Government Deregulation

[cashmcall]

Lets get back to deregulation.. I am happy to say..There seems to be a worldwide trend towards privatization and deregulation.... shows that even governments themselves eventually have to admit that their cures are often worse than the disease. When governments as diverse as the "Communists" of China and the Hindu nationalists of India have now embraced deregulation and privatization (with great success) the continuing Left/liberal infatuation with government exposes them as the dinosaurs in the world of ideas.

 

[Cruella]

In 2014, the first year that the tax will be collected, the tax is $95. It will increase to $325 or 2 percent of your income in 2015. In 2016, it will increase to its highest amount of $695 or 2.5 percent of your income. Even at its highest point, the tax is cheaper than health care in almost all cases.This is going to get out of hand...And that fact is scaring many of the people that designed and are in the process of implementing this fatally flawed system..

Talk about immorality, that's ^ going to bankrupt the country and force private practices out of business. Not to mention destroying our great HC system. How many of those people/employers who are now paying for the full cost of medical isurance are going to opt out for the lower tax amount? And, how many of those required to pay the tax are dead beats who won't pay the tax regardless, but will still get their medical care?

 

[cashmcall]

Talk about immorality, that's ^ going to bankrupt the country and force private practices out of business. Not to mention destroying our great HC system. How many of those people/employers who are now paying for the full cost of medical isurance are going to opt out for the lower tax amount? And, how many of those required to pay the tax are dead beats who won't pay the tax regardless, but will still get their medical care?

It's gong to get messy...I have played with the math, but there is no way to say...Gipp may be right we are doomed to get unvirsal health care..because it would be cheaper...

 

[Cruella]

It's gong to get messy...I have played with the math, but there is no way to say...Gipp may be right we are doomed to get unvirsal health care..because it would be cheare...

No, there is no way to say it, because they are still adding to it. Want to talk about regulations? The Dept. of Health and Services has already added an additional 13,000 pages of regulations to the 2700 pages of Obamacare.

Infact, one of Obama's 23 gun control EO's requires your doctor to ask his patients if they have a gun in the home.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038706_Obama_gun_control_executive_orders.html#ixzz2IFnI1Lr5

 

[bobbyjimmy]

am going to ignore cashmcall's ramblings for the obvious reason that they aren't making any sense and go all over the place. Now he's saying that the world is actually trending towards privatization and deregulation, which is the opposite of what he and everyone has been complaining (and I've been saying) about this entire time. Amazing.

There are numerous fallacies in your post. First, socialized medicine will benefit only the state. It benefits no one else.

This is true because you say so? Obviously, socialized medicine will benefit everyone who couldn't afford it before and now gets it as part of their right for being a citizen of this country. It benefits the state in the sense that it creates a healthier body of citizens, and that benefits the state in the long run, because it collectively benefits its individual members. It even benefits the cheapskates who don't want to pitch in because they get to live in a country that puts the needs of its citizens in front of the needs of its wealthy elite.

Second, we will get universal hc (so don't despair my leftist friend) because the socialists and progressives who run our political system have it all set up to occur.

I'm glad you think so. There is absolutely no reason to believe this, but I'm glad you think so. If ONLY we had politicians who wanted this to occur, who listened to their constituents who have been asking for it by a huge margin. We can go back 10 years, way before Obama came into the picture, and see that already, Americans made it clear they wanted this system:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
And yet when the health care talks came about, universal health care was officially "off the table." Yet somehow in your mind, an alternate universe formed where the opposite exists. Clearly, you've got a handle on things!

Thirdly, the insurers, doctors, and hospitals will ALL go along with the effort or face the wrath of the all consuming all knowing state....just as was done with Obamacare.

Are you trying to make a statement of fact here or is this just more ranting? The wrath of the all knowing state? Didn't I see you on the street yesterday with a sandwich board handing out leaflets about armageddon, or was that someone else?

The daily plunder of OUR wealth you say....what in the world are you talking about? And can you be specific on who it is that is denying hc to folks who paid for it?.

