Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:43 PM, John Williams wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: A free market economy has its limits? The goals of a free market economy aren't necessarily aligned with the best interests of the species? Huh? Best interest of the species? How many starving or sick people could have been helped with the money it took to send a few people to the moon? Do you think some people have more right to decide what is the best interests of the species than others? Echoes of an earlier discussion of population growth :-). Everybody thinks that they have the right to decide what is in the best interests of the species than others. In fact, isn't that the fundamental concept of free market capitalism? As individuals decide what is best for themselves, they are doing do for the entire market/species. Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Absolutely not, but isn't that how the free market works; the people with money/power decide what's in the best interest of the people they control? People they control? Huh? Politicians and regulators control people. Free market allows people to choose for themselves. Then we have the ringing success of the U.S. health care system to tell us how well the free market works for sick people. The US health care system is not a free market. Medicare and Medicaid make up more than 50% of US health care spending, so the majority of the US health care system is government controlled. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Dave Landdml...@gmail.com wrote: As individuals decide what is best for themselves, they are doing do for the entire market/species. I don't follow that at all. When politicians decide what special interests to pander to, they force the entire market/species to do what is best for the politicians. When we are free to choose for ourselves, each of us chooses what is best for ourselves, including our own choices in how to best to help others. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Whatcha reading? (was Re: In despair for the state of SF)
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: I'm in the middle of The Bridge by Banks. Just finished The Algebraist and Matter by the same with the M. I really really liked Matter. It has I think supplanted Excession as my favorite Banks. The Algebraist was real good also, if a bit less serious than the typical M novel. I just inherited about 6 books by Banks, and I'll be starting them as soon as I finish re-reading Variable Star. VS is credited to Spider Robinson and Robert A. Heinlein. Robinson actually wrote it from extensive but unfinished notes by Heinlein, and I have enjoyed this book immensely. -- Mauro Diotallevi The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
John wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Absolutely not, but isn't that how the free market works; the people with money/power decide what's in the best interest of the people they control? People they control? Huh? Politicians and regulators control people. Free market allows people to choose for themselves. So if there was some vital benefit to society and it couldn't be provided without a financial loss, how would the free market provide it? Then we have the ringing success of the U.S. health care system to tell us how well the free market works for sick people. The US health care system is not a free market. Medicare and Medicaid make up more than 50% of US health care spending, so the majority of the US health care system is government controlled. And why isn't it a free market? What is the free market mechanism that provides _all_ of the citizens of one of the the worlds wealthiest nations with health care? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Whatcha reading? (was Re: In despair for the state of SF)
Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: I'm in the middle of The Bridge by Banks. Just finished The Algebraist and Matter by the same with the M. I really really liked Matter. It has I think supplanted Excession as my favorite Banks. The Algebraist was real good also, if a bit less serious than the typical M novel. I just inherited about 6 books by Banks, and I'll be starting them as soon as I finish re-reading Variable Star. VS is credited to Spider Robinson and Robert A. Heinlein. Robinson actually wrote it from extensive but unfinished notes by Heinlein, and I have enjoyed this book immensely. Consider Phlebas first, right Charlie? 8^) Doug Not a git, maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: In case you're feeling bored this weekend...
