The ease of government-run health care!

[FunkyTown]

The American way:

“A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.”

—Thomas Jefferson—

Touche! Quoting Thomas Jefferson. Let me quote James Wilson, then, one of the few people who signed both the Declaration of Independance and The Constitution

" … in a regulated society…The liberty of every member is increased…for each gains more by the limitation of the freedom of every other member, than he loses by the limitation of his own. The result is that civil government is necessary to the perfection and happiness of man."

-James Wilson

(Apparently some of the Founding Fathers believed in regulation)

"Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness."

--James Wilson

And let's go back to good ol' Thomas Jefferson!

The first duty of government is the protection of life, not its destruction. The chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that and you have abandoned all."

- Thomas Jefferson

I note that the first duty of government is to protect life. That would seem in keeping with universal health care. Note that this is the first duty, the chief purpose - That which, abandoning, would cause that government to abandon all.

[Aesa]

If it doesn't--that, too, will be a result of having Socialists in charge for 30 years. And I suspect that, like California, the socialized nations of western Europe will be seeking bailouts from other state actors who have managed their affairs more (dare I say it?) conservatively.

This is very interesting me, because I just had this thought:

If there's a depression or dip in the economy in the United States, and people don't have enough money to maintain their standard of living they cannot use things such as medical care.

Whereas, in a "socialised nation" the healthcare is a public service and generally not impending on you being able to directly afford it. Therefore, if there's a depression you should still have access to it.

[Just_A_Guy]

If people don't have enough money to maintain their standard of living, what makes you think they will have enough money to pay into the state-run insurance program at the same levels they'd pay during more prosperous times?

The only way government could "recession-proof" such a program would be to a) raise taxes (which would prolong the downturn), or b) raid other government programs.

[Dravin]

The only way government could "recession-proof" such a program would be to a) raise taxes (which would prolong the downturn), or b) raid other government programs.

You forgot the favorite of politicians on both sides of the aisle, C) Borrow money. Admittedly that's a time limited 'solution' with various flaws, but since when did that stop people from reaching for it?

Edited July 22, 2009 by Dravin

[a-train]

We are going to get national health insurance just as we got social security, medicare, medicaid, and many other non-democratic programs with their non-democratic agencies which harm some of the population to bless others, and in the end it too will be bankrupt and in need of "reform" which is also known as a "bail-out" which translates to another flogging of future generations. Why is this so? Because too many today still buy the collectivist snake water which led so many before us to serfdom.

-a-train

[a-train]

I still have choices, I can pay extra and receive private healthcare...

Can you choose not to buy government health insurance at all? What about the people like myself who want to make that choice?

-a-train

[FunkyTown]

We are going to get national health insurance just as we got social security, medicare, medicaid, and many other non-democratic programs with their non-democratic agencies which harm some of the population to bless others, and in the end it too will be bankrupt and in need of "reform" which is also known as a "bail-out" which translates to another flogging of future generations. Why is this so? Because too many today still buy the collectivist snake water which led so many before us to serfdom.

-a-train

Now THIS, I can get behind. Government programs are definitely resulting in poverty. Guaranteed income retirement plans, badly managed welfare programs. It seems like the only choices we have are:

1) Badly managed government programs that save everyone by bringing down everyone a bit or;

2) No government programs that leave the world in Dickensian poverty.

Personally, I wish there were a way to get well-managed programs mixed with strong wealth creation. Frankly, the only way to keep programs like that going is through wealth creation, whether that's through a constant population explosion or a constant 'Boom' economy. The moment a bust happens, government programs strain to succeed.

[a-train]

thing is by time I had paid for Medical Insurance in the US I would be paying way more than I would for the NHS.

Freedom isn't free.

-a-train

[FunkyTown]

Freedom isn't free.

-a-train

Actually, the Brits have a pretty good 'Swing' system. During times of boom, they lean towards pro-worker laws and social programs while during 'Bust' times, they tend to vote conservatively.

I still think Margaret Thatcher ruled.

[boyando]

Touche! Quoting Thomas Jefferson. Let me quote James Wilson, then, one of the few people who signed both the Declaration of Independance and The Constitution

" … in a regulated society…The liberty of every member is increased…for each gains more by the limitation of the freedom of every other member, than he loses by the limitation of his own. The result is that civil government is necessary to the perfection and happiness of man."

-James Wilson

(Apparently some of the Founding Fathers believed in regulation)

"Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness."

--James Wilson

And let's go back to good ol' Thomas Jefferson!

The first duty of government is the protection of life, not its destruction. The chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that and you have abandoned all."

- Thomas Jefferson

I note that the first duty of government is to protect life. That would seem in keeping with universal health care. Note that this is the first duty, the chief purpose - That which, abandoning, would cause that government to abandon all.

I think you may be confusing the stated goal (not the actual goal) of universal health care with the actual results.

And perhaps James Wilson was trying to state that we needed laws to prevent neighbor killing neighbor or that taking the neighbors cow is wrong.