Sure. Check out these news stories, just to start:
"Alex Lange, a 4-month-old, was denied health insurance because he is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for a baby his age, making him technically obese, according to pediatric guidelines. (Some insurers consider obesity a preexisting condition for which they can limit or deny coverage, but the guidelines only apply to children ages 2 and older.) The breast-fed infant from Colorado was born at a normal 8 1/4 pounds and grew to 17 pounds in just a few months."

"Nataline Sarkisyan was diagnosed with leukemia at age 14. The disease had gone into remission, but following a relapse and a subsequent bone-marrow transplant, her liver failed due to a blood-clotting complication. She died at 17, mere hours after her insurance company, Cigna, announced that it would cover a liver transplant, which it had previously rejected as being “experimental, investigational, and unproven.”

Here's one about a woman who got assaulted by her ex-husband, and then got denied insurance because the company considered that incident as being part of her medical history, giving them a loophole to deny her coverage.

This man was working as a U.S. military contractor in Iraq. His truck went over a mine, he lost a leg, and returned home to find out AIG was refusing to give him a new leg, a wheelchair, or glasses for his damaged eye in the explosion.

Oh, and here's one about a 57-year-old father who donated his kidney to his ailing daughter, and then could not buy health insurance because they claimed it was a "pre-existing condition".

And so on. Meanwhile, health insurance companies post insanely huge profits year after year. But hey, keep defending our wonderful non-socialist system, because it's working real well.

**********
And none of this has anything to do with the argument I was being asked to answer to- that it is morally wrong for a government to mandate national health insurance. So far, no one has been able to deny my argument, because no one here actually believes what they are preaching. Until someone steps up and claims that, yes, they are an anarchist who believes any initiated use of force is immoral, y'all are just blowing smoke. If you want to argue whether universal health care is or isn't a smarter system, see my above examples, but that's a completely different argument than saying you won't support it because it's immoral. So far, GenSeneca (or whatever his/her name is) is the only person who is making a solid argument, but I haven't heard back from him/her as to whether he/she is actually an anarchist or not. Everyone else here is just looking to rant without any substance behind their words.

 

[cashmcall]

am going to ignore cashmcall's ramblings for the obvious reason that they aren't making any sense and go all over the place. Now he's saying that the world is actually trending towards privatization and deregulation, which is the opposite of what he and everyone has been complaining (and I've been saying) about this entire time. Amazing.



This is true because you say so? Obviously, socialized medicine will benefit everyone who couldn't afford it before and now gets it as part of their right for being a citizen of this country. It benefits the state in the sense that it creates a healthier body of citizens, and that benefits the state in the long run, because it collectively benefits its individual members. It even benefits the cheapskates who don't want to pitch in because they get to live in a country that puts the needs of its citizens in front of the needs of its wealthy elite.



I'm glad you think so. There is absolutely no reason to believe this, but I'm glad you think so. If ONLY we had politicians who wanted this to occur, who listened to their constituents who have been asking for it by a huge margin. We can go back 10 years, way before Obama came into the picture, and see that already, Americans made it clear they wanted this system:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
And yet when the health care talks came about, universal health care was officially "off the table." Yet somehow in your mind, an alternate universe formed where the opposite exists. Clearly, you've got a handle on things!


Are you trying to make a statement of fact here or is this just more ranting? The wrath of the all knowing state? Didn't I see you on the street yesterday with a sandwich board handing out leaflets about armageddon, or was that someone else?



Sure. Check out these news stories, just to start:
"Alex Lange, a 4-month-old, was denied health insurance because he is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for a baby his age, making him technically obese, according to pediatric guidelines. (Some insurers consider obesity a preexisting condition for which they can limit or deny coverage, but the guidelines only apply to children ages 2 and older.) The breast-fed infant from Colorado was born at a normal 8 1/4 pounds and grew to 17 pounds in just a few months."