Last Friday I began serializing _The Beasts of Delphos_ online. Chapter 2 is up now for anyone wanting to continue the read. http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2009/07/17/the-beasts-of-delphos-2-the-freeman/ -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: WeChooseTheMoon
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 6:26 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: WeChooseTheMoon John wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Absolutely not, but isn't that how the free market works; the people with money/power decide what's in the best interest of the people they control? People they control? Huh? Politicians and regulators control people. Free market allows people to choose for themselves. So if there was some vital benefit to society and it couldn't be provided without a financial loss, how would the free market provide it? Then we have the ringing success of the U.S. health care system to tell us how well the free market works for sick people. The US health care system is not a free market. Medicare and Medicaid make up more than 50% of US health care spending, so the majority of the US health care system is government controlled. And why isn't it a free market? What is the free market mechanism that provides _all_ of the citizens of one of the worlds wealthiest nations with health care? Folks do get health care, just not in an efficient or timely fashion. In fact, my Republican congressman says that about 20% of the cost of health care for those with insurance is covering the care and the overhead for hiding the cost of the care of those who can't pay for the care they need not to die. I have A Modest Proposal on this. The free market would be part of evolutionthose who cannot afford healthcare would be considered unfit until all humans could afford it. :-) Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: And why isn't it a free market? Because people in the government tell people what healthcare they can and cannot have, how it can be paid for, and what must be done to get it. And it restricts what health care providers and insurers may offer, and how they may offer it. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Whatcha reading? (was Re: In despair for the state of SF)
Doug Pensinger wrote: Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net mailto:rceeber...@comcast.net wrote: I'm in the middle of The Bridge by Banks. Just finished The Algebraist and Matter by the same with the M. I really really liked Matter. It has I think supplanted Excession as my favorite Banks. The Algebraist was real good also, if a bit less serious than the typical M novel. I just inherited about 6 books by Banks, and I'll be starting them as soon as I finish re-reading Variable Star. VS is credited to Spider Robinson and Robert A. Heinlein. Robinson actually wrote it from extensive but unfinished notes by Heinlein, and I have enjoyed this book immensely. Consider Phlebas first, right Charlie? 8^) That was the first (and so far only) Banks book I have tried. I got about half-way before I gave up. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying. -- Woody Allen ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: So if there was some vital benefit to society and it couldn't be provided without a financial loss, how would the free market provide it? I think I see a communication problem here. You talk of the free market as if it were a thing, like a replicator on Star Trek that provides food. When I talk of a free market, I mean the state of not restricting or coercing people in their choices to freely interact with each other. Freedom to choose as one wishes without being told what to do by others. So, to explore your question, there are non-coercive institutions that provide services and do not make a profit. They are usually called, aptly enough, non-profit corporations, or charities. People freely choose to support certain institutions which, in their judgment, provide a vital benefit to society. To get back on topic, if Americans had not been forced to pay to land people on the moon (or something else) but had instead decided where to spend their money themselves, undoubtedly some fraction of the spending would have gone to various charitable causes. If landing people on the moon were important enough to enough people, it could have been done by a non-profit (or profit) organization or organizations. But I think the fact is that landing people on the moon is not important enough to enough people. It mostly just appeals to a small number of special interests and looks good on a politicians record. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Folks do get health care, just not in an efficient or timely fashion. In fact, my Republican congressman says that about 20% of the cost of health care for those with insurance is covering the care and the overhead for hiding the cost of the care of those who can't pay for the care they need not to die. I can pay not to die? Is there a guarantee? I have A Modest Proposal on this. The free market would be part of evolutionthose who cannot afford healthcare would be considered unfit until all humans could afford it. :-) It? Afford what, exactly? Presumably I don't get the joke. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Why not discuss the topic?
