit his job with the Roman military, he tells him to repent and believe and not quit his job.
And the first 3 centuries of the church, believers suffered much violence, testifying to their religion as martyrs (not in the freedom-fighter or Jihadist sense). And uniformly advocating pacifism, and witnessing to the faith by suffering violence, not inflicting violence.
As for your points about material concerns, it is a false dichotomy to treat human life and human goodness as if they are unrelated to material concerns. Jesus FED the 5,000, he paid the temple tax, he healed people’s PHYSICAL malladies.
June 27th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Big brother gives for the specific goal of gaining power over people. Jesus offers liberty over ones flesh and sin. BB overs enslavement of your every moment in service to him.
Wow, I can’t begin to address how conspiratorial that statement is. You do realize there are things known as separation of powers and checks and balances, correct? And that to circumvent these would probably take a revolution or some perfect storm of nuclear war, mass casualty, invasion, and declaration of martial law.
I don’t think I can answer this post better than some of the responders to the original article. Here’s one:
It seems to me this survey, and article, has an agenda. It is not surprising that liberals did worse on this test, because most, if not all of these question tend to appeal more to conservative vs liberal values. Generally, if you took the test based on “feeling”, conservatives would do well, where as liberals would do badly, which is exactly what happened.
For instance:
“Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.” - Yes, the answer is yes in most cases, but a liberal has to vote against his ideological preference, where as a libertarian can vote yes and be in sync with his ideology.
“Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services” - liberal tend to support more regulation, and thus again, they are having to vote against their ideology
“Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.” - Yes, but again, we are going against philosophy. Also, If you look at one aspect of standard of living, median hourly wage, it has mostly stagnated over 30 years. Averages tend to make things look good, but they are heavily influenced by the the highest incomes. Median fFamily income has risen only slightly during those 30 years, much of that due to more women going into the workplace. So considering median real hourly wages have been mostly flat, and considering people have to pay for more of their health care and their retirement, the economic situation is not a rosy one. So given that backdrop, a liberal has to ignore all of that and focus on the strict definition of standard of living, where as a conservative believes it to be true as a matter of ideology, so again, the emotional conservative vote is validated
The same with the next few questions.
” Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.” I am not sure how they can evaluate this one, because it is subjective and an opinion. “Exploited” is relative and a value judgement.
“Free trade leads to unemployment.” - Again, the liberal has to affirm a concept he may oppose. Also, it is very possible that free trade may lead to unemployment - in the short term - but then in theory counter trade will bring new jobs offsetting jobs. So to say it is flat out false is not right, it depends on the context.
“Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.”
As pointed out by others - technically this may be true, but in reality a raise from 5.50 to $7.00 per hour probably has very little impact on unemployment, and again, liberals have to vote against their ideology.
IF the test were to have questions like
- Tax cuts increase government revenue
- Govt spending cuts decrease economic activity
- Deficit spending partially offset the impacts of an economic downturn
- Decreased regulation leads to greater economic volatility
- Govt spending tends to act as an economic stabilizer
I am quite sure conservatives would disagree and strictly speaking pick the “unenlightened answer”. However, obviously, there are downsides to each of the above policies - so while the answer may be yes in all of the above, that doesn’t mean we should do all of the above all the time.
This article is just another example of the fairly simple minded right to find another construct to validate their views and validate those that are like them are smarter than those of whom they disagree with.
Not atypical for this publication.
And look at this one. this guy is arguing for the conservative side of things, but listen to what he’s saying:
There is widely documented evidence that as average wages fall, the labor force increase. This is theorized to be because there is more need for second income earners, more need to stay in the labor force longer, and more need to enter the labor force earlier (by foregoing education or working while receiving education).
So in taking of the idea of ideology, there is clearly something in this that many conservatives abhor: the idea of second income earners, the mother having to work. How many times has it been said that this is the downfall of morals and family values? Sure, you can create more jobs if there isn’t a minimum wage. You’re paying the poorest least educated basically nothing, exploiting them. They’ll work until they die.
June 27th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Doesn’t this seem rather like trickery? They counted answers as yes, no, and n/a. So why not just pose those questions as such? Why put the idea of gray areas into the equation if the questioner has already discounted ideas of gray areas as wrong?
“Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of “somewhat disagree” and “strongly disagree.” This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer “not sure,” which we do not count as incorrect.”
June 27th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Toby,
Since I posted my last comment here, I put a new post on the main blog page. So you may want to move your comments about the WSJ article there.