"Nataline Sarkisyan was diagnosed with leukemia at age 14. The disease had gone into remission, but following a relapse and a subsequent bone-marrow transplant, her liver failed due to a blood-clotting complication. She died at 17, mere hours after her insurance company, Cigna, announced that it would cover a liver transplant, which it had previously rejected as being “experimental, investigational, and unproven.”

Here's one about a woman who got assaulted by her ex-husband, and then got denied insurance because the company considered that incident as being part of her medical history, giving them a loophole to deny her coverage.

This man was working as a U.S. military contractor in Iraq. His truck went over a mine, he lost a leg, and returned home to find out AIG was refusing to give him a new leg, a wheelchair, or glasses for his damaged eye in the explosion.

Oh, and here's one about a 57-year-old father who donated his kidney to his ailing daughter, and then could not buy health insurance because they claimed it was a "pre-existing condition".


And so on. Meanwhile, health insurance companies post insanely huge profits year after year. But hey, keep defending our wonderful non-socialist system, because it's working real well.

**********
And none of this has anything to do with the argument I was being asked to answer to- that it is morally wrong for a government to mandate national health insurance. So far, no one has been able to deny my argument, because no one here actually believes what they are preaching. Until someone steps up and claims that, yes, they are an anarchist who believes any initiated use of force is immoral, y'all are just blowing smoke. If you want to argue whether universal health care is or isn't a smarter system, see my above examples, but that's a completely different argument than saying you won't support it because it's immoral. So far, GenSeneca (or whatever his/her name is) is the only person who is making a solid argument, but I haven't heard back from him/her as to whether he/she is actually an anarchist or not. Everyone else here is just looking to rant without any substance behind their words.

Sorry we are just ignorant ...we know where your coming from..and I have said we can't argue the point on force unless we agree on all forms of force....(but there is cuch a thing as common sense)So the whole argument is an evasion. Practically everyone (a few anarchists of various types excepted) agrees that we need government and owe it something. The only interesting debate is over how much do we need the government and how much do we owe it?
The plain fact is that what we owe the community we DO pay and have ALWAYS paid -- by working and providing our services in exchange for services that we receive from others. And people co-operate to create goods and services for one-another with or without government involvement. And even if we agree that we owe the government some of our money for the services it provides, that in no way implies that we owe something to each and every member of the community, regardless of how much they contribute to the community.

There is, for instance, nothing inconsistent with my admitting indebtedness to the community and also saying that I owe hobos nothing. They have done nothing for me so I owe them nothing. I may give them something out of kindness but that is all. It is of course typically dreamy and simplistic Leftist thinking to see "the community" as some sort of undifferentiated whole when it is in fact anything but and when people in every day of their lives make sharp and important distinctions of all sorts between different members of it. Leftists have such rigid and simplistic thinking that their analyses of the world have always concentrated on large and overgeneralized groups. It used to be "the working class" versus "the rich" and now it is mostly "gays", "women", "minorities", "Zionists" health care for everyone etc. You just can't handle or allow for individuals in their thinking.... Individuals are just too messy and unruly for you..... Straitjackets for all!

 

[Gipper]

It's gong to get messy...I have played with the math, but there is no way to say...Gipp may be right we are doomed to get unvirsal health care..because it would be cheaper...

Yes we are doomed to state run healthcare. It is inevitable and yet anyone with a brain, knows that state run anything, let alone something as important as our healthcare, is going to be a disaster. When the state controls your HC, they control you. Why is that so difficult for some to understand? I guess it is as simple as they want free care and the consequences be damned. Simpletons all of them.

What will be most ironic (and IMO comical) is when the state run HC agency denies care (and they will do so with regularity), foolish leftists and liberals who today condemn our current system for denying HC coverage, will be silent. They will have been duped again.

 

[cashmcall]

Yes we are doomed to state run healthcare. It is inevitable and yet anyone with a brain, knows that state run anything, let alone something as important as our healthcare, is going to be a disaster. When the state controls your HC, they control you. Why is that so difficult for some to understand? I guess it is as simple as they want free care and the consequences be damned. Simpletons all of them.

