Tuesday, July 28, 2009

How dare we expect you to do your job

Two possible solutions: Go find a job where you can actually perform your duties or don't pass so many complicated laws.

I know that your congressscum feel so important when you are "doing things" but has anyone considered that we don't need hundreds of new laws each year? That we don't need you spending money on anything and everything. That maybe we can live our lives just fine without you meddling?


Hal Lillywhite said...

Conyers of course should be fired by the voters in his district. And Daniel is right that congress keeps doing things that should not be done. In fact my own blog on 15 June talked about this.


Hal Lillywhite said...

PS, in that archive you'll have to go to the bottom entry to find that blog, or just search for something like "don't just do something."

OregonGuy said...

Hard to be a victim of unintended consequences when one isn't even sure of the intended consequences.


Problem solved.

LW said...

Congressscum? What are you, ten years old? The only thing you do by resorting to trash talk is diminish your own credibility and dignity. Good God, what a total embarrassment you are to your family. If you think you can separate the juvenile, idiot persona you cultivate online and the individual who lives and works in the real world, you've got a lot to learn, Mr. Miglavs. I read in some earlier thread that you work as a delivery guy. I don't know what you deliver, but if you showed up at my door, I'd shut the door in your fool face, call your employer and ask that they send an adult.

Bobkatt said...

LW-you seem offended by Daniel's choice of words but no comment on the actual post. No comment on the fact that numerous bills are being drafted in secrecy by God knows who. Dick Cheney developed an entire energy policy for his whole term and would not even divulge who was in the meetings. Obama promised open transparent government and that no bill would be rushed through without ample time to analyze the ramifications of these hugely life changing modifications to our system. Instead we get thousand page bills with 300 page amendments added at 3 in the morning before the vote.
But by all means snivel about Daniel's choice of words. You get the government you deserve.

Scottiebill said...

Bobkatt, You are right on target here. LW is just another Daniel-hating bozo like the various and sundry Amonymice who post here on an ad infinitum ad nauseum basis, blasting Daniel for anything and everything, all the while posting nothing f any substance.

As for what Conyer had to say in this video, he did something that it is rare to see any Democrat do, go against the Komrade Emperor's edicts. But then he also said he wants to see the Komrade reelected in 2012.

And that in itself says it all. Politicians have but one thing in mind while they are in office and it ain't their constituents or the American people and their well-being. It is their own reelections. Nothing more. Nothing less.

LW said...

Bobkatt, I agree with the general sentiments involved, my only point is that one can make critical remarks without resorting to the language of a junior high school playground.

And I agree, too, that the secrecy involved with the Obama administration is every bit as repugnant as the process by which Cheney drafted the energy plan -- along with a whole host of policies the Bush administration enacted secretly, I might add, although I would challenge Mr. Miglavs to point to any criticisms had about that. I seriously doubt he had any, just as he likely also had nothing to say about the fact that Congress approved a fair number of atrocious bills during the last eight years (without reading them) that helped fuel the crisis we're in right now. As always, Daniel is highly selective, and subjective, about who he criticizes. He is a shameless hypocrite with no consistent political principles that I can see.

I did not vote for Mr. Obama, because he and I do not share the same politics, and I knew as soon as he emerged as a viable candidate that he was an opportunistic fraud who would, in the end, enact policies that were fundamentally wrong and unsound. So I would take issue with your asssertion that I am among those who "deserve" him.

Bobkatt said...

LW-my comment was not directed at you personally, but rather a general frustration directed at the public in general that seems to think that our government is a spectator sport.
In my opinion the entire system and almost the entire electorate are corrupted beyond repair. The only answer is to shrink the federal government and demand local control. We also must demand honesty and integrity especially among the people you support.

Anonymous said...

"congresscum"? Is that any relation to Conservative Christian Scum? Maybe you are referring to members of the Repubicant Minority?

Anonymous said...

This video was taken entirely out of context. What Conyers meant ( and if "CNS News: The Right News. Right Now" had cared to provide longer than a 36 second clip this is clear) is that he disagrees with the way the health care bill is being rushed through the legislative process. It needs to be throrougly understood and debated and this is impossible given the current process.

It happens all the time in congress. Huge bills are introduced and then voted on giving members no time to actually read them.

His point: If you're given 2 days to read a 1,000 page bill, you might as well just not read it at all. How can a constructive debate over a bill be had when people have had no time to read it?

The right is always belly-aching about mainstream, liberal media bias. How is taking someone's comments entirely out of context and then running with their unintented meaning a journalistic improvement?

Anonymous said...

With all due respect to Miglavs et al. who describe the health care reform as government meddling, there are a lot of people out there in dire need of SOMEONE to meddle on their behalf because they are literally dying under the current system.

Here's what I don't get, and maybe one of you will be so kind as to explain it to me. Conservatives approach healthcare like anything else. Let the markets take care of it. The implication of this perspective is that the current system is a market-driven one and that government involvement will constitute intrusion into the free market.

