Letters to the Editor

Reason over fear

August 16, 2009


To the editor:

As a veteran activist in the last major effort to provide universal health insurance for our country, which ended when Hillary Clinton presented her ill-conceived plan and hope for real reform went down with it, I am saddened to see this round poised to go down in flames too. The need is much greater now than it was back then, with health care and health insurance costs escalating wildly, jobs disappearing daily, the boomers reaching retirement age and middle-class families sliding into poverty.

I would welcome the citizens who are so noisily exercising their free speech rights in town hall meetings this month if they offered any ideas or alternative ways to deal with the catastrophic plight of their fellow citizens. Sadly, they seem intent on stifling the speech of their representatives and neighbors and they offer only slogans filled with hate, fear and outright lies.

I would like to think we Americans are too wise to knuckle under to this sort of intimidation, but then I remember how easily Harry and Louise killed real reform efforts back when so many of us had worked so hard to promote them, and my heart sinks for my countrymen. I wonder how many decades must pass before reason will triumph over fear-mongering.


jmadison 8 years, 10 months ago

An alternative to Obamacare with some comments on the reality of a Canadian healthcare system. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

monkeyhawk 8 years, 10 months ago

"I would welcome the citizens who are so noisily exercising their free speech rights in town hall meetings this month if they offered any ideas or alternative ways to deal with the catastrophic plight of their fellow citizens."

That, Ms. Clifford, is above their "pay grade". Further, most of those polled are quite comfortable and satisfied with their health care. When you speak of "catastrophic plight of their fellow citizens", do you think we should disregard the fact that at least 1/2 of those you advocate for are not actual US citizens, though all of them have access to free health care any time they demand it? Could that have anything remotely to do with rising costs?

Centerville 8 years, 10 months ago

The best way to 'reform' health insurance is to 'reform' government out of it. Allow HSAs, allow interstate insurance groups, allow purchase with pre-tax money, allow high-deductible plans, pull off the 1,213 federal mandates that force every existing plan to be too costly.
And get HHS with it's ghoulish agenda out of my face.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 10 months ago

With HR 676 everybody pays. It was never designed to be free, is the most practical,comprehensive and fiscally responsible ever offered in the USA.

Medicare for All is an insurance program designed to accomplish:

• We’ll all receive identical health insurance coverage • Provides extraordinary leverage against suppliers • Protects families and business alike from being gouged by the health insurance industry • Treatment for serious illness such as cancer will not be cut off because a patient has reached the point insurance companies will pay no more…happens everyday • 60% of health insurance today is paid with tax dollars so why not 100% that covers all who need treatment. • Citizens will not be forced to lose all of their assets or file bankruptcy due to serious illness as does happen somewhere everyday as we speak • Eliminates health insurance dollars going into special interest campaign cookie jars • Eliminates health insurance dollars from financing golden parachutes • Veterans receive care immediately for whatever symptoms war has imposed on their physical or mental health. No more waiting on the Dept. of Defense • National Health Insurance eliminates over 2000 different policies thus eliminating tons of wasteful administrative costs. That money could be included towards 100% coverage. It is estimated todays administrative costs runs at 33%…that is a lot of dough.

tomatogrower 8 years, 10 months ago

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…

Universal health insurance is not about reason, it's about greed. Give me what I want and force someone else to pay for it.

So what you are saying is that someone who has diabetes and loses their insurance, should hope to stay alive until the can find another insurance company or just die, so you don't have to be bothered? A young child who through not fault of his own should not have his broken leg set, because his father just lost his job and can't afford the COBRA on his unemployment benefits. I certainly hope you aren't inviting your own tragedy. I"ve seen that happen before. A boy I went to high school with made fun all the time of the special ed students. He then was in a car accident that left him with brain damage. Now he's the guy running around town that before the accident he would have harassed and made fun of. I think your are tempting fate, liberty.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years, 10 months ago

Ms. Clifford,

That you would make your utopian dream my family's fiduciary responsibility is a moral outrage.