What will be most ironic (and IMO comical) is when the state run HC agency denies care (and they will do so with regularity), foolish leftists and liberals who today condemn our current system for denying HC coverage, will be silent. They will have been duped again.

They don't see the end game..I don't think all liberals motives are bad...Some are genuinely outraged by things that they do not understand and are unwise enough to want to change those things willy nilly. In particular, they may be genuinely grieved by the unhappy experiences of others and want to fix that ASAP without being wise enough to seek for way's of fixing it that have some prospect of working or that are not self defeating. They might.. for instance, be disturbed by the impact of rising rents on the poor and propose rent control as a quick fix solution (We all know how that one worked out) But with a few minutes of thought or the most a little inquiry should tell them that rent control will after a time also have the effect of degrading and shrinking the existing stock of rental accomodation and drying up the supply of new rental accomodation, both of which make the poor much worse off in the long run...When we get state run health care..THEY WILL HAVE NBEEN DUPED AGAIN...

 

[Gipper]

They don't see the end game..I don't think all liberals motives are bad...Some are genuinely outraged by things that they do not understand and are unwise enough to want to change those things willy nilly. In particular, they may be genuinely grieved by the unhappy experiences of others and want to fix that ASAP without being wise enough to seek for way's of fixing it that have some prospect of working or that are not self defeating. They might.. for instance, be disturbed by the impact of rising rents on the poor and propose rent control as a quick fix solution (We all know how that one worked out) But with a few minutes of thought or the most a little inquiry should tell them that rent control will after a time also have the effect of degrading and shrinking the existing stock of rental accomodation and drying up the supply of new rental accomodation, both of which make the poor much worse off in the long run...When we get state run health care..THEY WILL HAVE NBEEN DUPED AGAIN...

So true and so sad. Liberalism has failed at almost everything it has imposed on our society. And yet, liberalism continues to rule the land as if nothing has gone wrong.

Rent control is a good example. NYC imposed rent controls years ago. It has failed miserably, but it is still in place.

• Another one is the City of San Francisco and Portland have allowed the enviro whackos to prevent any new home construction. The result is housing prices are not affordable to the poor. So the poor no longer live in these liberal meccas and nothing is done to correct it. But libs like to like they are so caring and considerate.

• Another well known failure, or should I say well known to those of us on the right, is what liberals did to Africa by eliminating the use of DDT. The result has been millions of deaths from malaria, but still DDT is banned in most nations.

• When one examines what liberalism has done to the government schools, one has to be appalled. Yet nothing is done to correct the problem and those who demand change are demonized and marginalized.
• Liberalism has destroyed African Americans and yet nothing is done to fix the problem.

We could go on and on about their terrible failures.

 

[GenSeneca]

Are we still on the same page?

No, we're not... But we're getting closer. You are lumping together laws that initiate force with laws that do not. If you agree that it's immoral to initiate the use of force against others, then you should agree that government should have laws that punish people who do initiate force against others - Murder, fraud, theft, any action that initiates the use of force against others. That's the only moral use of force, to stop and/or punish those who initiate the use of force, and that's why our government should have a military, police, and courts, to punish those who initiate the use of force against others.

Limiting the use of government power to punishing individuals for initiating the use of force against others isn't anarchy, it's the basis of Capitalism. Abusing government's monopoly on the legal use of force, to legally initiate force against others, is the basis of all Collectivist doctrines.

If it is wrong to "force" people into a universal health care system, it is wrong to force people to do anything.

I like asparagus but I know many people do not. Let's say you hate the stuff... I would be initiating the use of force against you if I mandated that you had to have it. You would be initiating the use of force against me if you were to ban it or otherwise make it illegal for me to have it. If neither of us could legally initiate the use of force against the other, we would both have the freedom to choose for ourselves whether or not to eat asparagus.