This is absolutely not true. A free market is one in which everyone in the system has access. We can all go out and buy a TV or a car if we have enough money. We are all free to invest our money in the stock market.

But we are not all free to buy healthcare. If you are deemed sick enough, you are effectively extruded from the market.

Health insurance is a profit-driven enterprise. I'm fine with that. We live in a capitalist society after all. But it is not a free market when the sellers get to determine which buyers are allowed to participate in the marketplace.

Competition, in the health care industry boils down to who can best determine which people not to cover so as to avoid paying out claims. Moreover, this entails massive administrative cost - determining worthiness of coverage - and these costs get built into the premiums paid by those who do get insured.

It seems difficult to imagine a bigger distortion of the free-market.

So, could any of you clarify for me, how we currently have a health care system based on free market principles?

OregonGuy said...


I'll be posting on free market approaches to addressing some of the short-falls in our approach to handling how we pay our medical bills on my site, tomorrow.

We don't need to fix "the medical system." What is this "medical system" of which I keep hearing?

I go to the doctor. I go the dentist. I write a check. When I need the emergency room, I go. And then I write a much bigger check. But that's my choice. In these visits, I've never come across anything labeled "the health care system." Just offices with professionals willing to give me appropriate care.

The current system works just great for me. But then, I pay my bills.

As for the Conyers clip; doesn't matter to me if it is allegedly taken out of context or not. The simple words coming from his lips to my ears tells me all either you or I need to hear.

The man is not reading a bill that he is representing with his vote more than 600-thousand people living in his district, who voted for him, in order to do just that. This is not comedy. This is negligience.

Anonymous said...

So, OregonGuy, you don't have insurance, is that it?

I'm not clear how your response addresses my post.

If God forbid, you came down with cancer, needed surgery to remove the cancer, and subsequent treatment, do you write a check for that too?

Or if your ticker goes bad, and you need open-heart surgery, do you also-pay all of those expenses out-of-pocket?

If you get in a car accident and have to spend two months in the hospital, do you have cash lying around for that too?

Wow, you must be loaded. Good for you. You are among the fraction of a percent of Americans who can pay for whatever healthcare expenses come their way out of their own pockets.

For the 99.5 percent of us who have to insure ourselves against the possibility of an expensive health calamity, they system doesn't seem to be working so well. Those of us with "prexisting conditions" can't get any coverage at all. And those of us who can get coverage are paying through the teeth to subsidize the insurance companies' administrative costs incurred while making sure that they are denying coverage to anyone who might actually need health care.

So, does anyone who is not independently wealthy care to weigh in on the extent to which this is really a free-market system?

LW said...

The American health care system is wholly oriented toward making a profit for all its subsidiary industries -- insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, etc. It is officially intended to provide health care, but what it's really intended to do is to produce profit (spectacular profit, in the case of the pharmaceutical industry) for the companies that constitute its parts. So long as we insist on putting profit before the actual health and well-being of human beings, we will have a health care 'system' that fails to provide health care for tens of millions of people -- people who have jobs, who pay their bills, people who do all the right things, but cannot afford decent health care because the profit imperative has pushed it clear out of their affordability range, and I have no faith whatsoever in Obama to do what a compassionate and rational society should do because, in the end, he is an enthusiastic supporter of American capitalism, and he wants to ensure that all the players in the health care 'system' make the money they're supposedly due.

Anonymous said...

LW -

Well put. The only part I disagree with is your assessment that Obama will fail to do what is right - compassionately see to it that all people have access to good health care - because he is an ardent proponent of capitalism. If he fails to do what is right, it will be because he is trying to appease those fear-mongerers who tell horror stories about rationed health care, etc. Not because he is carrying water for the "health" industry.

OregonGuy said...


I'm no different than you.

I'm not wealthy. (And rarely loaded.)

But what I have after some 35 years of work is a certain amount of assets--like my home--that is worth more today, even in today's upside-down real estate market--than when I bought it. I also own a modest business.

Wealthy? By no means.

And had I committed to purchasing health insurance there would have been periods where I would have had to give up that coverage in order to maintain my business. Most recently, following the collapse of markets last August. Before that, as a consequence of 9/11.

And the point is, one must maintain ones insurance payments in order have the coverage in the future. Regardless of how much money I would have paid, had I decided to be insured, that coverage would have ended in 2001 and at the end of 2008.

Wealthy? No. But I do have certain assets. By the time you hit the double-nickel, if you invest wisely, you too will have a certain net worth.

Cancer? Bad ticker? Sure, could happen. But the choice I would be making would be my choice; do I deplete my assets to maintain my life for another year, or years? Or, do I do what many choose, simply accept that the number one cause of death is longevity, and we are living well beyond the years of our forefathers, just a hundred years ago.

I would suggest it's time for you to man-up and admit that life scares you. You know that there is a clock out there, ticking down the remaining moments of your life, and you fear the Reaper.

Time to grow up.

If you want a job that gives you basically womb-to-tomb health care, get your teaching degree and go to work for a school district. Or get a job with the state. The rest of us who choose our own paths take responsibility for having chosen our paths.