Phil Minkin 8 years, 10 months ago

Attn. Tom & liberty: From the Onion News In Brief Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire DepartmentCHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 10 months ago

4 substantial reasons why Medicare Insurance for All should be the choice for all in america

  1. *Eliminates Politicians as shareholders: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061204075.html

  2. *Eliminates Paying More Getting Less http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html

  3. *Eliminates Leading Cause Of Bankruptcy http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0IQKZLHHh&C

Why use Medicare? It eliminates reinventing the wheel therefore saves a big bundle of money and time = efficient use of existing resources. Medicare is in place therefore it is ready to roll which is convenient. The only major change necessary is reimbursement numbers which the author and the 87 cosigners are perfectly aware. They are also very much aware of what the inefficient insurance companies pay out on invoices which is never full invoice. Insurance companies usually pay out about 50%-60%.

The USA needs to STOP being be the most expensive insurance/health care of the industrialized nations if americans want jobs back. HR 676 Medicare for All insurance coverage is key to creating new wealth for america. The most expensive health insurance in the world is not the answer for keeping business costs down and keeping our cost of living somewhat in check.

Leslie Swearingen 8 years, 10 months ago

Libertarians are just not too bright. I am trying to find the best way to put this. The fire department should be dismantled because it is socialist? How about the police department? Parks and Recreation? When I was a child every family had to take their refuse out to the city dump. Talk about the good old days! Man, were we ever self-reliant. (sarcasm)

dontcallmedan 8 years, 10 months ago

I'm not with tomatogrower. I hope libertyone get a good dose of his heartlessness right back at him (her).

jonas_opines 8 years, 10 months ago

The existance of the community/society/collective is the only reason you are able to stably have any individual rights or property.

GardenMomma 8 years, 10 months ago

Am I wrong, but doesn't it boil down to this: there will be two types of insurance providers - private (the current choices) and governmental (hmm, sounds alot like Medicaid and Medicare)?

Don't people get a CHOICE? They can either keep the one they have or chose another one? For the currently uninsured, they would now have the option to have insurance or continue to go with out.

Isn't that what it's all about? Adding another type of insurance provider?

What's covered isn't going to change - if you stick with your current insurance company unless the insurance company decides to change what they want to cover, but you run the risk of denied claims all the time. From what I understand, if you have insurance right now - nothing will change. If you don't have insurance you can get some from the government. What's so wrong with that? Sounds a lot like Medicaid and Medicare, except there is not a strict qualification to apply for said insurance.

Perhaps it would have been better if Congress just relaxed the requirement for Medicaid. Instead of a percentage of the poverty level, make it super easy to qualify, like say $10,000 year income for a family of two.

jaywalker 8 years, 10 months ago

"Am I wrong, but doesn't it boil down to this: there will be two types of insurance providers - private (the current choices) and governmental "

Not that simple, especially when you consider that the government would be the ultimate not-for-profit; it's been referred to as a 'competitive' plan but there's no competition when one has to produce millions and the other gets to print millions, or perhaps just to take it from everyone including non-participators in form of taxes. And as I've asked before, what's the point of coming up with some mish mash government plan if it's no better than what's out there?

"For the currently uninsured, they would now have the option to have insurance or continue to go with out."

No. One of Obama's main points is that everyone will be required to carry insurance or be fined, I believe $2500/year.

"From what I understand, if you have insurance right now - nothing will change"

Not necessarily, particularly if you're a business owner that provides insurance for your employees.

jonas_opines 8 years, 10 months ago

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…

"jonas, the community/society/collective is the biggest threat to individual rights."

No, but it could be the second biggest. The biggest would be no community/society/collective.

kansastruthteller 8 years, 10 months ago

If it is such a great idea and such a great bill why doesn't the Democrat controlled Congress just pass it? Obama doesn't need any Republicans to pass the bill, just the members of his party so just get'r done.

Maybe the reason is that there is BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION to the bill. And maybe the reason there is bipartisan opposition is that it is a bad bill?

notajayhawk 8 years, 10 months ago

"Sadly, they seem intent on stifling the speech of their representatives and neighbors and they offer only slogans filled with hate, fear and outright lies."

You mean, Carol, like saying that unless we pass some kind of universal healthcare plan run by a government bureaucracy then everyone's going to die? Like those fear-mongering kind of statements?

merrill (Anonymous) says…

"Eliminates Leading Cause Of Bankruptcy"

I wish we could eliminate the leading cause of lies and propaganda on healthcare on these forums, and merrill would forget how to cut and paste these outright dishonest claims. How 'bout it, merrill - do you really enjoy being laughed at as a lying buffoon?