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:59:48 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: WeChooseTheMoon On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Folks do get health care, just not in an efficient or timely fashion. In fact, my Republican congressman says that about 20% of the cost of health care for those with insurance is covering the care and the overhead for hiding the cost of the care of those who can't pay for the care they need not to die. I can pay not to die? Is there a guarantee? I know you are neither stupid nor ignorant. Why don't you converse in a manner that adresses the ideas presented instead of trying to find a way not to? I have A Modest Proposal on this. The free market would be part of evolutionthose who cannot afford healthcare would be considered unfit until all humans could afford it. :-) It? Afford what, exactly? Presumably I don't get the joke. Health care if one gets seriously ill twice. Come on, you have to know the underlying facts. Why not present your vantage point given those facts. There are arguements for the free market. My Congressman wants a free market solution, and I respect him because he doesn't pretend facts don't exist. I realize you can make smart ass comments, but I've been hearing back from when newsgroups were new and hot. Don't they get boring? Why not agree upon facts and play chess; where one's opponents are one's friends because they are the ones who help you understand more? Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:07 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Health care if one gets seriously ill twice. I ask again, afford exactly what? Health care is a broad term. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:07 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: There are arguements for the free market. My Congressman wants a free market solution, and I respect him because he doesn't pretend facts don't exist. But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades. And for many, those solutions don't work. The idea of insurance is that a large number of people pool their resources together to lighten the burden of loss for a few. (This is, in essence, socialism.) Many of us will never need intervention for catastrophic events; some will. By putting our strengths into a pool, we're all able to float when we need to. (This is hardly a new idea. It originated with none other than Benjamin Franklin. It's also a very Christian concept, for those who are of that mind. Inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye do it unto me.) That's the ideal, and in my experience, in practice, it works. Where I work, we're self-insured, and we've got superb coverage. But I am fortunate and definitely the exception. Many in my community aren't able to blithely walk into a doctor's office and say they need a checkup or are worried about such-and-such a growth or so-and-so an internal bodily concern. Just a few months ago I went to the allergist and had a scratch test, and the $250 or so bill cost me nothing. At all. But most are not able to do something like that because they genuinely cannot afford it. They're locked *out* of healthcare because the free-marked option is not available to them. And how well has free-market worked in other places? Railroads dropped Fed support decades ago. The result was rotting tracks, derailments, and the fact that Amtrak's Sunset Limited -- the only truly intercontinental passenger rail line we have left -- now has to wait on sidings for hours overall while Santa Fe freight trains chug past. Carter deregulated airlines in the 70s, and what used to be a comfortable express in the skies turned into a shitty cattle-call that features narrow seats, no legroom and bag lunches. Bridges went neglected for years past their engineering tolerances and are now either collapsing, or in imminent danger thereof. Yeah, that free-market thing is sure improving the quality of life, isn't it? Those who argue for free-market, I think, have never actually confronted the full-bore costs of healthcare in the US today. One night in a hospital can cost you well into four figures, even for something trivial. My stepdad just got a triple bypass. The full-on price of his surgery would have been $80,000, or about the value of his home. He was lucky; as a retired government officer he had vestiture and full coverage. Very, very few retired private persons have that opportunity. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that your congressman has full health coverage provided by your tax dollars. He's got better coverage than I do, and mine is pretty damn good. And yet he seems to be saying that socialized healthcare is bad. Well, if he really believes that, let's see him drop his Federal coverage and go with a free market option instead. Put his money and health and life where his fat wide yap is. It's ridiculous, I think, to harken to the words of someone who's covered head-to-toe in insurance provided by the Fed when he says there are free market solutions which are just as good, just as available, and just as freely given. That obviously is not true; by the rules of the free market, it cannot be. Perspective matters. Your congressman probably lacks it now, and likely he never had it. The Invisible Hand is smothering people in their beds. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Warren Ockrassawar...