None of us has a Right to violate the rights of others, that means none of us has a Right to initiate the use of force against others. With that in mind, substitute "asparagus" for anything else you think should be banned or mandated and the same holds true: It is immoral to initiate the use of force against others and each of us has a Right to make our own decisions in life.

 

[cashmcall]

No, we're not... But we're getting closer. You are lumping together laws that initiate force with laws that do not. If you agree that it's immoral to initiate the use of force against others, then you should agree that government should have laws that punish people who do initiate force against others - Murder, fraud, theft, any action that initiates the use of force against others. That's the only moral use of force, to stop and/or punish those who initiate the use of force, and that's why our government should have a military, police, and courts, to punish those who initiate the use of force against others.

Limiting the use of government power to punishing individuals for initiating the use of force against others isn't anarchy, it's the basis of Capitalism. Abusing government's monopoly on the legal use of force, to legally initiate force against others, is the basis of all Collectivist doctrines.


I like asparagus but I know many people do not. Let's say you hate the stuff... I would be initiating the use of force against you if I mandated that you had to have it. You would be initiating the use of force against me if you were to ban it or otherwise make it illegal for me to have it. If neither of us could legally initiate the use of force against the other, we would both have the freedom to choose for ourselves whether or not to eat asparagus.

None of us has a Right to violate the rights of others, that means none of us has a Right to initiate the use of force against others. With that in mind, substitute "asparagus" for anything else you think should be banned or mandated and the same holds true: It is immoral to initiate the use of force against others and each of us has a Right to make our own decisions in life.

You know if you were a Christian..you would the MAN...If I say anything too stupid..please tell me in private..I have no clue how I would respond to that...

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes I do not think it my job to provide for your healthcare. Sorry to be so cold hearted.

You should not be sorry. I do not consider it cold hearted of you to recognize that no man has a Right to the products of your labor, no matter how great that other man's "need" might be. It's the people who believe they have a "right" to confiscate, by force, the products of your labor who are cold hearted.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

No, we're not... But we're getting closer. You are lumping together laws that initiate force with laws that do not. If you agree that it's immoral to initiate the use of force against others, then you should agree that government should have laws that punish people who do initiate force against others - Murder, fraud, theft, any action that initiates the use of force against others. That's the only moral use of force, to stop and/or punish those who initiate the use of force, and that's why our government should have a military, police, and courts, to punish those who initiate the use of force against others.

Limiting the use of government power to punishing individuals for initiating the use of force against others isn't anarchy, it's the basis of Capitalism. Abusing government's monopoly on the legal use of force, to legally initiate force against others, is the basis of all Collectivist doctrines.


I like asparagus but I know many people do not. Let's say you hate the stuff... I would be initiating the use of force against you if I mandated that you had to have it. You would be initiating the use of force against me if you were to ban it or otherwise make it illegal for me to have it. If neither of us could legally initiate the use of force against the other, we would both have the freedom to choose for ourselves whether or not to eat asparagus.

None of us has a Right to violate the rights of others, that means none of us has a Right to initiate the use of force against others. With that in mind, substitute "asparagus" for anything else you think should be banned or mandated and the same holds true: It is immoral to initiate the use of force against others and each of us has a Right to make our own decisions in life.

Okay, well, first of all, it doesn't necessarily follow that if initiating force is wrong, creating a government that punishes those that initiate force is a "moral use of force." I mean, you can say that this is what you believe, but it certainly isn't some innately logical stance. In fact, since folks around here love to invoke Christianity and its values often, one should be reminded that Christianity's own doctrine contradicts what you just said. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" is a pretty direct commandment that completely contradicts your statement. Basically, someone initiating force on you does not give you the moral right to use force on them.