GardenMomma (Anonymous) says…

"What's so wrong with that?"

What business are you in, momma? From your screen name, and just for S&G, let's say you're in agriculture. The government thinks food costs too much, so they're going to start farming across the street. And with the entire resources of the federal government (subsidized by the taxes they're taking from you), they're going to sell their produce cheaper. It likely won't be as high a quality, but it will be cheaper.

But don't worry, your customers are still free to buy from you, too.

What's wrong with that?

Godot 8 years, 10 months ago

blah, blah, blah

Sebelius is already waving the white flag, and Congressliars have agreed to remove the "end of life counselling" that they had declared did not exist.

There are liars, damned liars, and democrat losers. Usually they are one and the same.

jonas_opines 8 years, 10 months ago

liberty one: "If there were no community there would be no one else to violate your rights."

Except for those other lawless individual humans out there. Unless you're the only human on the planet.
Without the society, and the social contract of individual rights and property that is communally decided within it, then you're back to the real natural rights for the individual.

The only natural individual right is this: you have the right to do whatever you want and face the consequences.

The only natural property right is this: you have the right to keep what you can take and what you can keep others from taking from you.

Everything else is a social contract, the product of the collective whole of the society, and is ultimately decided and enforced communally within it. (Or, I suppose, is decided by elites, and then enforced upon it)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 10 months ago

Well said, Jason.

Unfortunately, overzealous libertarian purists want to cling to their romanticized view of purely free individuals engaging in the unencumbered freedom to do whatever they want, and damn the little details of how we keep that from devolving into utter chaos.

jafs 8 years, 10 months ago


The provision simply allowed Medicare to pay for such counseling (no more than once/5 years) instead of patients having to pay for it themselves.

That's it.

They probably took it out because they saw that it was derailing the whole conversation, and not vitally important.

jaywalker 8 years, 10 months ago

"Well said, Jason."

Is bozo talking to his imaginary friend again?

jonas_opines 8 years, 10 months ago

That is the second time. . . . I don't know if it's random dyslexia (all the same letters), he's trying to being clever, or he thinks that Jason is my real name.

I have a good friend named Jason, but that is not my real name.

jimmyjms 8 years, 10 months ago

"Raucous protest was OK a few years ago with leftist zealots, now it's not? "

Oh, I see: break out the "free speech zones" behind barbed wire 6 miles from the "town hall"...right, Tom?

jonas_opines 8 years, 10 months ago

You can disagree if you want, liberty one. I understand that your paradigm practically forces you to.

Might makes right Is the only natural right. Spin all that you want, this is simply inescapable. The entirety of human existence, no, the entirety of Natural existence, spells this out absolutely clearly. Humans are probably the only beings that are significantly buffered from this natural state, because we have formed societies and communities, trading liberty for security. You laughed once at the notion I brought up that humans don't want liberty (not that this was what I was saying), but I can practically guarantee you that a huge majority of people, if truly faced with the choice, would take safety (security, stability), over liberty, if they had to make the choice.

"If rights are determined, as you say, by the community, by agreement, then there actually is no individual rights since the community has the power to agree them away."

Yes, hopefully now you realize why you've been on here, day after day after day, complaining about the government and the tyranny of the majority taking your rights away, not to mention all of that theft that is going on.

It's what I've been trying to tell you for months, if not years.

Jimo 8 years, 10 months ago

"Allow HSAs, allow interstate insurance groups, allow purchase with pre-tax money, allow high-deductible plans, pull off the 1,213 federal mandates that force every existing plan to be too costly."

HSAs are not insurance. They're a gamble that you won't get seriously ill before you have decades to build up enough money to pay for something serious. And they are, as a practical matter, unavailable to anyone with below average income.

Interstate insurance groups is a codeword for allowing the weakest state (probably Texas!) to allow an insurance company to sell a plan for band-aids and aspirin, title it "insurance," and then allow it to be sold in lieu of actual insurance. When coverage predictably doesn't cover illness, the public at large still has to pay. (We already have socialized medicine as the cost of uncovered services are socialized into the costs paid by those with coverage.)

