RE: Why not discuss the topic?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:41 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic? 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. OK, I'll bite. We know that the financial crisis can be traced to things like the use of the VAR model and credit default swaps to the tune of 45 trillion dollars. A system was set up that was based on the assumption that a model that cuts off the low probability tale would be perfectly adequate. If financial risks/rewards followed the normal Gaussian distribution, that would be true. The VAR would allow one to skate very close to the edge, running highly leveraged investments, with virtually no risk. But, we know that, historically, black swans have been a key part of both true financial growth and financial collapses. One might reasonably argue that credit default swaps were a clever way to have high leverage without technically violating the laws that limit bank leverage. But, the collapse was due to the overwhelming leverage itself. Your argument would be valid if and only if leverage would stop causing problems if only the government didn't try to stop it. But, of course, there are countless examples of leveraged bubbles bursting in areas that governments had not regulated, so one would need to show how government regulations where they didn't regulate caused it. Your writings are consistent with the viewpoint of one who knows government is the root cause of all that is wrong a priori, and needs not look at data to look at the truth. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Your writings are consistent with the viewpoint of one who knows government is the root cause of all that is wrong a priori, and needs not look at data to look at the truth. Just so you know: 1) I saw your similar post about this the first time, several weeks ago 2) We had a similar discussion last year 3) Because of 2) and things that you write like the above quoted paragraph, I am not interested in discussing this with you ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:30:03 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic? On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Your writings are consistent with the viewpoint of one who knows government is the root cause of all that is wrong a priori, and needs not look at data to look at the truth. Just so you know: 1) I saw your similar post about this the first time, several weeks ago 2) We had a similar discussion last year 3) Because of 2) and things that you write like the above quoted paragraph, I am not interested in discussing this with you Actually, I gave a lot more data this timebecause I believe ecconomics is an emperical subject. I looked for data that would support my arguement...checked it with someone who has a lot of old schoolmates who worked for the investment banks, and then wrote. I'm sure you see why I am coming to the conclusion that you'd like to avoid specifics when discussing this topic. I can understand why, data do not support your conclusions. Dan M. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com ... Just so you know: 1) I saw your similar post about this the first time, several weeks ago 2) We had a similar discussion last year 3) Because of 2) and things that you write like the above quoted paragraph, I am not interested in discussing this with you Actually, I gave a lot more data this timebecause I believe ecconomics is an emperical subject. I looked for data that would support my arguement...checked it with someone who has a lot of old schoolmates who worked for the investment banks, and then wrote. I'm sure you see why I am coming to the conclusion that you'd like to avoid specifics when discussing this topic. I can understand why, data do not support your conclusions. Dan M. ... John-- That is what I'm taking away from this, too. Dan's response seemed on topic to me. ---David In other words, Maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Actually, I gave a lot more data this time Do you mean that the reason you dropped out of the discussion last time was because you could not respond to my specific points because you did not have enough data? In that case, I will discuss it with you, provided you link to the specific points I made in the prior discussion that you did not have enough data to discuss before. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: That is what I'm taking away from this, too. Dan's response seemed on topic to me. If you would like to discuss any specific points from the last time this came up (late last year), I would be glad to discuss. Please quote the specific points from the last discussion that you think I did not address, and we can discuss. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
John Williams wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: That is what I'm taking away from this, too. Dan's response seemed on topic to me. If you would like to discuss any specific points from the last time this came up (late last year), I would be glad to discuss. Please quote the specific points from the last discussion that you think I did not address, and we can discuss. John-- Er... Actually, I probably had you killfiled then. I've removed it since, obviously. ---David Maybe YOU could repost? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:15 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Maybe YOU could repost? No, see my previous post in this thread. I still feel the same. And I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just am not interested in discussing a subject that I feel has already been adequately discussed, unless someone brings up specific points from the previous discussion that need further discussion. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