Your point about liberals following ideology is a good one. In fact, I made the same point in the blog post before I read your comment here. Ideology trumps truth for liberals in this survey.
Blessings,
Frank
June 27th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Tim, it is clear that you neither care about what I am saying or try to understand. You replies are not based on what I am saying at all so constructive dialogue with you is not possible to this point. Here is an example.
I clearly stated that it is unprecedented that the FEDERAL government mandate coverage. You replied that the goverment already mandates car insurance. That is completely nonsensical. I am NOT talking about STATE government. The whole point is the powers of the FEDERAL government.
If you cannot comment correctly within the context of the discussion, then having a constructive conversation with you is not going to be possible.
Also, I am NOT apposed to taxes in PRINCIPLE. I am opposed to how those monies are currently SPENT by the government. What are you reading when you are supposedly reading my replies? You cannot even take a simple discussion like this and respond in the correct context.
To say it AGAIN. I am NOT suggesting nothing be done. I do not want people to go without helath care either. But I am opposed to the federal government taking tax money and giving it to others to supposedly buy health insurance.
You say this is irrevelent because it is based on our opinions. Well Tim, in your worldview, that is all there is. A precedent is nothing more than a judicial OPINION that interprets the law. If you want a government that works, you better hope that the correct opinions are upheld or we are all going to be in a big mess.
June 30th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Car insurance is mandated only for those want the privilege of driving cars. It is not mandated on every citizen. While taxes are mandated on every citizen by the constitution, health insurance is not and strikes at the liberty of citizens who may not want to use their money for such an item.
Car insurance for people who want to drive isn’t mandated by the constitution, either. Neither is animal control. I don’t hear libertarians crying to overthrow those policies.
Maybe they are young and don’t have health care needs, or maybe they want to pay out of pocket.
We could make that argument about ANY kind of tax — what if I don’t *want* to pay for car insurance? What if, when I get in an accident, I’d rather just take out a loan and pay off on that, then be done with it, instead of constantly paying out these ridiculous rates?
Yes, the bill will have impacts on health care not just health insurance. If it will not, then what’s the purpose of the bill? Money, of course, affects behavior related to all commerce. Unfortunately, people on left don’t seem to understand that.
I figured you were a bit overdue for a pedantic stab at “teh liberuls.”
But to stay on the topic….the bill is not even close to vaguely approaching a “tearing down” or “rebuilding” of the health care system. Even if it DOES affect it in a way that is anything more than negligible, then what you said will still be false — it does not in any way constitute an “overhaul” of our current healthcare system. That is panic-speech from the libertarian right that I have no reason to take seriously.
They fail basic economics (don’t know if this applies to you Tim, but check out this study
Who is “they,” and in what way do these specific people “fail basic economics?” You’re too eager to judge people by political labels that cover such broad audiences; there are smart liberals and dumb liberals, and there are smart conservatives and dumb ones, and there are….well, there are pretty much just dumb libertarians XD (I keed, I keed, they’re just annoying, not dumb~)
Please understand that no one here is arguing to do away with all government.
Really? Well, sorry, I got the wrong idea when Mr. Kyle G said this:
a statist [is] a person who believes the state (in this case the federal government) has the power, knowledge and responsibility for solving societal and economic problems.Therefore using state intervention into society and the economy is accepatble and desireable. I believe it can be quite easily shown that Obama believes this and works to this end. I disagree with him since I am an anti-statist.
…which is pretty much a blatant condemnation of government intervention (of any kind) to me.
And yes, Obama did ignore the calls for tort reform, interstate commerce, health savings accounts, and decreasing the prevalence of third party payers for routine care. You say that is false. Well, which one of these did he implement?
He didn’t “ignore” anything. The health care bill was drawn up by Congress, for one; two, both sides (Democrat and Republican) were given plenty of time (despite calls of supposed urgency) to look it over, propose anything they wanted to propose, amend it, challenge portions of it, etc. The Republicans said “kill the bill” and made no propositions and no amendments. The bill went to vote; Republicans complained that “they don’t like what’s in the bill;” Dems said, “well, shoulda changed it when you had the chance.” And passed it without them. That’s exactly how the process was intended to work — what good is being the majority party if using the power of that majority is considered the same as “ignoring the other party?” Obama gave the other side more of a chance than most of the other Democratic candidates would have; I’d say those whiners should be thankful for what they got. But what do I know, I’m just a “liberal” (apparently).