High-deductible plans are great as insurance (the purpose of insurance is to cover unexpected expenses not routine, predictable ones) but focus on treating illness rather than preventing it. Absent near universal coverage, there is no incentive for any program to undertake the long-term effort of preventing illness if there's little chance that they can recoup the expenses later with less illness among their customers. Exception: the captive market for Medicare.

1,213 federal mandates? Dude, get your propaganda straight!! Those are state mandates - and there's not 1,213 of them, unless you count a mandate for, say, coverage of newborn children everywhere as 51(!) mandates. Kansas has 37 mandates and they are quite reasonable. Mandate is just a fancy Rush Limbaugh word for 'truth in labelling' a/k/a, health insurance coverage that actually covers health.

Here, btw, is the origin of this mandate issue: http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2008.pdf Warning: this "report" is provided courtesy of insurance companies, brokers, and providers, which doesn't mean that it's false but doesn't mean that it wouldn't derail an academic career if a scholar submitted it.

The above proposals are seriously flawed. And I note, after a decade or so of complete GOP control in Washington, NONE were implemented. We can continue along with the most ineffective, expensive medical system known to man (documented!) or we can try something else. Too bad there are so many people with a personal financial interest in having their cheese moved and so bribe certain Washington players to stop any reform that might actually improves things.

Stuart Evans 8 years, 10 months ago

the government has been working on fixing health care for decades.. why isn't it done yet? This same question goes for other social services. we've been giving to the poor for more than half a century. why haven't we solved anything yet? why are there more poor now than there were when we started? The government doesn't provide solutions. it provides sustainable problems. if there continues to be problems then there continues to be a need for those social serving representatives.
The biggest problem with this health care fix is that it's going to cost "1 trillion dollars" (probably more like 3 trillion, but who's counting). The trillions of dollars will go more to administrating these programs, and less towards actually helping anyone. Yes, there will be those who are helped. we will be able to keep at least 5 welfare mothers alive long enough for them to produce not less than 3 welfare mouths each. Thus the need for additional social programs.
it's called job sustainability. because as long as you're giving certain people free things, you can always count on their vote.

puddleglum 8 years, 10 months ago

the good news? tom & liberty are both voicing minority polictical opinions...the majority of the u.s. voted for this issue back in november. it is clear that the status quo needs to change-whomever pays for it-the cost of healthcare AND the insurance company (ripoffs) profit margins are TOO HIGH!

Stuart Evans 8 years, 10 months ago

puddle, i think you're right.. the majority of people do want some change to occur with the system. what we don't want is this government pushing through a bill that is loaded with problem and a sh!tload more government. We want our representatives to think this thing through completely. why must we spend our way out of the problem? why can't we fix what we have already, without spending another trillion or three.

jonas_opines 8 years, 10 months ago

AreUNormal: I think the answer to that last question is: "Because it's really, really hard!" (Delivered in a whiny bureaucrat's voice)

Flap Doodle 8 years, 10 months ago

"...the majority of the u.s. voted for this issue back in november." Don't recall seeing "Government takeover of health care" on my ballot. I do recall an empty suit who slickered every credulous git in the country to vote for hopenchange and then turned out to just be another politician once he got into office & couldn't simply vote "present" anymore.

Stuart Evans 8 years, 10 months ago

lol hopenchange...sounds like a german musical festival. While the spectacle is nearly as entertaining, it's not half as much fun.

jonas_opines 8 years, 10 months ago

Sorry, that spin was so desperate as to be pathetic, liberty-one. It does apply to everybody equally, that doesn't mean that under it, everybody is equal. Just that everybody is inevitably subject too it. As it is in nature.

Though, admittedly, I'm probably using my own form for "Natural Law," to be distinguished from other philosophers who claim it for social contracts or social institutions in order to make their ideas and concepts into something more hard, and thus necessary, than some guy's idea on how we should live as humans in society.

Most of those other philosophers disagree on what it is exactly anyway.

Shane Garrett 8 years, 10 months ago

I loved this article by Charlie Reese: Why we do not have health care foreveryone?

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years. Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. . The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. They can pass it over a veto if they agree to. It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted of incompetence and irresponsibility.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red .. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

jaywalker 8 years, 10 months ago

Excellent article, Wally. Thanks for sharing.

jonas_opines 8 years, 10 months ago

Naturalistic fallacy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The naturalistic fallacy is often claimed to be a formal fallacy. It was described and named by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica. Moore stated that a naturalistic fallacy was committed whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.).