Here is how I look at it. Back then, if your neighbor had a disaster, say all his crops were burned, your neighbors would step in and give you food until they got back on your feet. What you are suggesting is that neighbors don't step in anymore, there for the government must.

Here is how the US government does it now. You gained ten cows this year, the government "needs" five cows to feed those who's crops have burned this year.

Those who move the cows from your farm too the government holding pen, need one cow to feed his family.

The man who counts the cows in the government holding pen needs a cow to feed his family. Then there is the guy who goes around to find out who's crops are burned, needs a cow.

We also need someone to lecture us on how eating meat is bad for us, so the government trades a cow for vegetables to feed this guy and his family.

The guy who drive the cows to the homes of those who have had there crops burned needs a cow. So no cow for the guy who's crops have burned, so now you have to give another cow. But your friend who lives one farm over, only gained five cows and doesn't need to give any cows, so next year you plan to gain five cows.

You will notice that I did not I did not mention any women in my little story. I read other threads and I know that a woman would not be able to screw up a system of help, so badly.

I do not know why you would want to add this kind of compassion to health care, when you don't even live in this country. But I do respect your right too say what you want, even if it is the opposite of what my friends who have lived under the Europe health care, have told me.

[Maxel]

Touche! Quoting Thomas Jefferson. Let me quote James Wilson, then, one of the few people who signed both the Declaration of Independance and The Constitution

" … in a regulated society…The liberty of every member is increased…for each gains more by the limitation of the freedom of every other member, than he loses by the limitation of his own. The result is that civil government is necessary to the perfection and happiness of man."

-James Wilson

(Apparently some of the Founding Fathers believed in regulation)

I wish I had a 1776 dictionary- I've heard that the word "regulate" also meant "to make regular" then, not just "to oversee" or "to run". However, I don't have one so I'll have to make the case through memory.

"Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness."

--James Wilson

I fail to see how this argues for or against government health care.

And let's go back to good ol' Thomas Jefferson!

The first duty of government is the protection of life, not its destruction. The chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that and you have abandoned all."

- Thomas Jefferson

I note that the first duty of government is to protect life. That would seem in keeping with universal health care. Note that this is the first duty, the chief purpose - That which, abandoning, would cause that government to abandon all.

This argument- that "life" (as phrased in the Declaration of Independence, and now here) means "quality of life"- seems weak to me. I'd wager it would be a simple task to show that Jefferson wasn't talking about quality of health; instead he was probably talking about protection from lawlessness and mob rule and the unfair taking of life.

People live, people die. Yes nationalized healthcare would increase the longevity and quality of life of much of the poor- but it goes against the principles of small government this country was founded upon, and which the Constitution embodies. Taking the step of nationalized healthcare would be one step closer to full socialism and the loss of the ability of "We the People" to be the true captains of our own destinies.

[a-train]

Now THIS, I can get behind. Government programs are definitely resulting in poverty. Guaranteed income retirement plans, badly managed welfare programs. It seems like the only choices we have are:

1) Badly managed government programs that save everyone by bringing down everyone a bit or;

2) No government programs that leave the world in Dickensian poverty.

Personally, I wish there were a way to get well-managed programs mixed with strong wealth creation. Frankly, the only way to keep programs like that going is through wealth creation, whether that's through a constant population explosion or a constant 'Boom' economy. The moment a bust happens, government programs strain to succeed.

Constant and strong wealth creation doesn't come from bubbles or population explosions. Just ask any African businessman. In fact, a population increase can increase poverty as more consumers consume the same or less goods and services. What will always and everywhere grow the stock of wealth for any people great or small? Capital enhancement.

"Ewww!" Say the socialists (who changed their name to Progressive but decided that wasn't working so they now call themselves "Liberals", but they are really Neo-conservatives). "We hate capital enhancement!" They cry. "Those nasty robots destroy jobs! Just like the illegals and the Asians!" Silly socialists, don't you know where wealth comes from? You complained when tractors threw farmers out of work. You complained when Ford made cars that put carraige makers out of work. You complained when Edison made a light bulb that threw all the candle makers out of work. You complained when the paper mills shut down with the digital revolution (even after all your years of complaining about the smell). Funny how you don't want to save the jobs of all those people working in the insurance industry. Wait, I get it! You don't like ties! You want to end all white collar jobs and make everyone wear a blue shirt, that's gotta be it!

I hate ties too.

What does capital enhancement do? It LOWERS the unit cost of production. Widgets made by a machine cost less than those made by hand. Innovation has the same effect. Computers become less and less expensive because of these two factors. This is how the stock of wealth actually grows, innovation and capital enhancement enable us to either produce more quickly and efficiently, or avoid the need to produce certian things altogether. Why does healthcare not become cheaper with innovation and capital enhancement? IT DOES!