I could have been an OEA drone, had I chosen to do so. Could have taken a job at a state agency.

I chose a different path. What gives you the right to take money from me to provide you with something you haven't figured out how to provide for yourself?

That is the reduction of your "free health care" argument. You are unwilling to provide for yourself, therefore, government must take from those of us who earn a living to give you something you're unwilling to work for.

Thanks. I'll pass.

Anonymous said...

I find it ironic that for years liberal women have screamed...GET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY WOMB.


What happened? Did liberals forget how to care for themselves.

NO ONE IS DENIED HEALTH CARE. If a lib says that they are lying.

This whole thing is about control.


Anonymous said...

OregonGuy - That is probably the most ludicrous post I have ever read. Never mind the fact that you can't seem to respond to the gist of my original message which was about how the current health care system and insurance industry isn't a free-market system.

Anyway, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I have a job and I have health insurance. My wife owns a small business and pays over $400 per month for her health insurance, and we pay an additional $100 to cover our two-year old daughter (my employee health plan doesn't cover family members). We don't need a public plan, but we support one for those who aren't as fortunate as we are, and we don't mind helping to pay for it. We feel that helping to take care of people who have fallen on hard times, mostly through no fault of their own, is a social obligation. We are not individualistic, selfish pricks. We think it's morally wrong for a society, especially one as wealthy and powerful as ours, to allow people to lose everything, just because they get sick.

We're 30 years old. We haven't worked long enough to accumulate assets that we might be able to sell off in the event of a huge health care bill. So it's very important for us to always have health insurance. And I'm not scared of dying. I'm scared of depriving my daughter unnecessarily of a mother or father because we failed to provide ourselves with health insurance.

Finally, just curious. When you retire, will you make use of medicare? SSI? Social Security? Or, when your money runs out, will you just die off, not accepting those government handouts based on principle?

If you do avail yourself of any of those programs, you do realize that they are government programs right? And that people like me will be subsidizing them, right? That's fine. I'm happy to help. You deserve to be helped. After working so hard for your whole life, you deserve to take some time off and enjoy your golden years.

But, if you choose to just die off, no one can say you weren't a man of your word.

Bobkatt said...

Anon 2:51-your post is interesting but I'm not sure your analysis is completely accurate. You state that "...we are not all free to buy healthcare." but I believe you mean we are not all free to buy health insurance. I'm sure if you have enough money you can buy any level of "health care" you desire. What you seem to want is to force someone else to agree to pay huge amounts of money on your behalf by giving them smaller amounts of money that you can afford.
The problem from a free market point of view is that demand is out running supply therefore costs keep going up. The current consensus is that we need to come up with a way for more of the population to be able to pay the higher costs. My idea is that instead we need to put our money and energy into increasing supply and therefore lowering prices through competition. We need to reconsider how health care is provided and where. I can go to Walmart and other box stores and get an eye exam and glasses for a very reasonable price. I can go to BiMart and get a flu shot. Why can't we have small clinics or store fronts like this for simple medical problems such as my child has a small fever. Why can't I take him to the small local clinic without all the trappings of a large clinic or hospital?
Many potential nurses are turned away every year because our local community college doesn't have room or enough teachers for them. With high unemployment this should be the first place money goes. Increase the supply and you will lower the cost. The problem is not how can we pay the ever increasing price of health care but rather how can we get the cost down so that everyone can afford to pay for it. Sort of the Henry Ford approach.
It troubles me that more and more people insist that health care is a "right". Health care is a service like any other is provided by individuals that also have a "right" to be paid and live like anyone else. I assume that people that espouse this idea would also consider that eating food is even more critical than survival but I don't think they would insist that they have a "right" to someone else's food. To casually throw out the term "right" implies that we are somehow entitled to the fruit of someone else's labor simply because we exist. It is very easy to rationalize that someone who has more of something than they "need' has an obligation to provide for those that have not enough. If this is voluntary it works fine. If it is mandatory it is theft.
Anon- your comment that health care insurance is not a free market approach is very accurate. Unfortunately this applies to almost every aspect of our economy. There are barriers to entry in almost every endeavor imposed by government regulation and control. While these barriers are often presented as a protection for the public they often are only set up in order to stifle competition. Competition lowers prices, increases productivity and efficiency and is in fact a great way to provide goods and services to the most people. While fewer and fewer people have health care insurance, even poor people have televisions and cell phones. Not because of government intervention but because of competition.

Anonymous said...

Nice analysis, Bobkatt. Can't say I agree with you on every point, but nice nevertheless.

If healthcare isn't a right, it's still pretty damn important. Our nation is getting fatter and unhealthier by the day. Sick people do not make for a very productive workforce. The threat to national interests is clear when it comes to the health issue.

I'm curious to know how you would go about increasing competition in the healthcare market, broadly conceived, without having the government take action. Like any other industry, the trend over the past 30 years or so has been one where large players are increasingly squeezing out the little guy in order to reduce competition. Counterbalancing this trend would require an expansion of government regulation and oversight of the market in order to make sure the little guy can compete, and so that the fruits of competition can be had by the consumer. Republicans are vehemently opposed to this type of government involvement in the market.