For example, “Thou shalt not steal” presumes there is property whereby “stealing” can be understood as wrong.
Duh; why else would the Bible tell you to be ready to give up your possessions and follow Jesus if there was no such thing as possession?
It is better to personally give to the poor, than to have some institution demand that money from you which they will distribute to the poor in your stead.
In an ideal world, that would be true. But what do you think Jesus would think of a society where a man can throw small change at wheelchair-bound people with Parkinson’s disease at a political rally, all the while screaming like a rabid primate, “THIS IS MY MONEY, I DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT!” and beating his chest? I would say that’s a world where we can’t count on rich people (or even just upper-class people) to give to charity.
Not that any of this has anything to do with charity, of course; the healthcare bill is about the human right to life, not about charity. A government-regulated health insurance system (or a government health program, like medicare or medicaid) is no more of a “charity” than police protection or car insurance.
Nor can it be shown clearly from scripture that Jesus ever advocated physically violent governmental revolution.
…I don’t see how anyone argued that…but yeah, okay.
Jesus was in some ways counter-revolutionary and peaceable, approaching pacifism. For example, they still were encouraged to pay their taxes (ie: “Give to caesar what is caesar’s).
Yes, I’m aware of that verse. It’s actually one of the ones that came to mind when I wrote my earlier post. So why is it okay to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s (even though, presumably, it’s possible for Caesar’s taxes to be unfair or immoral), but it’s okay to raise hell about helping poor people afford healthcare? Forgive me if I am simply at a loss to understand this.
Tim, it is clear that you neither care about what I am saying or try to understand. You replies are not based on what I am saying at all so constructive dialogue with you is not possible to this point.
The feeling is mutual. But I believe in giving second chances, so here goes:
Also, I am NOT apposed to taxes in PRINCIPLE. I am opposed to how those monies are currently SPENT by the government. What are you reading when you are supposedly reading my replies? You cannot even take a simple discussion like this and respond in the correct context.
You SAY you are not opposed to them in principle, but then the reasons you provide for your opposition to current taxational policies are so broad and vague that they could be applied to pretty much any form of taxation. Such as when you said:
Personally, I reject the idea that the federal government collect taxes and then redistribute those monies to another group of citizens based on what the Congress says should be done.
That is a perfect description of several (non-healthcare-related) systems which already exist in this counrty, which I have yet to hear you rail against — that’s the point of welfare (directly paying people who don’t have jobs or can’t work) and food stamps (compensating corporations for credit on behalf of the consumer), to name a couple. The WIC program falls under this description as well. So I guess I need to ask before we go any further: do you support the abolition of all of those above programs, and/or any similar ones? If so, then I suppose you are at least consistent. If not, then forgive me, I’m lost.
You say this is irrevelent because it is based on our opinions. Well Tim, in your worldview, that is all there is.
I was referring specifically to your comment that “I don’t support…” etc., etc. I don’t honestly care what you don’t support or what you do support; unless you have a reason WHY you don’t support it, that information is irrelevant to me because it’s based on a subjective feeling and not anything I can relate to (as I do not have that same feeling myself). The purpose of such a reason is to provide a common ground between us so that I can at the very least try to understand why you feel the way you do. So forgive me if I consider vague and opinionated rants to be irrelevant to me.
A precedent is nothing more than a judicial OPINION that interprets the law.
Yes — an opinion which, by the mere act of being a U.S. citizen, we have agreed to respect with the force and authority of law. Or do you think we should be able to pick and choose which precedents have “authority” and which ones do not?
If you want a government that works, you better hope that the correct opinions are upheld or we are all going to be in a big mess.
I’m not worried. I only see libertarians getting angry, and that’s nothing new (they get angry anytime the Guvmint does anything….I mean, seriously, you should’ve seen these guys when G.W. was the prez….).
July 1st, 2010 at 8:07 am
Tim, I have explained my position numerous times and I am not going to do it again. Despite the obvious lack of understanding, I do appreciate the time you have taken in your replies. I will leave this discussion for now and maybe the others who have replied to you will continue the dialogue.
July 1st, 2010 at 8:54 am
“Money, of course, affects behavior related to all commerce. Unfortunately, people on left don’t seem to understand that.”
I’m sorry to say that when you try to paint the debate as ‘Me vs Financial illiterate liberals’, it comes across as a childish attempt to shut down discussion.
