Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: > That's democracy, which I > haven't heard you say a bad word about, We discussed some of the bad points of democracies here recently. I posted a list. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, John Williams wrote: > > Then we have a fundamental disagreement, because either way you say > it, the consequences of your statement are that you, personally, think > that you have a right to decide how my money should be spent. I > suspect that you see it in the abstract. I do not. But there does not > seem to be any point in arguing further about it. Baloney. Nobody, nobody, has suggested that they, "personally" think they have the right to decide how to spend your tax dollars. That's fascism, totalitarianism, dictatorship. The national health care debate is about how we, as a people, will spend our tax revenue, what business our government is in. That's democracy, which I haven't heard you say a bad word about, so either admit that you're opposed to making decisions via lawful democratic means or take the nonsense about other people deciding where to spend your money and shove it. Nobody here has shown the least bit of interest in any undemocratic approaches to running a nation. If you really believe that a lawfully elected democratic government making a decision about how to spend tax revenue is an infringement on your freedom, then you are a lunatic fringe nut case and not worthy of serious attention. I should have figured that out a while ago. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:31 PM, David Hobby wrote: > No, I didn't bring it up. Would you prefer the > statement "I am prepared to make everybody in > America pay their share to keep people from > dying because they can't afford to pay for basic > health care."? Then we have a fundamental disagreement, because either way you say it, the consequences of your statement are that you, personally, think that you have a right to decide how my money should be spent. I suspect that you see it in the abstract. I do not. But there does not seem to be any point in arguing further about it. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:55 PM, David Hobby wrote: If you are giving that much to charity, that's good. But it's mostly irrelevant to what we were talking about. Possibly irrelevant, but you were the one that brought it up, saying you were prepared to take money away from me to give to others. Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying because they can't afford to pay for basic health care. No, I didn't bring it up. Would you prefer the statement "I am prepared to make everybody in America pay their share to keep people from dying because they can't afford to pay for basic health care."? I think we're having a general discussion about health care. Our own experiences may be used as examples, but that's all. ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: Rceeberger rceeber...@comcast.net Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:29:35 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform >On 9/7/2009 4:06:38 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobby wrote: >>> Your argument seemed to be: >>> "Money I pay in taxes > > is money I won't give to worthy charities." I didn't > > buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not > > an attack on your views. > >> It is not an argument, it is a statement of the truth. > >So.you admit you hate America. I can't see how that follows. One can even support higher taxes and make that statement; because money spent on X can't be spent on Y. I think that's what opportunity costs is suppose to measure. In general, I've come to the conclusion that John is not a troll; he just has a _very_ different opinion from the average person on Brin-L. He has surprised me with some of his suggestions; he virtually quotes Rand and then states something that she'd hate in the next paragraph. I find that interesting...trying to understand the viewpoint from which both statements could flow. So, I think he is arguing in good faitheven when I really really differ with him. By my definition, a good faith arguement is one that is actually held by the person. For example, when I discussed relativity and QM with folks who believed they found fatal flaws in these theories, they definately seemed to be arguing in good faith. The fact that they didn't see the logical contradictions in their arguements didn't mean that they were trolling. (BTW Johnthis does not mean I'm throwing you in with crackpots, just giving an example of a good faith arguement I know is wrong). Anyways, when we aren't arguing with John; not much is said around here any more. None of us has his talent for generating list traffic. :-) Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:55 PM, David Hobby wrote: > If you are giving that much to charity, that's good. > But it's mostly irrelevant to what we were talking about. Possibly irrelevant, but you were the one that brought it up, saying you were prepared to take money away from me to give to others. > Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share > to keep people from dying because they can't > afford to pay for basic health care. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobby wrote: Your argument seemed to be: "Money I pay in taxes is money I won't give to worthy charities." I didn't buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not an attack on your views. It is not an argument, it is a statement of the truth. John-- Sorry for the misunderstanding. You said it in the context of a discussion, so it looked like an argument. If you are giving that much to charity, that's good. But it's mostly irrelevant to what we were talking about. ---David No, I didn't get the "hate America" comment either. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: On 'Incomprehesibility'