"Wait a-train! Don't be an idiot, everyone knows that medical care costs are going up." Actually, they are not. You used to get a guy with a small fraction of the education possessed by a modern M.D. to come to your door with a small bag of drugs and instruments for a relatively low money price, now you have to wait in the lobby and pay big bucks to see a doctor who has much more education but will only refer you to a specialist who has fantastic gizmos and gadgets and costs a lot more in terms of money.

The REAL costs however have fallen dramatically. Before, an infection was treated with a nice cheap hand-saw. The cost? One month's wages and your leg. Today you get drugs and/or a lazer surgery at the price of three months wages and you keep your leg. A host of costly and difficult procedures and treatments have become less laborious or have altogether been made obsolete by innovation and capital improvement. A common factory worker today can get an operation which will save his life at the cost of a few months of work which even the richest man in the world a short while ago could not purchase. What price will we put on lost lives, limbs, organs, etc.? Those were the costs of infections and diseases two generations back.

What has happened is that REAL medical costs have COME DOWN to a point where people of average means can get procedures that no man could afford at one time. The same is true for cars, refrigerators, computers, everything.

What has slowed this process in developed economies is government intervention. The cost of innovation has risen dramatically as government sanctioning adds heavily to that cost and the time involved in securing that sanction.

If a government bureau approves a procedure or drug that is indeed beneficial, then all is well. However, if it approves one that is later found to have severe side effects or is ineffective, the repercussions could be severe for the bureau's arbiters. Because of this, the bureau will try to ere on the side of safety. Thus a treatment which might have saved lives or great costs could go unapproved for a time or forever. While advocates point out the benefit of keeping bad goods and services out of the marketplace, they avoid the subject of the costs of keeping good ones out too.

A manditory national health insurance will serve to further bureaucratize the innovation and capital improvement process in health-care. Thus, it will further slow the process whereby healthcare becomes CHEAPER in REAL terms.

This is not all bad news however, despite all the moronic efforts of government do-gooders, hell bent on liberty-crushing social planning and pet projects, this innovation and capital improvement process will continue to make healthcare less expensive in real terms.

-a-train

Edited July 22, 2009 by a-train

[FunkyTown]

This, also, I can't argue against, A-train. Wealth creation and lowered production costs are the only real way to allow permanent lifestyle changes.

My concern, however, and I think the concern with many is that a complete lack of regulation results in economic anarchy. Because people are not perfect and are manipulated by things such as advertising, or because companies are willing to bury opposing technologies (For instance: Beta VCRs were far superior technologically than the competing VHS's. Also, see 'Who killed the Electric Car?'), in any unregulated scene those with temporary power will always seek to use their temporary power to 'shore up' and provide permanent power. It has been used by Microsoft (Whose fingers are now slipping), it was used by Bell (Who was broken up as a Monopoly), it was used by Wal-Mart.

Heck, even Newspapers are becoming giant conglomerates owned by a few corporate interests. Those with temporary economic power are essentially becoming powers unto themselves, dragging back the free market ideals simply by virtue of human weakness.

In the entire history of man, no anarchy has ever been sustainable. The free market is essentially an anarchy.

I am, however, very intrigued by your technological approach to wealth creation. I would agree wholeheartedly with it. Certainly, in medieval times, things like grain silos and such created by governments allowed them to feed populaces that would otherwise have starved, but in modern times we can safely say that the development of spontaneous wealth creation is far better.

All of what I'm saying is purely theoretical, but I would be more than willing to back a group that had a concrete solution to poverty through wealth creation. My opinion on current free market ideals leads to a world similar to 'Jennifer Government'(Highly recommended), but I'm more than willing to read various ideals on how we could implement an effective wealth creation system under current technological ideals. I fear it would require a massive paradigm shift, however.

Constant and strong wealth creation doesn't come from bubbles or population explosions. Just ask any African businessman. In fact, a population increase can increase poverty as more consumers consume the same or less goods and services. What will always and everywhere grow the stock of wealth for any people great or small? Capital enhancement.

"Ewww!" Say the socialists (who changed their name to Progressive but decided that wasn't working so they now call themselves "Liberals", but they are really Neo-conservatives). "We hate capital enhancement!" They cry. "Those nasty robots destroy jobs! Just like the illegals and the Asians!" Silly socialists, don't you know where wealth comes from? You complained when tractors threw farmers out of work. You complained when Ford made cars that put carraige makers out of work. You complained when Edison made a light bulb that threw all the candle makers out of work. You complained when the paper mills shut down with the digital revolution (even after all your years of complaining about the smell). Funny how you don't want to save the jobs of all those people working in the insurance industry. Wait, I get it! You don't like ties! You want to end all white collar jobs and make everyone wear a blue shirt, that's gotta be it!

I hate ties too.

What does capital enhancement do? It LOWERS the unit cost of production. Widgets made by a machine cost less than those made by hand. Innovation has the same effect. Computers become less and less expensive because of these two factors. This is how the stock of wealth actually grows, innovation and capital enhancement enable us to either produce more quickly and efficiently, or avoid the need to produce certian things altogether. Why does healthcare not become cheaper with innovation and capital enhancement? IT DOES!

