Comments on: [craig@mtpolitics]$ cat /dev/random

By: Steve T.

Steve T. — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:13:13 +0000

And, once again, does anyone want to explain to me how Gman’s philosophy doesn’t qualify as Social Darwinism? It’s disgusting.

By: Mark T

Mark T — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:25:04 +0000

Over-utilization is the right wing’s fall back – it’s hardly a factor in health care. So, your solution then would be for people to have less care than they are already getting. I’m intrigued – please tell me more!

In 2004, 22% of our health care costs were consumed by 1% of the population. The problem is not me going to the doctor with a tummy ache – it’s grandpa getting cancer. Technology in treating him has advanced, but it comes with a hefty price tag.

It’s a situation where a few people have expenses that exceed their ability to pay. The private sector is not equipped to handle it – insurance companies are crawling over each other looking for profitable clients, and dumping anyone who even looks a little sick. hence, 47 million and counting …

I chuckle a little bit – you’ve said this before, Geeguy – that I don’t grasp economics. I have a fine grip on right wing economics – it’s you who can’t see when the market can’t do its job. I know the bonehead stuff – I just think that bonehead economics is best suited for … boneheads.

I think the greatest fear on the right is that the government will step in and do a good job. That’s why Bush vetoed SCHIP. He said as much. Government solutions in health care work. The private sector sucks – cannot handle health care. Every other industrialized country knows this. We’re just slow learners.

By the way, selfishness, no matter right wing philosophy, is not a virtue.

By: Gman

Gman — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:05:04 +0000

There Mark T goes again – blaming the health care “crisis” on the private sector, when the blame is squarely on the public sector. One has to have a tiny understanding of economics to get it, but that would be expecting too much.

Has anyone ever stopped to think that it’s unethical, even immoral, to take the fruits of my labor in order to give them to someone else. Let’s face it, many more Americans could afford health care if not for a couple things:

1. Consumerism (lack of priorities with personal spending, but, then again, everyone has a right to a car, TV, Wii, etc.)
2. Over-utilization (consumers shielded from the actual cost of health care goods and services by the gov’t and insurance)

These aren’t the only factors, but they are major.

Also consider, we will never “solve” the health care “crisis” because no one wants to actually PAY for their health care goods and services. We all want it FREE, naturally.

What we need to achieve is for individuals to take direct responsibility for their health care. Isn’t that, afterall, a position that comports with the oft-stated, “keep your laws off my body!” Ironic…

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:18:34 +0000

I agree with Mark here, he isn’t getting it. You’re missing what’s in the mirror, Craig; those imprints on your forehead are from beating your head against the immovable wall of “compassion”, “need”, and “want”.

By: Mark T

Mark T — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:13:10 +0000

You’re kind of not getting it – we have a huge problem, and your solution is more of the same thing that created the problem to begin with. That’s insanity.

Government is but a tool – we use it to accomplish things we (well, most of us) want for ourselves.

It appears as though government is the best tool to use for health care. After all, no country that went to a government system has ever one back save one – Iraq, who did so at the point of Bremer’s gun. Our seniors certainly don’t want back into the private system.

Seems you’re missing something here, Craig … some …….. thing …………

By: Craig

Craig — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:59:52 +0000

Yes, so forcing people into a one-size-fits-all program isn’t paternalistic.

Yes, yes. I see that.

Wait, no I don’t. Everything about it is paternalistic.

I’m sure you’ll get what you want sooner or later. After all, we’ve gone from “Ask not what your country can do for you…” to “What the **** have you done for me lately, melon farmers.”

By: Mark T

Mark T — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:19:13 +0000

Craig – we would do these things for “all” of us, even as we know that you would have to be dragged along kicking and screaming. You may thingk that paternalistic, but it’s not – there are always malcontents to deal with – the important thing is that we have to do something with a failing system that leaves 47 million on the outside looking in, and nothing – nothing – you propose has any good effect.

By: Erica

Erica — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:54:39 +0000

“…bouncing around in my cruller…”

Dude. Get a hold of yourself! I think you’re having some kind of a very bad Identity Crisis.

That PETA story was hysterical. I couldn’t freakin’ stop laughing/gagging [gaughing?].

In other bloggy news, Randy and I both tagged you with two different memes and, quite frankly, I think we both feel that you need to do a meme.

It does a body good.

[OMG, did I just say that? BWAHAHAHA, I freakin' kill me!]

By: Craig

Craig — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:16:39 +0000

I’ve said it over and over and over and over again, but evidently it needs to be repeated. I’m not against taxes per se. Taxes are fine for things like national defense, building roads, and so forth.

What I am against are things that are done “for my own good,” e.g. universal healthcare, social security, that take the fruits of my labor out of my hands and impose limitations or mandates on how I choose to conduct my life.

Suddenly you’re a strict constructionist?

By: Jay Stevens

Jay Stevens — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:53:32 +0000

Er, did I ever say you supported warrantless wiretapping? Now who’s putting words into mouths!

And, Jay, anytime someone takes something from me, backed with the threat of compelling force, it is taking away an essential liberty.

I don’t disagree. My point is that you, nor any American, has ever enjoyed the liberty of freedom from taxation. So you haven’t “lost” it, per se. You never had it. And, under the framework of this form of government, you were never intended to have it. Nor has that fact ever been hidden from you or anyone else: taxation is written into the Constitution as a right of government, and an obligation of the citizenry.

On the other hand, the right to habeas corpus and court-ordered searches are named in the Constitution. They’re clearly defined essential freedoms guaranteed to us that we’ve lost.