Finally, I don't expect anyone to pay for anything for ME. It's not about me. That's what many conservatives, who approach everything from an individualistic point of view, fail to grasp. The main point is that the current health care system is bullshit. Unlike OregonGuy, most of us think it's pretty important to have health insurance.

The current system rewards insurance companies who cover those people who need health care the least. For those people who really need it, they either deny coverage, or quote prices that they know people will not be able to afford.

So what do those people who can't get or can't afford health insurance do? They get sicker, and we all eventually, end up paying even more, in terms of direct costs and in many other ways.

Moreover, our lives shouldn't be driven by our health concerns. I think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in this day and age, entails living with a sense of security that comes from knowing that if something horrible happens to you or a family member, your life won't be put permanently on hold so that you can spend 24-7 navigating a health care industry hell-bent on making a profit, rather than doing what it can to help you get your life back on track.

An example of this: I know so many people who stay in a job they hate, or do not pursue their passions simply because their job provides health insurance, and they wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise. How does that yield the type of risk-taking, ingenuity, and innovation among members of the workforce that has, in the past, made the U.S. the most dynamic economy in the world?

At the end of the day, health care is too damn expensive. The health insurance industry is driven purely by profit, and appears to have no interest whatsoever in the public health of the nation. I'm all for markets and for people being able to make profits. When when the way profits are made gets in the way of the nation's health, I expect government to step in and say "that's the end of that". Profits should not trump the health of our citizens.

MAX Redline said...

Interesting, 1120. At the ripe old age of 30, you feel qualified to lecture about the need for socialized medicine to a guy nearly twice your age, who's built a modestly successful business in (of all places) the northern Oregon coast.

It's something I've noticed about 30-somethings - they often know all there is to know.

Is health insurance a human right?

Do you even know what drives up the cost of health care?

OregonGuy said...


Your criticism of "free markets" seems to be along the lines of "If I can't afford it, it must not be a working market."

Simply because I choose not to buy diamonds doesn't mean that diamonds are overpriced. It simply means that whatever utility I could possibly receive by such a purchase is not, for me, great enough to overcome the price objection: that for what I get I do not feel that the value received is greater than its cost.

Is the fact that I choose not to purchase the currently available insurance a sign of failure for markets? Nope. In fact, if you think about it, it shows you that markets work! I am not compelled in a free market to either purchase health insurance or diamonds. It is my choice. Just as I'm sure that I've never purchased a kumquat, my failure to purchase said kumquat does not add or subtract from the current demand for kumquats or change their price. I am indifferent to kumquats. Does this mean the free market is failing since I have no desire for kumquats? Of course not, since I am not involved in either the price, supply, demand, production or subsidisation of kumquats, my indifference has no effect on the markets for kumquats. The kumquat could disappear tomorrow and I would not be disturbed. (I would, prolly, laugh.)

As an employer, though, I'm very concerned about what passes as health insurance in Oregon.

Did you ever examine what medical insurance must cover in order to made available for subscription in Oregon?

It would be worthwhile for you to find out. For our purposes it is simple enough to note that I don't need most of the things I would be insured for, in the case that I purchased an insurance subscription.

In fact, if Oregon law didn't intrude into the free marketplace for insurance, the kind and type of insurance I would prefer to have would, in fact, be affordable.

See, the problem isn't that the free market doesn't work, it's that the insurance companies are required to work under mandates from our state's legislature that the state doesn't pay for. These are unfunded mandates whose costs must be borne by insurance subscribers. That I willingly opt out of subsidizing the costs of other insurance subscribers is a feature of the free market, not a bug.

Take medical insurance out of the workplace as a perk for work, and place it back into the realm of the consumer and let the consumer shop where he chooses. If you are a young man, having insurance to help pay for the birth of your children makes sense. It doesn't for me. So, why should I subsidize the insurance of others for such costs?

Government mandates have screwed up the markets for insurance subscriptions. And it seems that your fix for the ballooning costs associated with those mandates is to further increase those mandates.

Dear Anon, do yourself a favour.

Never buy a shovel.

Anonymous said...

I think what's more interesting, MaxRedline, is that in your ripe old age of, whatever, you still haven't learned how to read.

When did I mention anything about socialized medicine?

"Is health insurance a human right?"

I never claimed it was, and think this is an entirely different discussion. What is a basic right, at least in this country, is for people to rise up and demand change to practices that run counter to the common good and nation's interest. If you want to defend the practices of the health insurance industry, go right ahead. My wife got treated for depression ("pre-existing condition"). She had a non-malignant mass of tissue removed from her breast ("pre-existing) condition. Because of these pre-existing conditions, four insurance companies denied her coverage. Finally, Blue Cross-Blue Shield covered her, but even they jacked up her rates, six months into her pregnancy, because of these pre-existing conditions. She would have been better off not treating her depression and not getting that lump removed.