"Wait a-train! Don't be an idiot, everyone knows that medical care costs are going up." Actually, they are not. You used to get a guy with a small fraction of the education possessed by a modern M.D. to come to your door with a small bag of drugs and instruments for a relatively low money price, now you have to wait in the lobby and pay big bucks to see a doctor who has much more education but will only refer you to a specialist who has fantastic gizmos and gadgets and costs a lot more in terms of money.

The REAL costs however have fallen dramatically. Before, an infection was treated with a nice cheap hand-saw. The cost? One month's wages and your leg. Today you get drugs and/or a lazer surgery at the price of three months wages and you keep your leg. A host of costly and difficult procedures and treatments have become less laborious or have altogether been made obsolete by innovation and capital improvement. A common factory worker today can get an operation which will save his life at the cost of a few months of work which even the richest man in the world a short while ago could not purchase. What price will we put on lost lives, limbs, organs, etc.? Those were the costs of infections and diseases two generations back.

What has happened is that REAL medical costs have COME DOWN to a point where people of average means can get procedures that no man could afford at one time. The same is true for cars, refrigerators, computers, everything.

What has slowed this process in developed economies is government intervention. The cost of innovation has risen dramatically as government sanctioning adds heavily to that cost and the time involved in securing that sanction.

If a government bureau approves a procedure or drug that is indeed beneficial, then all is well. However, if it approves one that is later found to have severe side effects or is ineffective, the repercussions could be severe for the bureau's arbiters. Because of this, the bureau will try to ere on the side of safety. Thus a treatment which might have saved lives or great costs could go unapproved for a time or forever. While advocates point out the benefit of keeping bad goods and services out of the marketplace, they avoid the subject of the costs of keeping good ones out too.

A manditory national health insurance will serve to further bureaucratize the innovation and capital improvement process in health-care. Thus, it will further slow the process whereby healthcare becomes CHEAPER in REAL terms.

This is not all bad news however, despite all the moronic efforts of government do-gooders, hell bent on liberty-crushing social planning and pet projects, this innovation and capital improvement process will continue to make healthcare less expensive in real terms.

-a-train

[MorningStar]

I don't want to write a novel in response to some of the preposterous things I've read in this thread, but here are a few thoughts:

#1

Nothing is FREE. Not even for poor people who don't carry their weight and pay taxes? How is that possible? Because the middle and upper brackets get soaked, absorbing those costs. This means they can't bring on those new employees, or expand their markets - because Uncle Sam is taking so much of their income that it's not desirable or not an option. And this is not some parroting of a right wing crazy. These are MY words - the words of a small business owner who is unable to expand properly because he's too busy being forced into giving charitable contributions to the myriad causes of our insane Congress.

We are already being taxed to death! Did you know that, based on heavy research, that the average amount of taxes ALREADY wrapped into the purchase price of the products you buy is 21%? And THEN when you check out with your purchases, you get taxed AGAIN!! And you pay for that with what's left of your paycheck AFTER Uncle Sam has taken his cut! Even BEFORE Obama, most of us were already at 50% taxation. It's simply hidden from the clueless populace via taxing-evil-corporations, via garnishing-your-wages.

#2

Competition is vital. My children attend one of UT's Charter Schools. Charter Schools are still federally funded, but so long as they fulfill certain specific requirements, are allowed to run their own programs.

And though there's no bus system, no dirt-cheap-but-nutritionally-devoid lunch program (there is, in fact, a lunch system - but it's healthy food that costs more), my children are receiving an education FAR SUPERIOR to their peers in the overcrowded public system where (I kid you not) around here, children sit on the floors of overcrowded classrooms. My children are being taught with a completely different system that caters to the FASTEST kid in the class, not the SLOWEST.

Test scores are through the roof. Parental involvement is not only encouraged (you can join your children's class any day, any time) - it's actually MANDATORY. My 1st child, the prodigy, is having his needs met so he's not bored and listless. My 2nd child's learning disabilities are personally addressed by his teachers and aids, and in-school programs are in place to 'coach' him through his challenges.

I could go on and on. But THE MORAL OF THE STORY is this: when you are able to engage the federal government in competition, wonderful things happen and you're better able to recognize how stale and feeble the bureaucratic methods really are.

#3

Health insurance is not a RIGHT. Sorry, people. It never has been and never should be. So long as we live in a culture where people are free to clog their arteries, turn into blimps on their couches, smoke their cigarettes, shrivel up their livers with the plethora of booze options, make a living on the food-eating-contest circuit, etc, etc, etc, --- YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE PAY FOR YOUR WAY OF LIFE!!!!!!!!!!

I could go on and on and on with this one, but I'd best not.