The naturalistic fallacy is related to, and often confused with, the is-ought problem (which comes from Hume's Treatise). As a result, the term is sometimes used loosely to describe arguments that claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts.

Alternatively, the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" is used to refer to the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is bad or wrong (see "Appeal to nature"). It is the converse of the moralistic fallacy, or that what is good or right is natural and inherent.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 10 months ago

"That is the second time… . I don't know if it's random dyslexia (all the same letters), he's trying to being clever, or he thinks that Jason is my real name."

Sorry, jonas, just a typo and poor editing-- nothing else.

And, no, I'm not lysdexic.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 10 months ago

"Please use this definition of natural: not acquired; inherent; self-evident."

Like access to healthcare?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 10 months ago

What I'm saying, LO, is that the definition of an "inherent, self-evident, natural law" (or right) will vary from person to person. For you, property rights are inherent and natural, while for others the list may look very differently and include things such as access to healthcare for all.

tbaker 8 years, 10 months ago

Dear Ms. Clifford: First of all you should consult your copy of the US constitution. Americans have no more “right” to healthcare than they do pizza delivery. If you or others believe healthcare should be a “right” then this blog discussion needs to be about the constitutional convention this country needs to have, and the pending amendment thereto. Our founders gave us the means to create new rights. Change of this magnitude should follow our constitution, not rammed-through on a partisan vote in the middle of the night after never being read.

As to your lamenting the town hall-goers “intent on stifling the speech of their representatives and neighbors and they offer only slogans filled with hate, fear and outright lies” I must ask: Who is being stifled? The last I looked, the town halls weren’t filled with supporters of the healthcare initiatives.

Given their notable absence, your charge rings hollow and drips of partisan angst. You should recall, with equal advantage, that outfits like Code Pink and MoveOn.Org vehemently protested President Bush every chance they got. Not once were they called Nazis, or Brown shirts, or called un-American or compared to terrorists or the Ku Klux Klan by conservative politicians. Perhaps you would like congress to create a committee to investigate the protesters--call it the House Committee on Un-American Activities – ring any bells? And here I thought political dissent was supposed to be the highest form of patriotism.

“Outright lies” you say? What about the very core of the argument tirelessly repeated by the President: “46 million Americans have no coverage” (implying 46 million Americans without healthcare) To begin, that’s 10 million more than even the Census Bureau says there are. 10-14 million of that number are illegal aliens – as in NOT Americans. A further 10-12 million have the means but have chosen not to pay for health insurance. Of those who remain, what about those already on government provided healthcare such as MEDICADE, MEDICARE, VA ,or Social Security benefits? The number of Americans in dire need of access to health care is a fraction of the number the president and congress are matter-of-factly throwing around. How can we begin to fix the problem if honestly defining it can’t even be done?

Quite frankly madam you strike me as a liberal statist who believes the solution to our country’s problems lies in the power of the federal government. I do not. Like our founders, I believe (when left alone by the federal government) the people are a far more reliable source of solutions – especially when it comes to the most personal of matters like health care. I believe you see your faction losing its grip on power to authentic grassroots dissent, and you’re out of ideas – as evidenced by your being reduced to name-calling. I too would be worried if I were you. If Mr. Obama can’t sell this idea – no one can.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 8 years, 10 months ago

Liberty one is just another squeeky gate swinging in the wind. To stisfy his visions, we would need to disband th Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Fire Departments, Police Deparments, Justice Departments and a host of other government organizations created by the "evil" government "stealing" from the people. My take is that this person is simply stuck in first gear, spinning his tires about pristine visions of imagined liberties and causes and no solutions will satisfy him. He is just an ill wind blowing no one anything.

jaywalker 8 years, 10 months ago

"We are attempting to make sure that everyone has access to a health care system where everyone can get healthy"

There's that collective 'we' again, as if you are part of anything substantial in this or any other process.
Everyone has 'access' to healthcare, it just costs a hell of alot more for some than others. The problem is costs, not whether everyone's insured. And the naivete of "where everyone can get healthy"....well that speaks for itself. One would know that a "reasonable" man........you ain't.

Jason Stafford 8 years, 10 months ago

I don't believe many (if any) are advocating anarchy. Anarchy is an absurd, self-contradicting floating abstraction.