The current system actually discourages people from getting any form of health treatment. How is that rational? How does it do anyone any good, beyond the insurance companies? Health insurance might not be a basic human right, but bettering our lives is.

"Do you even know what drives up the cost of health care?"

Of course not. After all, I'm only 30. I'm sure it has nothing to do with our increasingly unhealthy population, or the fact that baby boomers are aging into the years when they start making heavy use of the health care system. I also highly doubt that it has anything to do with the fact that - according to a friend who holds a senior-level position in a health insurance company - insurance companies build into the cost of health care plans the administrative costs involved in determining eligibility of coverage.

Why don't you enlighten me, sage elder.

And also, at what age should I feel qualified to challenge someone in a health care discussion? I didn't know there was an age restriction.

TC Martin said...

Conyers had a momentary lapse of honesty. IMO most of Congress don't want to be bothered with actually reading any bill or have an honest debate on the merits or lack there of any bill. But one of my questions is, can any member of congress who is for this tyranny called "Health Care Reform" site the specific clause in our Constitution which authorizes the Governments involvement let alone expenditures for health care? I didn't think so. Same question for Bush and Obama on TARP, and "Stimulus" please site the part of the Constitution you swore to uphold and defend grant bailouts and Government take overs of industries. The "Stimulus" was nothing more than a weath redistribution and government power expansion scheme. Yep Obama said it...he wants to "Re-make" America. Not restore but Re-make. But remake into what? A Socialist/Communist Amerikka. I know some of the Kool Aid drinkers out there are muttering while reading this..."Ombama isn't a Socialist" Oh really?

If you really think that I got news for you. Obama has spent his entire life in the company of Communists, Socialists and other assorted radical leftists. They've been his mentors and supporters. Check out www.newzeal.blogspot.com and read the Obama file series, you will get a much better sense of just who Obama is idealogically.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for that extremely underwhelming lesson in economics.

First off, if you want to view an individual's health as a commodity on the level of diamonds and kumquats, go right ahead. As an apparent economics buff, you might be interested to know that there is a considerable amount of economics literature, dating back some time, demonstrating that the simple economic assumptions governing basic commodities markets are not readily applicable to health care markets simply because the level of uncertainty is so much greater.


Health is not a commodity. A diamond merchant incurs no risk in selling you a diamond. He or she simply wants to sell you the diamond for as much as you will pay. If the amount of money that you are willing to pay is satisfactory to the merchant, you can have the diamond. If, based on the going market price, the merchant believes he can get more for the diamond from someone else, then he will raise his price to you.

This is not at all how health insurance markets work, and it has nothing to do with government mandates. At present, profit-motivated insurers seek to insure only those people who are deemed unlikely to use the product that they are selling. Using your example, they're selling diamonds only to those people that they suspect will not actually take the diamonds.

The result is that millions of consumers are extruded from the marketplace. If the principles of supply and demand were operating, suppliers would move into that consumer market to meet unmet demand, but they don't. Why? Because this isn't a commodities market where who buys your product is unimportant.

If all government mandates were removed, what rational reason would there be for insurers to cover those persons most need of insurance? None.

But do we really need amateurish economics banter to get to the heart of the matter?

This is ultimately a moral issue. Economic theory doesn't drive my morality. Compassion, charity, and my Catholic upbringing do. I think we're better as a society when we take care of each other. I also think the moral hazard is a bogeyman. Sure, some people will abuse any system for their gain. The overwhelming majority of people will not.

I also think free markets can co-exist with certain social programs. Your attitude is: "Why should I subsidize something I don't use?" I think that's a rather short-sighted way of looking at our national society. You surely benefit from a from a healthy society in ways I guess you simply can't imagine. A healthy society is likely to be less-desperate, and therefore, less crime-prone. A healthy society is also likely to be more ambitious, and make the country more prosperous. Healthy citizens are likely to focus more on intellectual pursuits that materialize in myriad innovations that bring benefit to the country.

The same logic can be applied to education. Why should you fund or care about public education if you don't have kids? It certainly affects the quality of workers you have to choose from. And more productive workers are likely to make for a more productive national economy, from which we all benefit.

This brings me back to some questions I asked earlier. Do you intend to use Medicare? Are you going to deposit your Social Security checks? Because if I adopt your moral code, why should I subsidize any part of your retirement with taxes on my hard-earned wages?

Anonymous said...

And another thing, OregonGuy (and all conservative, free-marketeers, for that matter) --

While you may view government involvement in markets as pure evil, I would point out that one thing the government does is reinforce trust between market participants and attempts to ensure no foul-play.

I was recently in Marrakesh, Morocco. A virtual laboratory for naked capitalism are the souks (massive open-air markets). Here is capitalism in its purest form. Here, no one trusts anybody. Everybody is out to screw everyone else. There is absolutely no outside agency to appeal to in order to ensure that the person you're dealing with is on the up and up. It's just you and him. To the death.

I went to simply buy a rug for my house and some trinkets for my daughter and left feeling like I had just been through a ten-round fight. Moreover, all aspects of life in Morocco are like that. Be it dealing with taxis, restaurants, or even local citizens who might be able to direct you in the way back to your hotel. Everyone is looking out for profit, all the time.