#4

Wake up, America! You're turning into mindless drones! Quit electing freak shows who go to Washington and forget who sent them there! Quit voting down party lines just because your parents did! Cease your covetous desires to gain personal increase from the wealth of those who have worked harder, smarter, and longer than you! Know that every single penny the government spends comes out of YOUR wallet. Even if you're part of the 50% of the population that only accounts for 1% of the tax revenues. How? Through every system that is illegally regulated, through every purchase you make, through the lower-pay of your jobs that result from Congress playing Robin Hood by STEALING from the rich to give to the supposedly poor.

Many health problems are not the fault of the person who has them. What do you suggest for people who have no money or health insurance? We were switched to a plan with a $3000 deductible and I haven't taken my prescriptions for a year. My (non-fat) friend with diabetes has no testing strips now, was unemployed for over a year, has no health insurance, no money, she has asthma, and she had to take out a loan to pay for dental surgery due to a severe infection that went up to her sinuses. She won't be able to pay off that loan. She finally got a full-time job and will have benefits after 4 months, but because she has been uninsured for so long, her pre-existing conditions won't be covered for a long time. Her pay is minimum wage and there is no way she will be able to cover her needs.

So what's the solution? Should she just curl up and die? She means the world to me. Maybe health care isn't a "right", but human beings should care for each other. She was laid-off immediately after returning from medical leave. Her diabetes got so bad, she had to have part of her colon removed and it was a long recovery. She's 50 and now her retirement fund is gone. She has no husband or children to help her through this and she's battling depression on top of everything else.

[Bob_Blaylock]

I note that the first duty of government is to protect life. That would seem in keeping with universal health care. Note that this is the first duty, the chief purpose - That which, abandoning, would cause that government to abandon all.

There are two approaches to this “duty”. The Союз Советских Социалистических Республик approach — the way that you seem to advocate — was for government to provide you with what it thinks you need, and to take from you as much as it takes to pay for it. Hence, the famous Karl Marx quote, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

The American way is for government to let you keep as much as possible of what you have rightfully earned, and for you to be responsible for spending your own money, as you best see fit, to buy the things that you need.

In this nation, it is not the government's responsibility to provide you with food and housing and clothing and transportation and whatever else it thinks you need. It's your own responsibility to earn an honest living, and to use the wages that you thus earn to buy for yourself that which you think you need.

Yes, our way is more challenging. It's more challenging to live as a free person, responsible for one's own needs, than to live as a slave, depending on one's master to provide for one's needs.

What you advocate is selling ourselves into slavery.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Bob_Blaylock

[Bob_Blaylock]

This is very interesting me, because I just had this thought:

If there's a depression or dip in the economy in the United States, and people don't have enough money to maintain their standard of living they cannot use things such as medical care.

Whereas, in a "socialised nation" the healthcare is a public service and generally not impending on you being able to directly afford it. Therefore, if there's a depression you should still have access to it.

This is all based on a horrendous misconception, that somehow, no matter how bad the economy may become, government will always manage to have a bottomless pile of money at hand, to pay for whatever we demand that government to to us.

Here in California, we've lately been getting a very vivid demonstration of just how false this belief is. We've passed all sorts of laws, over the years, requiring California to provide minimum levels of funding to various programs, and now we are finding that the state simply cannot afford to meet these obligations — it doesn't have the money to do so; and we are already overtaxed to the point that raising any taxes further only suppresses the economy further, reducing rather than increasing the revenue that is thus brought in.

The thing that I find frightening, at the federal level, is an abject lack of common sense. In tight economic times, many of us cannot afford to spend as freely as we'd like. We have to observe stricter discipline in how we spend out money. Yet, at the federal level, we've got a government that seems to think that the way to cope with this economy is to spend spend spend like a gang of drunken sailors, with no restraint or discipline at all. What would it to to any of us as individuals to take that approach with our own finances?

[Prodigal_Son]

Many health problems are not the fault of the person who has them. What do you suggest for people who have no money or health insurance? We were switched to a plan with a $3000 deductible and I haven't taken my prescriptions for a year. My (non-fat) friend with diabetes has no testing strips now, was unemployed for over a year, has no health insurance, no money, she has asthma, and she had to take out a loan to pay for dental surgery due to a severe infection that went up to her sinuses. She won't be able to pay off that loan. She finally got a full-time job and will have benefits after 4 months, but because she has been uninsured for so long, her pre-existing conditions won't be covered for a long time. Her pay is minimum wage and there is no way she will be able to cover her needs.

So what's the solution? Should she just curl up and die? She means the world to me. Maybe health care isn't a "right", but human beings should care for each other. She was laid-off immediately after returning from medical leave. Her diabetes got so bad, she had to have part of her colon removed and it was a long recovery. She's 50 and now her retirement fund is gone. She has no husband or children to help her through this and she's battling depression on top of everything else.

I'm sorry for both your situations. Please don't confuse my abhorrence for Marxism for a lack of compassion.