@nightwares.com wrote: But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades. For healthcare? Free market as in, minimal government restrictions on what consumers can buy and what providers can sell? I'd certainly like to hear about such things. The idea of insurance is that a large number of people pool their resources together to lighten the burden of loss for a few. The assumption being that you are INSURING against unexpected costs. Most health care plans are not insurance in this sense, but are rather cafeteria plans, since they cover a large chunk of yearly health maintenance costs that are not particularly unexpected. That's the ideal, and in my experience, in practice, it works. Where I work, we're self-insured, and we've got superb coverage. But I am fortunate and definitely the exception. Many in my community aren't able to blithely walk into a doctor's office and say they need a checkup or are worried about such-and-such a growth or so-and-so an internal bodily concern. Just a few months ago I went to the allergist and had a scratch test, and the $250 or so bill cost me nothing. At all. It cost somebody $250. Was it worth $250 to you if you had to pay it yourself? Or is it only worth it if you are spending someone else's money. They're locked *out* of healthcare because the free-marked option is not available to them. Unfortunately, the market in health care is far from free. There are myriad government restrictions on health care consumers and providers. Government interference (employer provided health care being tax exempt) also limits the choice of health care consumers. Worst, in my experience, are the restrictions and regulations of some states. I've found that the same health insurance that I buy when I have lived in different states has varied by a factor of about 5 from cheapest to most expensive, and this is almost entirely due to government interference in what the health care providers may and may not do. Those who argue for free-market, I think, have never actually confronted the full-bore costs of healthcare in the US today. One night in a hospital can cost you well into four figures, even for something trivial. My stepdad just got a triple bypass. The full-on price of his surgery would have been $80,000, or about the value of his home. He was lucky; as a retired government officer he had vestiture and full coverage. Very, very few retired private persons have that opportunity. That's what health INSURANCE, in the real sense of the word insurance, is for. I have real health insurance, I pay for routine expenses out of pocket but am covered for larger, unexpected expenses. The Invisible Hand is smothering people in their beds. No, bu the quite visible hand of politicians is in your pocket and limiting your freedom of choice. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Warren Ockrassawar...@nightwares.com wrote: But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades. For healthcare? Free market as in, minimal government restrictions on what consumers can buy and what providers can sell? I'd certainly like to hear about such things. I guess you've never visited an herbal healer then, or someone who used reiki or healing touch. You're not prevented from doing so. The free market lets you. There's a reason the FDA regulates treatments, and it's rooted in snake oil sales. I don't think the FDA, in insisting on evidence-based treatments, is overdoing things. (Well, not generally.) But with a minimal government restriction approach, that's precisely what we'd be left with: A deluge of quack cures. Again, we had the free market model. Again, it *did not work*. I won't insult you by quoting Santayana here; there's no reason to. The idea of insurance is that a large number of people pool their resources together to lighten the burden of loss for a few. The assumption being that you are INSURING against unexpected costs. Most health care plans are not insurance in this sense, but are rather cafeteria plans, since they cover a large chunk of yearly health maintenance costs that are not particularly unexpected. Really? There are health plans that include maintenance options? I'd like to know what they are. The ones I know of don't pay for smoking cessation, for instance; they only pay to treat lung cancer. They don't pay for health club memberships; but they'll pony up for bariatric surgery. Just a few months ago I went to the allergist and had a scratch test, and the $250 or so bill cost me nothing. At all. It cost somebody $250. Was it worth $250 to you if you had to pay it yourself? Or is it only worth it if you are spending someone else's money. It would have cost that, under the free market model, yes. Was it worth it? To my nose, sure. After all it was the free market that set the cost. And to be certain, knowing what was making my eyes itch was worth a few bucks to me. But you're missing the point, which is that I didn't have to pay to find out what was costing me in terms of happiness, comfort -- and *productivity*. By feeling more comfortable after the scratch test, I was a much more useful citizen in the economic pool and that dividend has paid off rather well since then. Now, suppose I was an indigent? Would I be worthy of the same level of care, or not? They're locked *out* of healthcare because the free-marked option is not available to them. Unfortunately, the market in health care is far from free. Oh horseapples. If I feel bad I can go to a doctor, herbalist, homeopathic chirurgeon, or a Tai Chi master. Only one will provide me with the fact- and evidence-based treatments I need. But the market is, undeniably, a free one. Government, by insisting on evidence-based standards before approving treatments, is no more interfering than it is when it says you have to build highways out of tarmacadam as opposed to construction paper. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Warren Ockrassawar...