So, OregonGuy, I would suggest that you go to Morocco, if you haven't already been there. Then come back and honestly tell me that government involvement in markets, at least to a modest degree, is all that bad. Because if you want pure capitalism to run rampant in America, and insofar as I can tell there is no purer form of capitalism than a Moroccan souk, I would respond with: No thank you. Either go to Morocco, where everything is on the open market, or take the good with the bad here in the good ol' US of A.

OregonGuy said...

Attempting lengthy responses to Anon seems to result in less than fruitful results.

Here's a short one.

You have written, "What is a basic right, at least in this country, is for people to rise up and demand change to practices that run counter to the common good and nation's interest."


Where you and I disagree on this one is in understanding what practises exist currently, and what practises you wish to impose to improve the condition of the common good.

You are acquainted with what are referred to as the laws of supply and demand, are you not?

So, let's take a hypothetical: what would happen to the demand for tea if there was a health scare regarding coffee?

You're pretty smart fella. Interested to hear your thinking.

By the way, I am a follower of the didactic school. Feel free to ignore the proposed conversaton.

Anonymous said...

OregonGuy - I guess I'll humor you. If coffee is revealed to be a health liability, there is likely to be a run on tea.

If that has something to do with health care, I'm either too dense or too young (in the assessment of Max Redline) to see it.

I'm a huge fan of the Socratic method. You know, where direct questions are asked (such as, so as a principled libertarian, you'll be shredding your social security checks and rejecting medicare, right?) and the direct responses are offered in return.

I like riddles, but only as a way of stimulating my 2-year-old daughter's cognitive skills. I don't think riddles are an effective way through which adults ought to communicate.

I sense we're speaking past each other, and it's now been stated by both of us that we have considerable philosophical differences. So let's call it a conversation and put our respective efforts into the democratic process.

At least, for once on this blog, there was some semblance of a discussion over an actual issue.

I wish you well in your pursuits.

Bobkatt said...

anon 5:38-in a free market economy the government has a valid position in the market and that is to insure that contracts are enforced and parties are not subjected to physical intimidation. This does not include the social engineering of selective taxation or demanding that lenders make loans to people that can't afford them.

While your Marrakesh example is very colorful it describes a given culture rather than a economic system. I am having a hard time trying to figure out why anyone would go through the aggravation that you imply just to buy a rug and some trinkets. The great thing about Capitalism is that you free to not purchase. It is up to each individual to determine how their limited resources are used. While the failed examples of central planning are everywhere (Soviet Russia, Communist China) collectivists still insist that they can better determine how limited resources will be allocated, attempting to modify human nature and control their own desired outcomes. Basically nothing more than accumulating power under the pretense of the societal good when there actually is no such thing.

MAX Redline said...

Health insurance might not be a basic human right, but bettering our lives is.

Thanks for pointing that out, anonymous - I somehow overlooked that potion of the Constitution.

Contrary to your claims, health care is in fact a commodity; that you choose to view it as something else does not make it so, just as your tirades against profit-making insurance providers do not make them either wrong or immoral. While you may not have employed the specific words "socialized medicine", your argument What is a basic right, at least in this country, is for people to rise up and demand change to practices that run counter to the common good and nation's interest. seems to call for precisely that - you appear to be insisting that government should become more deeply involved in health care.

Health care is a commodity, Nonny Mouse. I have a prescription for a tremor. I can choose to pay $10 for a 30-day supply through my HMO, or I can choose to pay $6 for a 90-day supply at the Fred Meyer pharmacy. I could even get it for a bit less if I went to CostCo (one does not need to be a member to use the pharmacy), but it's not worth the extra mileage.

I can get a flu shot for "free" through my HMO, or I can choose to go to the local Thriftway and pay $10 0r $20.

There are reasons why health care costs are so high, Nonny, and among those reasons are the fact that people generally don't shop. It never occurs to them to ask fundamental questions, such as, "Do I really need this?" "How much does it cost?" "Can I get the same benefit less expensively?"

No, that's just too much work. Besides, with health insurance, who cares how much that MRI costs?

Lasik is not routinely covered under most insurance programs. Have you noticed that procedures that cost as much as $2000 per eye five years ago can be had for as little as a few hundred today? Has it ever occurred to you to wonder why that happened?

It's a thing we like to call "the free market".

This is a completely foreign concept to most bureaucrats, politicians, and kids who believe that everything should be given to them just because.

And this brings us back to our reasons underlying the high cost of health care, another of which should be obvious: government intrusion. Health care insurance would be considerably less expensive were it not for the imposition by government of certain mandates; requirements that insurers must provide.

If I want to purchase liability-only insurance on my auto, I can do that. I'm not afforded a similar option in regard to health insurance, however, because of governmental interference.

Birth control, for example, must be covered. I have no need of it; why must my insurer provide something that I will never use? Why can I not simply buy a policy that covers catastophic injury/illness? Because government says I can't.