Did neither of you qualify for Medicaid? Are there no free clinics in your area? Did the Bishop turn you down if/when you asked for help?

[bytor2112]

Many health problems are not the fault of the person who has them. What do you suggest for people who have no money or health insurance? We were switched to a plan with a $3000 deductible and I haven't taken my prescriptions for a year. My (non-fat) friend with diabetes has no testing strips now, was unemployed for over a year, has no health insurance, no money, she has asthma, and she had to take out a loan to pay for dental surgery due to a severe infection that went up to her sinuses. She won't be able to pay off that loan. She finally got a full-time job and will have benefits after 4 months, but because she has been uninsured for so long, her pre-existing conditions won't be covered for a long time. Her pay is minimum wage and there is no way she will be able to cover her needs.

So what's the solution? Should she just curl up and die? She means the world to me. Maybe health care isn't a "right", but human beings should care for each other. She was laid-off immediately after returning from medical leave. Her diabetes got so bad, she had to have part of her colon removed and it was a long recovery. She's 50 and now her retirement fund is gone. She has no husband or children to help her through this and she's battling depression on top of everything else.

Just curious...what does a $3000.00 deductible have to do with prescriptions? I don't know if this will help you or your friend, but many drugs are available for free or greatly reduced prices direct from the manufacturer. Also, there are programs available that may help your friend...Vocational Rehab might be a good place to start.

[a-train]

My concern, however, and I think the concern with many is that a complete lack of regulation results in economic anarchy.

The liberal view (my view) is not a complete lack of law (anarchy), but a Rule of Law. Many see only anarchy on one hand and arbitrary law (an arbiter is law) on the other. Most of the west today sees arbitrary laws of different sorts as preferable to others. For example, they see a bureau as preferable to a dictator, but neither are the implemetation of the Rule of Law, they are only different forms of arbitrary law. The former is simply the case wherein rather than a dictator being the arbiter, a bureau is. Where arbitrary law exists, universal individual freedom does not. In fact, democracy as we usually define it cannot.

Because people are not perfect and are manipulated by things such as advertising, or because companies are willing to bury opposing technologies (For instance: Beta VCRs were far superior technologically than the competing VHS's. Also, see 'Who killed the Electric Car?'), in any unregulated scene those with temporary power will always seek to use their temporary power to 'shore up' and provide permanent power. It has been used by Microsoft (Whose fingers are now slipping), it was used by Bell (Who was broken up as a Monopoly), it was used by Wal-Mart.

Certainly there are plenty who want to sieze power, to supress innovation, and so forth. And that is the very trouble with arbitrary law, it is the best means whereby such usurpation is executed. In the case of Bell for example, did you not know that Bell's monopoly was government created? Bell was given exclusive license by government. When that monopoly went away, there were literally thousands of competitors. Microsoft has consistantly had to work tirelessly to hold marketshare, the so-called monopoly never even slightly existed and today the greatest threat to it still remains market competition. Name one monopoly created without government help. I've yet to see it. Arbitrary law is very helpful for monopoly.

Laissez faire is often misunderstood to mean an economic policy devoid of law. The reality is that is meant to suggest the lack of arbitrary law and the use of the Rule of Law.

Heck, even Newspapers are becoming giant conglomerates owned by a few corporate interests. Those with temporary economic power are essentially becoming powers unto themselves, dragging back the free market ideals simply by virtue of human weakness.

But why are newspapers coalescing? Innovation and the free market. The information revolution is killing the newspaper industry as we know it. Future generations will probably have no newspaper at all. They will know the news long before any paper boy can put a hunk of dead trees on their lawn. And that future generation is already here. Suppose that a single newspaper company came to possess every paper in America by 2012. Would it be a monopoly? Hardly. It will still be mired in steep competition with the other instruments of the information age.

The reality is not that some paper companies are siezing more marketshare in an expanding industry, but that they are the last men standing on a sinking ship as they watch even the rats float away.

In the entire history of man, no anarchy has ever been sustainable. The free market is essentially an anarchy.

The liberal would quickly agree about anarchy. However, he would clarify that no free market exists in anarchy. A "free market" is not one where there are no property rights. A robbery at gun-point is not a function of the free-market.

Liberal theory and the Rule of Law is easily visualized by an examination of lane laws. It is said in the United States that there are specific lanes (usually the right lane) on a roadway which are designated for travel in given directions. There are west-bound lanes and east-bound lanes. Without this demarcation, the freedom to travel would be greatly injured. The purpose therein is to allow all travelers to be benefitted the same. The enforcers of the law are commissioned to enforce this same rule for every traveler without prejudice. Travelers are freely allowed to go either east or west as they please, there is no arbiter to determine whether each traveler should be allowed to so travel. The Law Rules, not any arbiter. We cannot under this system determine whether travel will be more to the west or the east. Indeed, changing circumstances may alter that flow over time. This flow is NOT planned.