On Sep 7, 2009, at 4:17 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 7 Sep 2009, at 21:44, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 4, 2009, at 6:53 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 1 Sep 2009, at 19:06, Dave Land wrote: On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:18 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 Aug 2009, at 23:46, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:05 PM, William T Goodall> wrote: William T Goodall Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://web.me.com/williamgoodall/blog/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. So what's wrong with a little ritualized cannibalism among consenting adults? ;-) See how amusing you think it is when they come to eat YOUR brain :-) Then isn't it completely grand that it is always and ever has been /symbolic/. Not according to the majority of Christians who believe in transubstantiation. "Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, who together constitute the majority of Christians[18] (see List of Christian denominations by number of members), hold that the consecrated elements in the Eucharist are indeed the body and blood of Christ." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation Which article, of course, deals with precisely and technically why the practice of Eucharist, including and especially among those who believe in transubstantiation, is definitely not cannibalism. But you knew that. People who claim a) they are eating human flesh and blood and that b) that isn't cannibalism exemplify why c) I find religion hilarious. But of course. You're entitled to your opinion. Thanks for this little chat. Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: On 'Incomprehesibility'
On 7 Sep 2009, at 21:44, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 4, 2009, at 6:53 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 1 Sep 2009, at 19:06, Dave Land wrote: On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:18 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 Aug 2009, at 23:46, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:05 PM, William T Goodall> wrote: William T Goodall Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://web.me.com/williamgoodall/blog/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. So what's wrong with a little ritualized cannibalism among consenting adults? ;-) See how amusing you think it is when they come to eat YOUR brain :-) Then isn't it completely grand that it is always and ever has been /symbolic/. Not according to the majority of Christians who believe in transubstantiation. "Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, who together constitute the majority of Christians[18] (see List of Christian denominations by number of members), hold that the consecrated elements in the Eucharist are indeed the body and blood of Christ." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation Which article, of course, deals with precisely and technically why the practice of Eucharist, including and especially among those who believe in transubstantiation, is definitely not cannibalism. But you knew that. People who claim a) they are eating human flesh and blood and that b) that isn't cannibalism exemplify why c) I find religion hilarious. No Sense At All Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://web.me.com/williamgoodall/blog/ "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." - Albert Einstein ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Rob said: So.you admit you hate America. Am I missing a reference here because this hating America stuff doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to me? Rich GCU Perpetually Confused ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/7/2009 4:06:38 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobby wrote: > > Your argument seemed to be: > "Money I pay in taxes > > is money I won't give to worthy charities." I > didn't > > buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not > > an attack on your views. > > It is not an argument, it is a statement of the truth. > So.you admit you hate America. xponent More Truth Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobby wrote: > Your argument seemed to be: "Money I pay in taxes > is money I won't give to worthy charities." I didn't > buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not > an attack on your views. It is not an argument, it is a statement of the truth. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: On 'Incomprehesibility'