Individual rights, however, are not. And universal health care stands directly contrary to individual rights.

Fundamentally speaking, the proper function of government is to secure individual rights. Those rights can be introduced as follows: an individual has the right to his own life. The practical implementation of the right to one's life is the right to keep and dispose of the fruit of his labor, which is to say: man has the right to keep what he earns.

There are two ways one can go about violating the rights of another - by the use of force or by fraud. So, to say that it's the proper function of government to protect individual rights is to say that the proper function of government is to protect individuals from the use of force and of fraud. This justifies law enforcement, to protect individuals from domestic aggressors, a military, to protect from foreign same, and a system of courts, to square cases of alleged fraud against the facts of reality.

That's raw individualism.

But consider what universal health care implies: a person has the "right" to the latest and greatest in medical technology, just because he's alive. A person has the "right" to enslave the professionals who trained, by choice, for years, by choice, to save lives and heal the sick, by choice. A person has the "right" to extort resources from competent, working individuals, so as to appease those professionals.

The most significant error in thought there is in confusing the man-made with the metaphysically given, the earned with the unearned... and thinking that there's really no difference between them at all, that the lives of men and women and the technologies produced by the finest minds in the field of medicine are no less a seemingly infinite resource than the air and oceans themselves.

But the error in thought is an insignificant mistake compared to the crime that is this legislation. Armed robbery and extortion are considered crimes for a great reason, and it should be remembered that these are in fact crimes, immoral acts based on immoral and irrational premises, regardless of whether the man with the gun is a thug in an alley or a smiling bureaucrat.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 10 months ago

"Fundamentally speaking, the proper function of government is to secure individual rights."

As I told LO, jason, just because you define "rights" in a certain way doesn't mean that definition comes from some sacrosanct source of all wisdom and truth. Your definition of "rights" and the source of their moral authority may suit you, but that doesn't mean that public policy will be based solely on your favored definition(s), or those of anyone else.

In a society such as this, which does have strong, if very flawed, democratic traditions (yes, I know, it's a republic) that eventually means public policy will tend somewhere towards the political middle. W/regard to healthcare, not only is it badly broken, the current status quo is slanted far to the right. Given that the rest of the industrialized world covers many more people for much less money with systems with much greater government involvement, and much less profit-oriented "healthcare," it's pretty much inevitable that whatever new system arises, whether in the next few months or the next few years, it will move towards systems such as those in Canada, Britain, France, etc.-- and not towards a Randian system where we're all free to die miserable deaths.

Bossa_Nova 8 years, 10 months ago

i'm ok with socialized medicine as long as the following hold true:

my taxes do not increase my healthcare premiums do not increase (would there be premiums under socialized healthcare?) my current standard of healthcare is not reduced the industry continuously strives and is successful in making healthcare even better

is it achievable provided these constraints? probably, so how are our politicians going to make it happen?

GardenMomma 8 years, 10 months ago

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

jaywalker 8 years, 10 months ago

"We are aware of how you define yourself as “white guy” vs blah blah blah..."

No, YOU define me as such, moron, and with the foolishness and maturity of a two year old.

"We are also aware that you don't think it's such a big deal that people in Albania live longer than we do"

They don't, brain trust.

"I'd like to brag that Americans live longer and healthier than people in other countries. I can't."

Another brainless statement. We live longer that the citizens in 143 other countries. And of the countries that do "beat" us in life expectancy, not a one consists of even close to 1/3 of our population with the exception of Japan. We stand 49th out of 192 to 195 nations (if you wanna include places like Kosovo and Vatican City) in life expectancy, but those numbers don't take into account the high numbers of drug, alcohol, tobacco, and vehicular deaths, nor deaths that result from side effects of obesity which comes from having the most food and the most varied and inexpensive diet in the world.

Life expectancy: 1. Macau - 84.36 2. Andorra - 82.51 4. Singapore - 81.98 9. France - 80.98 24. Norway - 79.95 37. Finland - 78.97 50. U.S - 78.11 (should actually be #49 since the record inexplicably includes the E.U.)