Under an arbitrary law there would be some arbiter who would grant each traveler the right to travel either east or west based on his/her/their goals. This would be necessary if we were to attempt to control the flow of traffic so as to create a net western flow, or a flow of red vehicles east and blue ones west, etc. Individual travelers would be met with different rules. Some would be free to make their desired choice, while others would be disallowed such freedom. Travelers would change their plans based on changes made by the arbiter and the arbiter would therefore make further changes. Such is the nature of planning. Without planners, there can be no planning. Plans, once planned, must be conducted by arbiters of that plan. The execution of that plan would change as conditions change.

In the case of economic planning, the flow of money, goods, resources, etc. are being planned. A simple Rule of Law is insufficient for economic planning. There must be planners empowered to control the flow of resources to reach stated goals such as causing the flow to go toward a certain class or certain industry. The democratic machinery becomes a major impediment to those goals. In fact, such machinery may find it impossible to come to any agreement on the goal itself. That is why it becomes necessary to defer authority to a small bureau outside the legislature (IRS, Federal Reserve, SSA, etc., etc., etc.....) This is why economic planning leads to the decay of democracy and did so in so many places during the last century. A democracy of diverse people will find it more and more impossible to concede on a given economic plan as diversity increases. Thus, those who wish to implement their plans push for the creation of planning bureaus outside the legislature with powers to create and enforce regulations swiftly.

Liberal Theory does not have as its ends either anarchy nor arbitrary law, rather it acknowledges the Rule of Law as a necessary condition for individual freedom. A Liberal Government will not engage in economic planning, it will maintain the Rule of Law. It does not seek to control the flow of wealth. The sad history of economic planning is that while it was proposed as a plan to flow more wealth to the poor, it results in the flow of more wealth to the most wealthy. Why? Because the most wealthy have the means to best influence the planners. My desire to see liberal theory implemented, the Rule of Law restored, and economic planning abandoned is not for the rich, but for the poor who would be the most benefitted.

I am, however, very intrigued by your technological approach to wealth creation. I would agree wholeheartedly with it. Certainly, in medieval times, things like grain silos and such created by governments allowed them to feed populaces that would otherwise have starved, but in modern times we can safely say that the development of spontaneous wealth creation is far better.

What should not go overlooked is the fact that these older governments were just as much involved in starving people as they were in feeding them. In fact, much of the starvation going on in the world today is a result of economic planning. Sanctions, trade wars, regulations of products, all of these things are efforts on the part of governments designed to produce some economic benefit, be it for a small group or society at large, they are the leading cause of starvation in our modern world wherein the global capacity to produce food is far above current production levels. Farmers in the United States are paid by the Departement of Agriculture not to grow crops. Why? Economic planning.

What has produced the modern era wherein wealth creation is far better? Liberalism. Once people were allowed to own the means of production and engage in free trade, they began furiously producing wealth. They continue to do so insomuch as they continue to have such freedom.

There are economic ignoramuses who complain: "In the free market, producers try to limit production in order to keep profits high." This is actually 100% acurate, what they don't understand is that in such a case we WANT them to limit production. If demand is too low to make a given level of production profitable, we don't want that production to take place. Why? Because further production would actually be wasteful and the resources wasted would be resources which could have been employed in some other form of production which is actually valued. We don't want to go without bananas while apples rot in bins. This said, we don't want government making these limitations, we want invested free-market entities to do it. Why?

These same ignoramuses who want economic planners to prevent such activity actually support government's efforts to do just that! They support interventions such as the paying of farmers not to grow crops so that crop prices will stay above certain minimums. The funny thing is, economic planners cannot actually plan supply without knowing demand, and they can't know demand without a free-market price system. This is why the countries with the strongest economic controls have suffered the greatest troubles with shortages and surpluses. Russians had cars they didn't want to drive while they went without toilet paper.

Liberal laissez faire economic policy simply is such that it is generic, it makes no effort to plan the flow of resources among the people. It allows them to flow freely so they can go most effeciently to those places where demand is greatest. But like auto traffic, when too much tends to pool into one area, the independent travelers begin looking for other routes and/or destinations.

Imagine the traveler who says: "They should kick some of these other travelers off the road so that I can drive in this area without all this traffic." or "They should ration the right to drive on this road so I can do so without traffic when it is my turn." These would be reactions of the interventionist. The liberal would say: "Let's build more roads."

In a free-market, as the level of production in a given sphere gets too crowded, producers (we are all producers) begin producing other things in spheres that are not so crowded. If everyone on your street is selling tulips and a guy is selling them so low that you can't touch his price, you start selling roses. Society is now better off having not just tulips, but roses also, just as society is better not having just one road, but many.

Liberal theory is not simplistic and it takes a lot of study to fully examine. Free-market economics alone takes a lot of study. I think this is why most of the population has such trouble understanding it. They equate it with anarchy. But no one would call our lane laws anarchy. I devote a lot of study to the subject and I am still just coming to understand all the various principles. But the more I study it, the more I am convinced that it is the best system possible.