If the roof on my house needs to be replaced because it's worn out, should my insurance company pick up the tab? It's one thing if the roof is blown away in a storm; that's catastrphic damage. But should the insurer replace a roof that I simply chose not to properly maintain? I don't think so.

Governmental interference in the health insurance industry simply eliminates options with the goal of absolving people of responsibility. You seem to think that's a good thing.

Anonymous said...

The United States is the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nation on earth, and we have the shittiest health care system because it's treated just as that -- a commodity -- to be used only by those who can afford it, in a country where people are having mounting difficulties being able to afford anything for reasons that have NOTHING to do with taxes. To say "it's not in the Constitution" is just a cop-out, with the end result being that millions are left to flail about in a "system" that is completely beyond their reach. This is beyond the Constitution, even beyond our country: We're talking about our SOCIETY, the way we live, and what I'm saying is that a society with such a vast amount of wealth and resources should have absolutely NO problem providing excellent, even superior, health care for every single person so long as we don't have as our highest priority the all-important ability of huge corporations to make billions in profits. Our priority should be PEOPLE. Constitution or no Constitution, that is simply the right thing to do. It's the smart thing to do. It's the humane thing to do. So let's DO IT and stop fucking around and stop tippy-toeing around the "rights" of corporations -- which, by the way, AREN'T in the Constitution.

MAX Redline said...

Why Nonny, can you not read?

Where did I ever claim that corporations have "rights"?

Tsk, tsk. What an interesting little rant. It was especially mature of you to throw in the F-bomb; you really enhance your stature with that.

Constitution or no Constitution

Really? So you think that the Framers of our Constitution should have included your inalienable right to "free" health care?

Don't you have a "right" to "free" food as well? I purchase ours, and I pay for water as well. But they should be provided "free", don't you think? You should also be afforded "free" transportation, "free" housing", "free" electricity and natural gas.

Everything should be given to you, just because.

Thank goodness there are the kids around, to straighten everybody else out. If they didn't know all there is to know already, why everybody else would be in deep trouble. It's great that they've arrived on the scene.

we have the shittiest health care system because it's treated just as that

Say, while you were in Morocco, did you try out their health care system? Ever wonder why people in Canada and Germany come to the USA for treatment?

No, likely not. You already know all there is to know about everything. You're a product of public schools.

It's just really difficult to make a point without resorting to expletives, isn't it? That's the whole basis, after all - no logic, pure emotion.

Typical for kids your age.

Anonymous said...

No where did I say that health care should be "free." That's your word, not mine. I am saying it should be affordable and if that means taking the profit out of health care and making it a system that serves people, it becomes affordable, not "free."

Transportation isn't in the Constitution either, bozo, but with the exception of a few hundred miles (if that) of toll roads and bridges in the U.S. you can drive anywhere you want in the country for "free," and I don't hear anyone complaining that their taxes make it so.

OregonGuy said...


Sorry about the time getting back to this argument. I had to lay to rest on of my best friends. He shoulda been dead decades ago, but due to access to an incredible array of specialists, doctors, nurses and technology, he cheated the Reaper for thirty years. Hella good.

You have already leapt to the head of the class. You are clearly qualified to sit on our State’s Ways and Means Committee.

However, what happens to the demand for coffee under our previous hypothetical, when the sellers of coffee drop the price of coffee by ten, twenty, fifty percent?

And, perhaps more importantly—in terms of the debate over health care—what happens to the price of tea, once people decide they “should” switch from coffee to tea?

Really, what happens to the price of a thing that become more greatly demanded by consumers?

And, if you don’t think this Hylas and Philonous moment is Socratic enough, just blame Bishop Berkeley. I do, for just about every sophism I encounter.

OregonGuy said...


I am in shock.

Why did you decide to go potty mouth?

I read your response to my last post, and then posted my response.

Then, I scrolled down.

Are you an infant? Neither of my sons, at 21 or 19 years, would have chosen the words in a public place that you have chosen.

You are 30 years old? Is that in human years? Or newt years?

Now I can understand your difficulty with dealing with corporations as "persons." But I can cite caselaw, held importantly by liberals as stare decisis, where the Supreme Court in 1886 stated that corporations, in terms of the law, were persons.

"Landmark Case - Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company

"In 1886 the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company was a landmark case that had a major impact on the role of corporations in American society. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of argument in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does." (source) Although the U.S. Constitution does not mention corporations, this statement by Judge Waite began the long history of granting corporations that status of persons, along with all the accompanying powers and protections, such as freedom of speech. This case, based on a dispute over a railbed route, would change the course of American history."

(Source: http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/aboutus_court_history.htm)

And then you compound your errors with decrying the results of American medicine as the, erm, worst medicin in the world?

Are you daft?

There are adults willing to improve you. But, if you're addled, a thought that comes to mind quickly, well, so be it.

You must apologize.