Gee willikers! Look at the spread! Just two years away from the top ten. Considering at the turn of the twentieth century L.E. in this country was 49.2 I believe we're doing pretty well. So sorry if I oppose your moronic rationale of "wanting to brag" that our populace lives longer than that of Guernsey, Gibraltar, the Faroe Islands, Saint Pierre and Miguelon, the Isle of Man, and Wallis and Fortuna. Particularly when it comes at a price tag of more than 2.5 trillion over ten years with absolutely no guarantee let alone proof that it will have any effect on life expectancy rates. 'Course, why should you care? Obviously destined for a life of perpetual EZ form filing, it really won't be your problem, will it?

"Maybe you're not American. Maybe you have no orientation as a member of a group as large as a nation, I don't know."

Could you be more of an idiot? (Hint: That's a rhetorical question)

"Boggles the mind."

Not surprising when 'Where's Waldo?' has the same effect.

***I'm bookin' bets on whether porchie calls me a racist (for the fourth time today with nothing even remotely race-based in any discussion) in his inevitable response. It's a million to one for.......place your bets, place your bets!

Fred Whitehead Jr. 8 years, 10 months ago

Liberty one (cute misidentification, yeah??)

"porch, under a free market there would be no corporations. Corporations are a creation of the government that you love so much."

You have identified yourself as a doctrinaire, myopic, dunderhead who has dreams and fantisies that far exceed any rational thought or reason. You have disqualified yourself from this forum by your ridiculous and stupid statements.

jaywalker 8 years, 10 months ago

You took up all that space and time to say absolutely nothing? Well done.

"Pardon me if I thought you knew what you were talking about"

Unlike yourself, I do. Show in that quote where I said Albanians lived longer than us. Man, you are a foooooool.

"I don't call you a racist."

That's a lie.

"I just quote your racist statements"

There's another lie. (million to one for a re-posting, bettors, I'm the bank)

"The United States is 45th in longevity and 46th in infant mortality rate."

Longevity? Isn't that life expectancy? I've already addressed that in detail above.
And infant mortality? We're at 6 infant deaths per 1000. How much lower can we go, particularly when our nation's particular factors are considered (drug abusers, obesity, etc.)? Who's the leader? Oh, it's Iceland at 3 per 1000. Zowie! That's a huuuuge gap!!

"53 percent more than any other country.”

'Cept that's not adjusted for currency values, now is it? Makes a big difference.

Could you possibly try to raise even a slightly reasonable argument?

jaywalker 8 years, 10 months ago

Yo, frwent,

After your repetitious claims that ALL opposition to healthcare reform stemmed from people hating the President 'cuz he's black, you are absolutely the last person to be calling anyone else myopic or a dunderhead, projecting about someone else's dreams and "fantisies" (learn to spell), or stating anyone else has exceeded any rational thought or reason.

"You have disqualified yourself from this forum by your ridiculous and stupid statements."

Stand in front of a mirror and repeat that line over and over. That'll be porch standin' next to ya.

jaywalker 8 years, 10 months ago

Yuppers. That's what I thought, porchie. You gots nothing and can't back up shinola. Too predictable.

Paul R Getto 8 years, 10 months ago

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union..." Someday access to decent health care will be declared a right, like it is in the other developed countries. Once that court case happens, the momentum will shift away from the lies, distortions and fear tactics. We might even move into the top ten internationally on the health care scale, far better than our current ranking somewhere in the '30's.

Stuart Evans 8 years, 10 months ago

GardenMomma (Anonymous) says… “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

The needs of the many are starting to break the backs of the few. the few of us who are still earning our own way will not be able to carry the needs of the many for much longer before we become one of the many and the few become fewer.

Stuart Evans 8 years, 10 months ago

no porch, i'm a complete moron. so tell me how this relates to my post.

BrianR 8 years, 10 months ago

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says… "Universal health insurance is not about reason, it's about greed. Give me what I want and force someone else to pay for it. A reasonable mind would say that she has no right to violently confiscate someone else's property in the form of taxation for her own private benefit. But alas, as long as it's for the children, the elderly, the poor, the sick etc. then people can rationalize their greed."

This is becoming a trend. Not a single word in this post is true.

Stuart Evans 8 years, 10 months ago

thanks for the interjection Vertigo. but my statement wasn't exactly aimed at unemployment. it was aimed at all sorts of national welfare that I will most likely never see a piece of. 50% of my income later, I feel like i'm living in poverty

Commenting has been disabled for this item.