-a-train

Edited July 22, 2009 by a-train

[a-train]

Many health problems are not the fault of the person who has them. What do you suggest for people who have no money or health insurance?

Liberal government would handle this by refraining from the impulse to constrain wealth creation. Under such a system, the overall wealth would be much greater and more people would be able to afford healthcare. Also, healthcare would be less expensive.

-a-train

[Just_A_Guy]

Liberal government would handle this by refraining from the impulse to constrain wealth creation. Under such a system, the overall wealth would be much greater and more people would be able to afford healthcare. Also, healthcare would be less expensive.

-a-train

Concur. We don't really have a free market in health care right now, and will not until I can call around to five different hospitals and get five different quotes on the cost for an MRI.

[Hemidakota]

This is all based on a horrendous misconception, that somehow, no matter how bad the economy may become, government will always manage to have a bottomless pile of money at hand, to pay for whatever we demand that government to to us.

Here in California, we've lately been getting a very vivid demonstration of just how false this belief is. We've passed all sorts of laws, over the years, requiring California to provide minimum levels of funding to various programs, and now we are finding that the state simply cannot afford to meet these obligations — it doesn't have the money to do so; and we are already overtaxed to the point that raising any taxes further only suppresses the economy further, reducing rather than increasing the revenue that is thus brought in.

The thing that I find frightening, at the federal level, is an abject lack of common sense. In tight economic times, many of us cannot afford to spend as freely as we'd like. We have to observe stricter discipline in how we spend out money. Yet, at the federal level, we've got a government that seems to think that the way to cope with this economy is to spend spend spend like a gang of drunken sailors, with no restraint or discipline at all. What would it to to any of us as individuals to take that approach with our own finances?

I was laughing when B of A refuses to take IOUs.

[FunkyTown]

I was laughing when B of A refuses to take IOUs.

What I would have liked to have seen at that point is the government saying, 'Fine.' and taking back all the money they loaned the banks, then using that money to pay them.

It would not only remove the whole governmental debt, but it would also let the banking establishment know they aren't untouchable. Right now, they think they are.

[Aesa]

This is all based on a horrendous misconception, that somehow, no matter how bad the economy may become, government will always manage to have a bottomless pile of money at hand, to pay for whatever we demand that government to to us.

Here in California, we've lately been getting a very vivid demonstration of just how false this belief is. We've passed all sorts of laws, over the years, requiring California to provide minimum levels of funding to various programs, and now we are finding that the state simply cannot afford to meet these obligations — it doesn't have the money to do so; and we are already overtaxed to the point that raising any taxes further only suppresses the economy further, reducing rather than increasing the revenue that is thus brought in.

The thing that I find frightening, at the federal level, is an abject lack of common sense. In tight economic times, many of us cannot afford to spend as freely as we'd like. We have to observe stricter discipline in how we spend out money. Yet, at the federal level, we've got a government that seems to think that the way to cope with this economy is to spend spend spend like a gang of drunken sailors, with no restraint or discipline at all. What would it to to any of us as individuals to take that approach with our own finances?

Exactly what's going to happen as it keeps up (bankruptcy).

Thank-you for responding to the conjecture I made. I do admit it was not based off anything but a thought that just suddenly came to me. I don't necessarily agree with your response completely (though in a very different context that's not really relevant to the topic at hand) but it's a good one. :)

[FunkyTown]

There are two approaches to this “duty”. The Союз Советских Социалистических Республик approach — the way that you seem to advocate — was for government to provide you with what it thinks you need, and to take from you as much as it takes to pay for it. Hence, the famous Karl Marx quote, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

The American way is for government to let you keep as much as possible of what you have rightfully earned, and for you to be responsible for spending your own money, as you best see fit, to buy the things that you need.

In this nation, it is not the government's responsibility to provide you with food and housing and clothing and transportation and whatever else it thinks you need. It's your own responsibility to earn an honest living, and to use the wages that you thus earn to buy for yourself that which you think you need.

Yes, our way is more challenging. It's more challenging to live as a free person, responsible for one's own needs, than to live as a slave, depending on one's master to provide for one's needs.

What you advocate is selling ourselves into slavery.

I would disagree with this.

Homeless shelters are important. There are those who lost their homes due to lost jobs, sickness, mental health issues and yes poor planning and laziness. Lost jobs can occur based on the same thing. Sickness can come of the same thing.

One of my major concerns with the arguments pure capitalists seem to have is that all forms of poverty are essentially around due to 'laziness' or stupidity and poor planning. That's patently not the case.

It seems rather short sighted to assume that most people, if there were a social network, would embrace poverty simply because it's 'Easier'. History doesn't make that a logical outcome.

You say I advocate selling ourselves in to slavery. I say you advocate the 'Am I my brother's keeper?' philosophy. If that argument didn't work for Cain, it sure won't work for me.