Bobkatt said...

anon-you seem to hold the more common belief now days that large corporations that seek huge profits are bad but you don't seem to realize that a corporation is nothing but a collection of individuals. Some of them are probably evil and greedy but most are simply trying to earn a living like most everyone else. The profits that you vilify are the motivation that drives invention, modernization, and technological advancement. Almost all of the technological advancements that allow us to live a more comfortable life that have come in my lifetime, and there have been a lot, have come from countries that protect private property rights, have strong patent laws, have limited interference from bureaucracy and government corruption and allow the producers of goods and services to enjoy the fruits of their efforts. Most of the advancements in the more controlled economies such as Russia and China have come from theft because of the lack of incentive to innovate and strive.
You also seem to be more concerned with the greed of the insurance companies than the health care providers. You seem to think that they were out of the picture that all of a sudden health care costs would be affordable but I think you are incorrect. Insurance companies simply agree to pay these high prices on your behalf and charge you accordingly. The reality is that the costs would continue to climb or the quality of care diminish because you are not confronting the true problem which is in the care delivery and our own expectations. You seem to think that just because they are in that business they should be forced to cover someone that they know will cost them a huge amount of money but somehow offer a premium that is "affordable". Insurance is akin to gambling. You are betting that you will some day need their assistance and they are betting that you won't. What company would be in business long if they continued to guarantee a losing bet.
Other than AIG I mean.
Another thing to remember is that when these large corporations make a huge profit it is often shared by every day citizens that may not even know it. One of the largest investment vehicles that has shares in everything from Big Pharma to Big Oil are union pension funds such as the teachers union, fire fighters and police unions. Many everyday people depend on these for profit institutions for their future. Hope that puts a little bit different light on the debate.

Anonymous said...

The profits that you vilify are the motivation that drives invention, modernization, and technological advancement.

In the first place, that's bullshit: Some of the greatest technological advances in human history were done without the profit incentive powering it on -- putting men on the moon, for example.

In the second place, what low regard you hold humanity: We won't do what's right, we won't do what we need to do, we won't advance and better our civilization unless there are dollar signs in front of our eyeballs, "motivating" us.

MAX Redline said...

Some of the greatest technological advances in human history were done without the profit incentive powering it on -- putting men on the moon, for example.

And for forty years, Leftist morons have carped about the waste of money involved in that endeavor.

And of course, no profit was involved: McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing, Ratheon, and scores of other companies just ponied up the materials and the technology for free, because it was the right thing to do.

Expletive: the ultimate recourse for the feeble-minded in any discussion.

Bobkatt said...

anon-your right that the moon landing was proposed and accomplished by government programs. So were the electrification of rural areas and the interstate highway system. No small feats. So was the atomic bomb. The internet was originally a product of scientist working together globally to develop the atomic collider. But if left to the government I really doubt that I would be able to pay my bills, shop for goods and buy a used washing machine from Craig's List if the internet was left to government development. But all of this has little to do with everyday life. Google was not a government program nor was this very blog. While the interstate highway was a government program the very invention of the automobile and all the necessary components were private enterprises established by individuals with a drive and ambition that is only available with a free market entrepreneurial spirit. Originally autos were only available to the elite. Henry Ford and his ilk used the free market system to make cars, refrigerator, tvs, etc affordable to the common American. How more democratic than that can you get.
I have heard that years ago Russia used video of the poor black population of America as a propaganda film to show everyday Russians how bad things were in America but it backfired because in almost every poor household they even had a television. Unless you have actually stood in a line to buy bread I don't think you can grasp how difficult it is to micromanage the supply and demand aspect that capitalism accomplishes everyday with little intervention.
Read some Ayn Rand to get an example of the true morality of capitalism, individualism and the dangers of altruism. While it may not change your mind at least you can say that you looked at both sides. Is Ayn Rand taught in college, I doubt it.

OregonGuy said...

Anon disregards the question; "And, perhaps more importantly—in terms of the debate over health care—what happens to the price of tea, once people decide they 'should' switch from coffee to tea?"

A self-proclaimed didact, he is unwilling to put to words either his beliefs or understanding of economic rudiments; while reserving for himself the role of interlocuter for those who hold insights that differ from his.

This observation, I'm sure, is to him more than observation. It is a descent to "name calling." Because he avoids answering simple questions, my observation of that is an attempt to reduce in stature both he and his writings here. Were that only the case. It is not I that avoids the question, it is he. He avoids the answer since the answer would collapse the house of cards that form the structure of his social beliefs. He lives in fear of the day when he is judged by his own ideas and beliefs, rather than the ideas and beliefs of the groups with which he self-identifies. As spokesman for a group he is fearless. Speaking for himself and taking responsibility for the meaning of his own thoughts and beliefs seem to be unsettling for him.

Such is the character of the Leftist. Exhibited in full force by potty mouth and wild assertions that collapse under examination.

Thanks for your return to this thread. You continually reveal all that is noteworthy of the Left. A complete repudiation of the beauty and vigour of an individual man taking responsibility for his own life and living fully in an attempt to find his own happiness and success.


MAX Redline said...

I'm beginning to suspect that Nonny may have run away.

Perhaps he's exhausted his supply of expletives, which impedes his ability to express himself.