Aside from the fact that the article and research you refer to here has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere on this site, one could equally argue that it is the right that denies this fact with regard to healthcare.
Money is involved with healthcare however it is set up, and you are not going to remove the element of behaviour being affected by it. Money provides impetus for improvement and change, but the flipside is that it also provides incentive for fraud, which goes on the part of both the public and the insurers.
When insurers are in charge of doling out the care, they are being given a financial incentive NOT to provide that care. Obviously we therefore have a legal system designed to protect people from dodgy loss adjusters, but you’ve still got two imperfect systems, both of which can fail. Insurers don’t want to be sued, but they can still be in a system where they are weighing up the risk of being sued against the money gained by denying a claim.
This doesn’t mean that the health insurance system is fatally flawed, just that this isn’t a black and white case of ‘Communism vs a perfect system’, where free market capitalism has magically removed all problems, and where a national health service is judged in moral terms rather than pragmatic.
It is better to personally give to the poor, than to have some institution demand that money from you which they will distribute to the poor in your stead.
Better for who, you or the poor?
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:47 am
Complete off topic, but I’m surprised at Frank for not offering a post on his twice debate opponent’s health crisis. You’d think it’d be a great opportunity to ask people to pray for an atheist . . . or say they reap what they sow.
Good luck to you Mr. Hitchens. (I’m glad he’s relatively wealthy so I know he’s at least got some kind of insurance.)
July 2nd, 2010 at 9:18 am
You can find lots of Christians online saying Hitch is getting what he deserves, comments along the lines of ‘God 1, Hitch 0′. Fine examples of ‘Christian compassion’…
Also off topic, the New York Times reports today:
Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data
An American scientist accused of manipulating research findings on climate science was cleared of that charge by his university on Thursday, the latest in a string of reports to find little substance in the allegations known as Climategate.
An investigative panel at Pennsylvania State University, weighing the question of whether the scientist, Michael E. Mann, had “seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities,” declared that he had not.
Dr. Mann said he was gratified by the findings, the second report from Penn State to clear him. An earlier report had exonerated him of related charges that he suppressed or falsified data, destroyed e-mail and misused confidential information.
One would think that out of all the ‘anti-warming’ brigade who made such a big deal about ‘Climategate’, any with intellectual integrity would now be shouting just as loudly about the ongoing exoneration of the scientists concerned.
Funny also, the people who were claiming earlier this year that the cold Spring somehow disproved climate change science, they all seem to have fallen silent here in the UK since the weather turned scorching hot. This year, like most since the turn of the century, looks set to be among the hottest on record. Of course, this alone doesn’t prove global warming, but it makes a nonsense of the ‘It’s cold, therefore no climate change’ claims.
July 2nd, 2010 at 11:43 am
No surprise there Nathan. If these groups find evidence that support what they believe, they trumpet it. If evidence that refutes their viewpoint comes to the surface, they ignore or supress it. This is a common human trait, IMO. Objectivity does not come naturally, it must be pursued.
July 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 pm
If these groups find evidence that support what they believe, they trumpet it. If evidence that refutes their viewpoint comes to the surface, they ignore or supress it. This is a common human trait, IMO. Objectivity does not come naturally, it must be pursued.
Of course — someone is only objective if they agree with you, specifically. So those guys can’t be objective.
This is why I think pointless trash-talk like what you said above is, well, pointless. I prefer to let the evidence speak for itself. Which you have done by not offering a rebuttal
July 3rd, 2010 at 2:45 am
Not sure that was trash talk from Kyle, more like an honest admission. Tim, I saw a cartoon the other day, ‘the 24 types of libertarian’. You’d probably find it funny.
July 4th, 2010 at 12:03 am
Funny? Maybe that, too. I actually found it quite interesting that somebody somewhere has actually compiled all of the stock-libertarian responses to political questions into a single cartoon. I imagine the scientists that first managed to align the periodic table of elements must’ve experienced a similar fascination to that which I feel at the moment — “so there IS a pattern, and I’m NOT the only one who sees it!” Intriguing, to say the least.
July 4th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
No, Tim. Nathan is correct. The response was not trash talking and no, people are not only objective when they agree with me specifically.
As far as offering rebuttals. I cannot offer a rebuttal for a position that I am not advocating. You have spent a lot of time on this particular topic arguing against a position I do not advocate, that being an elimination of all government intervention. Sorry that you have wasted your time.