But let's leave that aside for a moment. I'll still accept the system of belief you're proposing because at least there's logic to it- even if it's not morally provable. Even going by that, one is still forced (no pun intended) to be against socialism, capitalism, feudalism, marxism, and basically any major governmental force I can think of. Capitalism does not work without a set of rules in place that people HAVE to follow; according to you, we would have a police force that merely defends, that merely exists to punish those who have used force against others. Fine, but here's a couple of things that couldn't happen under your system:

-the ability to collect any taxes whatsoever from anyone for any reason.
-the ability to regulate any commerce; I don't mean over-regulate, I mean ANY regulations. At all.

let's just stop with those two. So we remove the ability to collect taxes. That means, governments, both federal and local, have no money to run their operations. So you say good-bye to building and maintaining roads. A traffic light blows out, it doesn't get fixed. Bridges break, they stay broken. A natural disaster happens, tough luck for the victims. We can pass the hat around and hopefully folks will donate some money every time things need to be fixed, but with all the things that need maintenance, people will be chipping in on a daily basis- and who's going to go around asking for donations? Who's going to manage that cash? Oh, we can do a lot of the management work online? Who's going to repair the phone lines that keeps the internet going? Wait a minute- there wouldn't even be an internet since the whole thing only came about through government research and development! Seed money collected from taxes that allowed scientists and engineers to tinker with an idea that at the time seemed improbable and useless. In our ideal free market state, silly liberal programs like that one would never occur. So who foots the bills to keep our towns running? People who are independently wealthy and don't need to work? In every neighborhood of every town of every state? When you start to think about all the millions of things we take for granted as being part of our daily life, you realize that, wait a minute, creating an organized body to take care of our many, many needs is a hell of a lot more efficient that starting from scratch every time a new problem arises. But running that organized body costs money, and for it to work, just hoping people will keep sending money to you out of the goodness of their hearts, well, that's a little risky, not to mention unfair if the same few people end up shouldering the cost while everyone else decides they don't want to contribute. So eventually you end up where we are now, just out of a need to survive as a nation- making laws that are followed because you have the muscle (i.e. guns, cops, soldiers) to back you up.

I'm not saying I am a fan of this system or that this is my ideal; I'm saying it exists for a reason, and we all accept it because it has a lot more pros than cons when you get down to it. I hear a lot of libertarians bitch about government this and that, but when it comes down to it, they don't actually want a TRULY free country. They just want the convenient freedom to do the things they want to do, and then they want the police muscle to force people to do the bits they're not willing to leave to chance. I'll respect someone who is willing to put their money where their mouth is, someone who wants the anarchy system I described- true freedom, and let the chips fall where they may. But I'm not hearing any takers in these parts.

Other things you'd be giving up with your form of government- rules and regulations that protect workers from abuse. Work 80 hour weeks at $2 an hour? Sorry, times are tough, take it or leave it. I don't care if you're 12 years old. Quit school and get to work. Now, the feeble-minded liberal mind would say, a country where its youth is being used to work rather than educate themselves is a country that's doomed, because in the long run, we'll have a nation of ignorant people. We should create a society where people can't exploit an economic situation to their benefit and get cheap labor from kids in poor areas. We should create a society that makes sure everyone gets at least a basic education, which can only be paid for by money collected from everyone. The wiser capitalist, of course, sees the moral folly here and says "hey, don't you dare be regulating my life, Uncle Sam. If the laws of supply and demand dictate an underage labor force, so be it. It's immoral for you to get in the way."

How many other examples would you like? How about, if you come up with an idea for an invention, and I hear about it and get my rich friend to sponsor me, I can market the invention before you and you can't do anything about it. I get rich, you stay broke, and tough luck because any law regulating that would be immoral and illegal. I assume you're okay with that scenario, too? Sure would be great to live in a country where innovation is stifled because you have no incentive to invent anything. The minute you invent something, a hundred people will put you out of business. But hey, that's the free market, pal.

Need I go on..? If you respond, please respond to all my points!

 

[dogtowner]

Is there a reason everyone is avoiding the 900lb gorilla in the room ?

Where is it written that government is to be moral ?

While it would certainly be nice I think the very best we can hope for is fair.

 

[GenSeneca]

Where is it written that government is to be moral ?

Once upon a time... it was a self evident truth.