@nightwares.com wrote: On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote: I guess you've never visited an herbal healer then, or someone who used reiki or healing touch. You're not prevented from doing so. The free market lets you. Heh, being restricted from some things but not others is hardly free. Again, we had the free market model. Again, it *did not work*. Again, I'd like to hear about this wondrous free market in health care that we had. I'm certainly not aware of it. Really? There are health plans that include maintenance options? I'd like to know what they are. Most of them. I think we are disagreeing over my terminology. Replace maintenance with predictable or mostly expected if you wish. Most cover routine check-ups, screenings, treatment and drugs for minor ailments -- things that most people could budget for on a yearly basis. It would have cost that, under the free market model, yes. Was it worth it? To my nose, sure. After all it was the free market that set the cost. No, it was not. The myriad government restrictions have a significant effect on costs. And to be certain, knowing what was making my eyes itch was worth a few bucks to me. It was worth $250 to you. But you did not actually pay the $250. Someone(s) else did. It may have not been worth $250 to them. But you're missing the point, which is that I didn't have to pay to find out what was costing me in terms of happiness, comfort -- and *productivity*. By feeling more comfortable after the scratch test, I was a much more useful citizen in the economic pool and that dividend has paid off rather well since then. In your opinion. But you obtained that benefit partially with someone else's money. It may not be worth it for them. Now, suppose I was an indigent? Would I be worthy of the same level of care, or not? Worthy of care? I would not presume to determine who is worthy of care. But certainly if you think someone who is not getting care should be getting it, you could help them to obtain it by donating your own time or money. Oh horseapples. If I feel bad I can go to a doctor, herbalist, homeopathic chirurgeon, or a Tai Chi master. Only one will provide me with the fact- and evidence-based treatments I need. But the market is, undeniably, a free one. You seem to have a more restrictive definition of freedom than I do. My definition of freedom of choice is to be able to choose as I like as long as I am not directly taking away someone else's freedom. If my health care choices are restricted by, for example, the government requiring providers to include certain things in their insurance plans that I don't want, then that is not freedom of choice. If the government takes money from me and uses it to pay for keeping an 87-year old alive and in pain for an additional month, when I would have spent the money to help starving or sick children in third world countries, that is definitely not freedom of choice. Government, by insisting on evidence-based standards before approving treatments, is no more interfering than it is when it says you have to build highways out of tarmacadam as opposed to construction paper. Both are interfering. The same goals could be accomplished non-coercively. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On 18/07/2009, at 1:55 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:07 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: There are arguements for the free market. My Congressman wants a free market solution, and I respect him because he doesn't pretend facts don't exist. But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades. And for many, those solutions don't work. The idea of insurance is that a large number of people pool their resources together to lighten the burden of loss for a few. (This is, in essence, socialism.) Many of us will never need intervention for catastrophic events; some will. By putting our strengths into a pool, we're all able to float when we need to. (This is hardly a new idea. It originated with none other than Benjamin Franklin. It originated a long time before Benjy. Traders in the Mediterranean used a form of insurance to indemnify the trader against loss if the cargo was stolen, and mutualised risk was used by Chinese traders (who would spread their cargos across many vessels to lower the total risk). The Greeks and Romans had benevolent societies which are similar to modern mutuals. Franklin founded the first one in the States, arguably the first of the modern mutuals. But he didn't invent shared or mutualised risk. Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On 18/07/2009, at 3:14 PM, John Williams wrote: You seem to have a more restrictive definition of freedom than I do. My definition of freedom of choice is to be able to choose as I like as long as I am not directly taking away someone else's freedom. ...and that's the point of regulation - to make sure the big operator doesn't stiff the little guy's choice. Frankly, I'm astonished you have the chutzpah to be banging on and on about the free market and the evil of regulation when deregulation is the largest reason for the current world recession. Regulations are not always a bad thing. Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Charlie Bellchar...