On Sep 4, 2009, at 6:53 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 1 Sep 2009, at 19:06, Dave Land wrote: On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:18 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 Aug 2009, at 23:46, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:05 PM, William T Goodall> wrote: William T Goodall Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://web.me.com/williamgoodall/blog/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. So what's wrong with a little ritualized cannibalism among consenting adults? ;-) See how amusing you think it is when they come to eat YOUR brain :-) Then isn't it completely grand that it is always and ever has been / symbolic/. Not according to the majority of Christians who believe in transubstantiation. "Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, who together constitute the majority of Christians[18] (see List of Christian denominations by number of members), hold that the consecrated elements in the Eucharist are indeed the body and blood of Christ." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation Which article, of course, deals with precisely and technically why the practice of Eucharist, including and especially among those who believe in transubstantiation, is definitely not cannibalism. But you knew that. Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:56 PM, David Hobby wrote: (Anyway, aren't charitable contributions tax-deductible?) You do realize that tax-deductible means that your taxes are reduced by some fraction of the amount you donate, not the whole amount? Less than half, in fact. Yes, of course. The other is called a tax credit. You can't very well expect to get full tax credits for charitable donations, since it would be easy to arrange to get some of that benefit back from the "charity". (By having it hire your children, or some such. My wife worked for an arts foundation that had exactly that arrangement.) For all I know, you could actually be spending all your money on things that hurt the common good. So the above is not a very convincing argument. There are also people who cheat on their taxes. And those who commit fraud to get government money that they are not legally entitled to. I do not assume that your views are invalid because you might possibly be one of those people. Your argument seemed to be: "Money I pay in taxes is money I won't give to worthy charities." I didn't buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not an attack on your views. I think we both want things to be "fair" as we perceive it. You're worried about your money being spent on people who don't deserve it. I'm not that concerned about that, and am prepared to accept a bit of waste. But apparently you are also prepared to accept waste of other people's money. How is it fair for you to waste other people's money? For the last time, MONEY YOU PAY IN TAXES IS NO LONGER YOUR MONEY. It then belongs to the government. We can talk about how we don't want the Government to waste its money. Or we could start a separate thread about "Taxation is theft". I'm not too excited about that topic, unless you want to outline how you would run a country without collecting taxes. That would be an interesting problem, although I expect there's no practical solution... ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Nick said: I'd argue for democracy -- none of this business of X "must" give Y money. A social contract, not force. That's why I said the original post failed to address the critical question of what "take" means. If you prefer, recast the questions as "In this situation, is it morally right for Alice to give Bob (et al.) ?" or more simply "Should Alice give Bob (et al.) ?" (Although as far as I can see in lots of cases the way it works seems to be that the democratic process decides on norms and then those are imposed by various kinds of coercion on dissenters so it largely comes to the same thing. Whether one sees this is a good or bad thing I suppose depends on how much one tends to dissent.) Rich ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 7 Sep 2009 at 2:57, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > I think the fear is that employers who now offer insurance as part of > the compensation package will realize that it would be cheaper for > them to stop doing so and let their employers be covered by the > "public option" so after a little while most of the people who now > have other insurance will find themselves on the public option, so > the private insurance companies go out of business, making the public > option no longer an "option" for anyone unable to pay for all of ... The UK has the NHS. And private health insurance. So, er, lol. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Richard Baker wrote: > > > Do you think Nick would argue the same thing (Alice must give everyone >> a dollar) if Alice had $10 and 9 others had no dollars? What if Alice >> had $20 and ten others had $2 each? What if, instead of dollars, we >> had coupons for a medical treatment to extend life by a year? Must >> Alice give up years of her life? What about contracts to provide 1 >> year of manual labor to XYZ corporation? If Alice was liable for 2 of >> those contracts, and Bob was liable for none, must Bob take 1 of the >> contracts? What would you guess Nick would argue? >> > > I think that in the cases with the money or the coupons Nick would argue > that Alice should be made to give to the others, but not in the case with > labour contracts, but I suppose we'll have to wait for him to give his > opinion. Of course, not all years of extended life have the same cost in > expended resources so that example's a bit strange. Similarly, the > opportunity cost of making different people engage in manual labour varies > wildly. I'd argue for democracy -- none of this business of X "must" give Y money. A social contract, not force. That's why I said the original post failed to address the critical question of what "take" means. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 6 Sep 2009 at 18:46, Bruce Bostwick wrote: > On Sep 6, 2009, at 5:12 PM, John Williams wrote: > > > Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me > > to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be > > spent on than I do? > > If your idea of how to spend it involves leaving people to the > nonexistent mercy of a nonexistent public health care system so people > in the top income brackets can afford an extra yacht this Christmas, > maybe so. "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice" (Deliberately missing the quote-ee, but I'm sure some people will recognise it) AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 6 Sep 2009 at 15:17, John Williams wrote: > > I would really like to > > understand your point of view, > > I doubt it. I suspect you would like to fit me into one of your > simplistic models. Good luck with that. I'm sorry, for that statement I'm taking out a warrant for your arrest for dramabombing on a mailing list without a licence. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John said: Yes, but it's not the whole story. It is not my whole post, either, since you cut the quote off early. I know it wasn't your whole post let alone your whole argument but it was enough for me to hang my toy example from. I suspect you double-counted the 9 possibilities where each person gets 1 item, and also the 6 possibilities where 1 person gets two different items. 36 - 9 - 6 = 21. My reasoning in more detail was that one dollar can be spent in six ways: (Alice, burger); (Alice, fries); (Alice, shake); (Bob, burger); (Bob, fries); (Bob, shake) The spending of the two dollars is independent so the total number of ways they can be spent is 6x6 = 36. However, I think that you're right as burgers are indistinguishable from each other, as are portions of fries, as are shakes, at least in a simple toy model. I was counting the case in which the first dollar buys Alice a burger and so does the second as two cases rather than one. As you said, there are six such cases that I've counted twice. I was also counting cases in which the first dollar buys Alice a burger and the second buys Alice fries as distinguishable from the one in which the first buys her fries and the second a burger. If they're indistinguishable it's clearer to describe them as "Alice doesn't have a shake" or whatever and there are actually only 3x3=9 cases rather than the eighteen that I counted. So the correct count is 36-6-9 = 21, as you calculated. Your method of counting has the virtue of being more elegant as well as the greater virtue of being correct. Thanks for the correction. Also, if each person chooses one of 7 uniformly, the 28 outcomes will not be uniform: for example, Bob with 2 burgers will be half as likely as each with a burger. It seems that the outcome will be less predictable, more randomized. Yes, that's true. There will be some quite odd cases in which Alice buys Bob a burger and vice versa too (and similarly for the other two products). Do you think Nick would argue the same thing (Alice must give everyone a dollar) if Alice had $10 and 9 others had no dollars? What if Alice had $20 and ten others had $2 each? What if, instead of dollars, we had coupons for a medical treatment to extend life by a year? Must Alice give up years of her life? What about contracts to provide 1 year of manual labor to XYZ corporation? If Alice was liable for 2 of those contracts, and Bob was liable for none, must Bob take 1 of the contracts? What would you guess Nick would argue? I think that in the cases with the money or the coupons Nick would argue that Alice should be made to give to the others, but not in the case with labour contracts, but I suppose we'll have to wait for him to give his opinion. Of course, not all years of extended life have the same cost in expended resources so that example's a bit strange. Similarly, the opportunity cost of making different people engage in manual labour varies wildly. Rich ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Richard Baker wrote:
> John said:
>
>> Say I have two $1 bills. I could choose to go to McDonald's and buy a
>> burger and fries.
>>
>> Now someone takes one of my dollars. Now I can only buy a burger, or
>> fries, but not both. My choices have been limited. My freedom to
>> choose has been limited.
>>
>> That is obvious.
>
> Yes, but it's not the whole story.
It is not my whole post, either, since you cut the quote off early.
> Suppose that Alice has two $1 bills and
> she could choose to buy a burger, fries or a shake, each of which costs $1,
> and further suppose that Bob has no money. Then Alice could choose from one
> of 36 possible futures (as each dollar could supply one of {burger, fries,
> shake} to one of {Alice,Bob}, so she could choose, for example, a burger for
> herself and fries for Bob or a burger and fries for herself).
I count 28. Two dollars can be spent in 6 ways (BB, FF, SS, BF, BS,
FS). First consider the ways where one person has 2 items: that makes
12 (6 x 2) possibilities. Next, consider ways where no person has 2
items: there are 4 possibilities for Alice (including nothing), and
independently, 4 for Bob, making a subtotal of 16 (4 x 4). Then the
total is 16 + 12 = 28. Or if both dollars must be spent, then the
total is 21 (12 + 3 x 3).
I suspect you double-counted the 9 possibilities where each person
gets 1 item, and also the 6 possibilities where 1 person gets two
different items. 36 - 9 - 6 = 21.
> Suppose George insists that Alice gives $1 to Bob. Then Alice can't choose
> any of the 36 possible futures.
28
> The most she can do is to pick one of six "partial futures",
7, if you include not spending the buck
> The outcome is that Alice and Bob collectively choose one of
> the 36 total futures.
28, but as you indicate with "partial", this is an uncertain 28
compared to having one person choose with two dollars, since no
outcome can be guaranteed.