@culturelist.org wrote: On 18/07/2009, at 3:14 PM, John Williams wrote: You seem to have a more restrictive definition of freedom than I do. My definition of freedom of choice is to be able to choose as I like as long as I am not directly taking away someone else's freedom. ...and that's the point of regulation - to make sure the big operator doesn't stiff the little guy's choice. I can see why you might be emotional about that sort of thing, but the fact is that the example you cite is directly restricting the freedom of the person or people who you derogatorily refer to as big operator. It also indirectly affects the choices of everyone else. Regulation is coercive, and is nearly the opposite of freedom of choice. You may believe the coercion is necessary, the ends justify the means perhaps, but that does not make it freedom of choice. It is restriction of freedom of choice in order to obtain what you believe to be a better end. Frankly, I'm astonished you have the chutzpah to be banging on and on about the free market and the evil of regulation when deregulation is the largest reason for the current world recession. No chutzpah required, since I am convinced that the recession is largely the result of unforeseen consequences of imperfectly understood regulations and interactions between them, of people and businesses finding ways to game regulations, and of wrong-headed government bailouts of people and businesses who would have lost money in a free market which would disincentivize such behavior in the future, but instead the bailouts incentivize such things. Regulations are not always a bad thing. Perhaps not. But unfortunately, most are. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Jul 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, John Williams wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Warren Ockrassawar...@nightwares.com wrote: On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote: I guess you've never visited an herbal healer then, or someone who used reiki or healing touch. You're not prevented from doing so. The free market lets you. Heh, being restricted from some things but not others is hardly free. But you're not restricted from any of them. Again, we had the free market model. Again, it *did not work*. Again, I'd like to hear about this wondrous free market in health care that we had. I'm certainly not aware of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_medicine Really? There are health plans that include maintenance options? I'd like to know what they are. Most of them. I think we are disagreeing over my terminology. Replace maintenance with predictable or mostly expected if you wish. Most cover routine check-ups, screenings, treatment and drugs for minor ailments -- things that most people could budget for on a yearly basis. Can they? When was the last time you had to pay a full-billed price for a routine doctor's visit? Living on minimum wage? And to be certain, knowing what was making my eyes itch was worth a few bucks to me. It was worth $250 to you. But you did not actually pay the $250. Someone(s) else did. It may have not been worth $250 to them. It might not have been, but under the same coverage, someone else in my plan littered sextuplets, at a rough cost of a quarter of a million dollars. Was that worth it to me? Absolutely not. Nevertheless I keep the coverage, as she does, and I pay into it, as she does, to cover healthcare costs I will never have to face -- as she does. Now, suppose I was an indigent? Would I be worthy of the same level of care, or not? Worthy of care? I would not presume to determine who is worthy of care. No, you'd pass off responsibility to the free market system, wouldn't you? But certainly if you think someone who is not getting care should be getting it, you could help them to obtain it by donating your own time or money. Yes. And that's what insurance is all about. You seem to have a more restrictive definition of freedom than I do. My definition of freedom of choice is to be able to choose as I like as long as I am not directly taking away someone else's freedom. And you live that, every day, by every choice you make? How do you know that? How do you know that by giving a few pennies of your income, and turning that into government revenue for the internet, highways and the FDA, you are not actually working either for or against someone else's freedom? More significantly, how can you be sure that *keeping* those pennies will make a difference for you or anyone else? Suppose for a moment you lived tax free. Your income would not be sucked down by, say, 20% on each paycheck. Suppose further that your annual income was a comfortable $50K per year. Suppose you put all of that 20% into the bank, for twenty years. That's a cool $100 grand. Now suppose you went to the doctor one day, and he said, Hmm. You could afford less than one half of one day of radiation treatment -- on your life savings. By paying into a semi- or demi-socialist system, you are not sacrificing your freedom; you are helping others to live a life a little more free of fear, or of destitution. You're not taking others' freedom by being given a therapy you could otherwise not possibly afford. You're just working on the cushion that everyone has paid into anyway. Would I be willing to help pay for that? Yes, just as much as I was glad that others paid to help me learn why I was sneezing so much. If the government takes money from me and uses it to pay for keeping an 87-year old alive and in pain for an additional month, when I would have spent the money to help starving or sick children in third world countries, that is definitely not freedom of choice. Oh, so you can't do both? Why not? Government, by insisting on evidence-based standards before approving treatments, is no more interfering than it is when it says you have to build highways out of tarmacadam as opposed to construction paper. Both are interfering. The same goals could be accomplished non- coercively. That has never been true in ten thousand years of human history. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