> Alice's freedom has been curtailed a bit, but Bob has
> been given some freedom in compensation.
Also, if each person chooses one of 7 uniformly, the 28 outcomes will
not be uniform: for example, Bob with 2 burgers will be half as likely
as each with a burger. It seems that the outcome will be less
predictable, more randomized.
> I guess that you would argue that Alice's two $1 bills are hers, and that if
> she wants to use them to give Bob some freedom she could choose to give one
> or both to him but that George isn't justified in forcing her to. I further
> guess that Nick would argue that it's more fair for George to make Alice
> give the dollar to Bob as the gain in freedom for Bob outweighs the loss of
> freedom for Alice.
Do you think Nick would argue the same thing (Alice must give everyone
a dollar) if Alice had $10 and 9 others had no dollars? What if Alice
had $20 and ten others had $2 each? What if, instead of dollars, we
had coupons for a medical treatment to extend life by a year? Must
Alice give up years of her life? What about contracts to provide 1
year of manual labor to XYZ corporation? If Alice was liable for 2 of
those contracts, and Bob was liable for none, must Bob take 1 of the
contracts? What would you guess Nick would argue?
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John said:
Say I have two $1 bills. I could choose to go to McDonald's and buy a
burger and fries.
Now someone takes one of my dollars. Now I can only buy a burger, or
fries, but not both. My choices have been limited. My freedom to
choose has been limited.
That is obvious.
Yes, but it's not the whole story. Suppose that Alice has two $1 bills
and she could choose to buy a burger, fries or a shake, each of which
costs $1, and further suppose that Bob has no money. Then Alice could
choose from one of 36 possible futures (as each dollar could supply
one of {burger, fries, shake} to one of {Alice,Bob}, so she could
choose, for example, a burger for herself and fries for Bob or a
burger and fries for herself). Alice has quite a lot of freedom, but
Bob has none.
Suppose George insists that Alice gives $1 to Bob. Then Alice can't
choose any of the 36 possible futures. The most she can do is to pick
one of six "partial futures", for example the one in which she has at
least one burger. Bob can also choose one of six partial futures, for
example the one in which he has a shake. The outcome is that Alice and
Bob collectively choose one of the 36 total futures. Alice's freedom
has been curtailed a bit, but Bob has been given some freedom in
compensation.
I guess that you would argue that Alice's two $1 bills are hers, and
that if she wants to use them to give Bob some freedom she could
choose to give one or both to him but that George isn't justified in
forcing her to. I further guess that Nick would argue that it's more
fair for George to make Alice give the dollar to Bob as the gain in
freedom for Bob outweighs the loss of freedom for Alice.
Rich
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
>That's precisely what lots of people >wonder. Neither government nor business has a >record that exactly encourages optimism. I guess it depends on perspective. Compare the lot of the median citizen of the US with the median citizen of any country 500 years ago; 300 years ago; 100 years ago. Compare, even, the lot of the median person in the world in the same manner. Part of the problem with government is that, as the strong oppositition to socialized medicine by folks who don't want their socialized medicine reduced in any way shape or form, we have met the enemey and he is us. With respect to healthcare, we know the US lags behind the rest of the world in bang for the buck. So, we know improvements can be made. But, we certainly have made tremendous progress in the last 200 years. If we were to make similar progress in the next 200; things would be phenomenal. But, we may have reached the point where the low hanging fruit is taken. It all depends on whether we find good black swans for economics and find a balance to the drive towards individualistic entittlement that we've seen in the last 40 years. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 06:43 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:57, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 02:19 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Charlie Bell wrote: On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. What I fail to understand is how having a public *option* takes away anyone else's options to use private. There are public schools for the same reason. Run a government sponsored mutual healthcare fund, and fold the public hospitals into it. Make it a genuine option. Then see the private funds shape up, 'cause they would or they'd lose all their customers in short order. C. I think the fear is that employers who now offer insurance as part of the compensation package will realize that it would be cheaper for them to stop doing so and let their employers be covered by the "public option" so after a little while most of the people who now have other insurance will find themselves on the public option, so the private insurance companies go out of business, making the public option no longer an "option" for anyone unable to pay for all of their medical care out of their own pockets and then in the name of government cost-cutting the now only health-care provider starts cutting corners until the quality of service compares with the DMV and IRS, but there's no place else to go . . . . . . ronn! :) Is that any better than the current system of for-profit insurers sponsored by for-profit employers, both of whom profit most if neither pays for anything they can possibly avoid? I'm guessing you meant "worse" rather than "better," but to answer your question as it was written That's precisely what lots of people wonder. Neither government nor business has a record that exactly encourages optimism. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:16 PM, John Williams wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Patrick Sweeney > wrote: > > Until you have freed everyone else in the world from taxes, you don't > > get to talk about the US any more. Sorry. Just applying your own rules > > to you. It's only fair. > > No, not really. I have a limited amount of time and resources, and I > choose to use them in the way that I think I can accomplish the most. > There are other people in the world who are in more need than those > paying high taxes (who are primarily in Europe) and are relatively > well off compared to others in the third world. It occurs to me that your reasoning in this matter is like the guy who tells his girlfriend that the fact that he isn't married to her means he is *more* committed than if they were married, because he's in the relationship by choice. I know that guy. This insistence that paying lawfully enacted taxes takes away your freedom is a failure to make a complete commitment to society. Sure, people joke about marriage taking away freedom, but it's just that, a joke. People who are married are still in it by choice, but they have chosen to commit, rather than insisting that any commitment is a loss of freedom. Your equating of taxes to slavery and such is really an unwillingness to commit. It limits the freedoms that society can provide. Without people committed to paying their fair share, we would have no defense, no schools, no ambulances, no police. When you insist that off this is slavery and demand to pick and choose, you're not committed to your country for better or worse, in sickness and in health, etc. It is just as wimpy as a half-hearted commitment to a life partner. If you can't live with the commitment, you have no right to whine that your freedom is being taken away. It isn't a commitment to do whatever the other party asks, it is a commitment to do your part, freely. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:57, Ronn! Blankenship > wrote: At 02:19 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Charlie Bell wrote: On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship > wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. What I fail to understand is how having a public *option* takes away anyone else's options to use private. There are public schools for the same reason. Run a government sponsored mutual healthcare fund, and fold the public hospitals into it. Make it a genuine option. Then see the private funds shape up, 'cause they would or they'd lose all their customers in short order. C. I think the fear is that employers who now offer insurance as part of the compensation package will realize that it would be cheaper for them to stop doing so and let their employers be covered by the "public option" so after a little while most of the people who now have other insurance will find themselves on the public option, so the private insurance companies go out of business, making the public option no longer an "option" for anyone unable to pay for all of their medical care out of their own pockets and then in the name of government cost-cutting the now only health-care provider starts cutting corners until the quality of service compares with the DMV and IRS, but there's no place else to go . . . . . . ronn! :) Is that any better than the current system of for-profit insurers sponsored by for-profit employers, both of whom profit most if neither pays for anything they can possibly avoid? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 02:19 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Charlie Bell wrote: On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. What I fail to understand is how having a public *option* takes away anyone else's options to use private. There are public schools for the same reason. Run a government sponsored mutual healthcare fund, and fold the public hospitals into it. Make it a genuine option. Then see the private funds shape up, 'cause they would or they'd lose all their customers in short order. C. I think the fear is that employers who now offer insurance as part of the compensation package will realize that it would be cheaper for them to stop doing so and let their employers be covered by the "public option" so after a little while most of the people who now have other insurance will find themselves on the public option, so the private insurance companies go out of business, making the public option no longer an "option" for anyone unable to pay for all of their medical care out of their own pockets and then in the name of government cost-cutting the now only health-care provider starts cutting corners until the quality of service compares with the DMV and IRS, but there's no place else to go . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship > wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. What I fail to understand is how having a public *option* takes away anyone else's options to use private. There are public schools for the same reason. Run a government sponsored mutual healthcare fund, and fold the public hospitals into it. Make it a genuine option. Then see the private funds shape up, 'cause they would or they'd lose all their customers in short order. C. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