This, of course, is purely libertarian 'capitalist' egotistical selfishness. If everyone thought and behaved liked this - and it became governmental policy - then we would indeed be living under Barbarism. DANNY 2009/7/20 Alberto Monteiro albm...@centroin.com.br Nick Arnett wrote: It seems odd to conclude that the way to get other people to behave as one thinks they should behave is to coerce them at gunpoint There are people with guns showing up to demand that you pay your taxes? That suggests to me that you've been a bad, bad boy. I have to agree with John here. The only reason people pay taxes is because the g*vernment threat us with guns. If I don't pay the car tax, people with guns may stop me and take away my car. If I don't pay the property tax, people with guns will come to my house and move me out of it. If I don't pay import taxes when I come from a travel, people with guns will steal the things I bought. G*vernment is consent robbery. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com -- What a horrible loutish planet this is. The dominant species consists of sadistic morons, faces bearing the hideous lineaments of spiritual famine swollen with stupid hate. Hopeless rubbish. (William Burroughs) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:33 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: Then don't throw them all out. I never suggested such a thing. I merely stated my preference for discussing ethical questions on their own merits rather than assuming that majority opinion is the ultimate word on every subject. Democracy, which is the subject at hand, is not based on that assumption and I suspect you learned that in high school civics, so I imagine you are being disingenuous. In any case, the army of straw men you have erected is getting to be a major fire hazard. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:09 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: Many apologies for being able to make my point without being long winded. Apparently I was too subtle. I simply meant to convey that there are many questions that can be posed simply to which the answers can be extraordinarily long and complex. The question posed was one such. And I don't think it can be answered definitively at all, let alone by me in the amount of time I can spare to devote to it. Ha, you sound like a politician John. Excellent observation! Politicians frequently oversimplify complex phenomena in order to make it sound like they have a thorough understanding and can therefore be trusted to impose rules from above to make everything work out right. But how much less health care can there be in these universal systems considering some 16% of our country isn't covered at all? Again, a simple question with a complicated answer. I invite you to research it yourself. Some things you are likely to find is that in some of the other countries you refer to, that wait times are longer, mistakes are more common, and specialized procedures are less available. Also, to pick one subject that I am familiar with, cancer survival rates are higher in the US than almost all other countries. And are you saying that customer satisfaction is better in the U.S. because I'd have to call you on that one too. I've seen some studies that suggest it, yes. But I'd certainly be interested in seeing your citations on the subject. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: Democracy, which is the subject at hand, is not based on that assumption and I suspect you learned that in high school civics, so I imagine you are being disingenuous. Ah, that explains it. I thought the subject at hand was health care. I'll leave you to it, then. I'm more interested in discussing health care. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
Nick Arnett wrote: It seems odd to conclude that the way to get other people to behave as one thinks they should behave is to coerce them at gunpoint There are people with guns showing up to demand that you pay your taxes? That suggests to me that you've been a bad, bad boy. I have to agree with John here. The only reason people pay taxes is because the g*vernment threat us with guns. If I don't pay the car tax, people with guns may stop me and take away my car. If I don't pay the property tax, people with guns will come to my house and move me out of it. If I don't pay import taxes when I come from a travel, people with guns will steal the things I bought. G*vernment is consent robbery. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Alberto Monteiro albm...@centroin.com.brwrote: G*vernment is consent robbery. Sounds like my neighbor who says he isn't afraid to walk the streets at night because you can't rape the willing. Yes, it is consent robbery if you choose that metaphor (or oxymoron). There are other metaphors that are equally or more true. Government is a safety net. Government is security. Government is the builder of essential infrastructure. Government is the business of the common good. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: The fundamental truth behind that writing is conveniently ignored by champions of liberty who insist that freedom frees them from a community's obligation to organize itself to care for those in need. It is a strange sort of liberation that frees us from our deepest bonds, best fought with its true name, greed. http://www.weforum.org/pdf/whitepaper.pdf A child born in Niger today is 40 times more likely to die before her fifth birthday than a child born in the United Kingdom. A 15-year-old boy in Swaziland has only an 18% chance of celebrating his 60th birthday; if he had been fortunate enough to have been born in Switzerland, he would have a 91% chance. A young woman in Uganda is 300 times more likely to die in childbirth than her sister in the United States. The impact of poor health on economic growth and political stability in Sub-Saharan Africa has been devastating; two African heads of state have predicted that their countries will cease to exist if HIV/AIDS is not brought under control. More than 300 million people—nearly half the population—live on less than US$1 a day. Compare the need of these people to that of a wealthy 87-year-old American who can have his life extended a few months (in constant pain) for $100K. I think of how many more people, younger people with many years of life ahead of them, could be helped by that $100K. And I resent the government forcing me to spend much of my surplus income on people like the 87-year-old so that I have much less to help people like the child born in Niger. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Agreed. But, where he and I agree and where a John would disagree is that a free market can be shaped by the laws within which it resides. For example, if you required insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions, you would get rid of one of the major problems with the present system. The problem is that the laws always have unforseen consequences, and usually cause far more problems than they solve. The system is simply too complicated for a few politicians and technocrats to centrally control. Some states have guaranteed issue mandates that do just as you say above: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba558 | A 25-year old male in good health could purchase a policy for $960 a | year in Kentucky. That policy would cost about $5,880 in New Jersey. | A policy priced at $1,692 in Iowa and $2,664 in Washington State would | cost $4,032 in Massachusetts. | Firms in each state are protected from interstate competition by the | federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to | regulate health plans within their borders. | There are approximately 1,843 state mandates, according to the Council | for Affordable Health Insurance, an industry trade group. Some estimates | suggest these mandates have priced as many as one-quarter of the | uninsured out of the market. | Guaranteed issue means that any insurance company offering policies | must sell coverage to all applicants who qualify, regardless of medical | condition. While this sounds like it protects consumers, it actually | harms them by driving up prices. When insurance companies are forced to | accept all applicants, they raise premiums to guard against losses. As a | result, insurance is a poor value for everyone except those with serious | health conditions, and people often wait until they become sick to buy | it. Subsequently, business dwindles, insurers leave the market and rates | go up as competition diminishes. This has happened in all states that | require guaranteed issue. | Community rating means that an insurer cannot adjust its premiums to | reflect the individual health risk of consumers. While this regulation | achieves a level premium for everyone, in reality, healthy people | are charged more than they otherwise would be and sick people are | charged less. Therefore, the majority who are healthy see their premiums | rise. As Figure I shows, a plan for a healthy 25-year old male costs | six times more in New Jersey than in Kentucky, largely due to community | rating. Because of the higher cost, younger (or low-income) individuals | with few health problems tend to drop insurance, leaving an increasingly | unhealthy risk pool. This drives premiums ever higher - and fewer and | fewer people can afford coverage. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 2:49 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: And I resent the government forcing me to spend much of my surplus income on people like the 87-year-old so that I have much less to help people like the child born in Niger. I believe history has clearly show the foolhardiness of trusting the wealthy and powerful to care for the poorest. It is the exception, not the rule, for such altruism. More to the point, it is a giant step backwards to reject the mechanisms of democratic self-regulation that brought the world out of feudal systems with noblesse oblige and so forth. I would have a hard time endorsing the self-regulation of markets and simultaneously rejecting the self-regulation of democracy. I would be embracing freedom only when it happens to be in my self-interest. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: If someone pays for full ticket family health insurance with COBRA, the price is about $12k/hear. If someone wants to buy insurance, there are a number of possibilities. First, they can be a young person or a young family with no history of significant illnesses, and can buy insurance for slightly less than COBRA. Then, they can have had one of many instances. For example, a member of the family might have had cancer, be diabetic, or show any one of a number of risk factors. Then they look at the high risk pool. I had an insurance broker who talked to me about this, and am in contact with someone who has high risk insurance because his wife is a diabetic. In those cases, you are talking about 40k/year, with a high deductable for any coverage. The median family cannot afford this, since the median family income is about 50k/year. It was clear that, with even modest risk factors, COBRA was the far better option for me. I am happy that we were able to get on my wife's insurance a few months later, and that we can still participate in a group plan. But, if my wife doesn't get a call before COBRA runs out, one of us must get a job with a company that has group health. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba653 | COBRA (the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) is a | federal law that gives former employees the right to stay in an | employer's health insurance plan for up to 18 months. But the cost is | high: You have to pay 100 percent of the employer's premiums plus 2 | percent for administrative costs. | There may be cheaper alternatives to COBRA, especially if you have | no severe health problems. For example, a Dallas family of four with | both parents in their 20s could buy a preferred provider organization | (PPO) plan with a $2,000 deductible for a $4,680 annual premium. That | same family's annual COBRA premium would be closer to $13,000, on | average. If the family chose a $5,000 deductible, the annual premium | would be less than $3,500. Some of these plans also qualify for an | HSA, allowing the policy holder to set money aside tax-free to pay | medical expenses. You can contact independent insurance agencies to | compare policies or shop online at sites that compare prices, such as | http://www.ehealthinsurance.com. Some insurers even offer short term | medical gap coverage for people between jobs, retiring prior to | Medicare eligibility, or not yet eligible for company benefits and for | students about to graduate. With health care costs going up, companies are dropping coverage. If we do nothing, we'll go to a real individual free market. More market discipline in health care would be a good thing. Here is an example of how far we are from a real health care market where consumers evaluate costs and make decisions based on those costs: Kathy Gurchiek, Consumers Savvier about Cost of a New Car than a Hospital Stay, Human Resource News , August 2, 2005. | A Harris Poll found that consumers can guess the price of a new Honda | Accord within $300. But when asked to estimate the cost of a four-day | hospital stay, those same consumers were off by $8,100! Further, 63 | percent of those who had received medical care during the last two years | did not know the cost of the treatment until the bill arrived. Ten | percent said they never learned the cost. There are precious few examples of market driven health care in the US, but here are two: “2005 Average Surgeon/Physician Fees: Cosmetic Procedures,” American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2006; “1992 Average Surgeon Fees,” American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 1993. | transparent package prices covering all services are the norm. Even | though technological progress is frequently assumed to increase health | care costs, the real price of cosmetic surgery has declined over the | 1992 to 2005 period, despite substantial technological progress and a | six-fold increase in demand. From 1992 to 2005, a price index of common | cosmetic surgery procedures rose only 22 percent while the average | increase for medical services was 77 percent; overall, prices for all | goods increased 39 percent. H.T. Tu and J.H May, “Self-Pay Markets in Health Care: Consumer: Nirvana or Caveat Emptor?” Health Affairs 26, no. 2 (2007) | In corrective vision surgery, out-of-pocket payments and package | prices are the norm, and the real price has declined by 30% over the | past decade. When consumers make decisions based on out-of-pocket expenses, real health care costs can actually decrease. Dan M wrote: In those cases, what we'll have a continued expansion of the extremely inefficient way we provide health care to those without the money to pay for it. As compared to the extremely inefficient system of mandated health care plans we currently have imposed on us by various governments: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba523 | Mandates cover services ranging from
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
From past behavior, it does not seem wise to expect politicians to be unselfish and to make altruistic decisions to help people. Indeed, the dramatic failure of large centrally planned economies has demonstrated that it is not wise to even expect politicians to know how to keep mundane things in a large system running smoothly. It seems odd to conclude that the way to get other people to behave as one thinks they should behave is to coerce them at gunpoint unless they spend their money as the intellectual elite tell them to. That does not sound much like a respectful community to me. In fact, America was founded by people who resented just that sort of treatment, and felt that they had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These people were deeply distrustful of any strong central government, and wrote the Constitution to limit government power. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 1:29 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: It seems odd to conclude that the way to get other people to behave as one thinks they should behave is to coerce them at gunpoint There are people with guns showing up to demand that you pay your taxes? That suggests to me that you've been a bad, bad boy. unless they spend their money as the intellectual elite tell them to. I did not realize this discrimination was taking place. Let me personally apologize for it. I pledge that next election, I will do my best to make sure that people like you are no longer turned away from the polls. That does not sound much like a respectful community to me. In fact, America was founded by people who resented just that sort of treatment, and felt that they had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These people were deeply distrustful of any strong central government, and wrote the Constitution to limit government power. Indeed. Regime change begins at home. I long with you for the day when I can tell my grandchildren that they live in a nation so free that nobody can force them obey a law they don't agree with. I may not get there with them, but I can see the Promised Land in their future, every time their parents tell them to do their part around the house. Some day, John, some day, we will all live in a nation where Who's gonna make me? and You and what army? are true for all people, elite or ordinary, intellectual or lowbrow. In my dream, I can hear the people of American joined in one voice, chanting the great slogans of true democracy - Gimme it NOW, it's MINE! and I had it FIRST! Nick Waaah Maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
Limiting myself to the US, and just listing a few incidents that come to mind: Indian Removal Act Legal slavery Jim Crow laws Coverture Japanese American internment Joseph McCarthy Richard Nixon I think that any system of ethics that equates legality with doing what is right, that holds that the majority opinion is by definition good, or that suggests that elected politicians rule justly, has a lot of explaining to do about the incidents in this list (not to mention numerous others not in the list). I tend to consider ethical points on their own merits. Of course, this requires more thought than to simply assume law and majority opinion is always right. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
If we're going to throw out all the flawed human institutions, nothing will be left, including your ideas. I don't have to look beyond my immediate family to see the injustices that our system has allowed, but good isn't the same as perfect. Argue better, please. On 7/19/09, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: Limiting myself to the US, and just listing a few incidents that come to mind: Indian Removal Act Legal slavery Jim Crow laws Coverture Japanese American internment Joseph McCarthy Richard Nixon I think that any system of ethics that equates legality with doing what is right, that holds that the majority opinion is by definition good, or that suggests that elected politicians rule justly, has a lot of explaining to do about the incidents in this list (not to mention numerous others not in the list). I tend to consider ethical points on their own merits. Of course, this requires more thought than to simply assume law and majority opinion is always right. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: If we're going to throw out all the flawed human institutions, nothing will be left, including your ideas. Then don't throw them all out. I never suggested such a thing. I merely stated my preference for discussing ethical questions on their own merits rather than assuming that majority opinion is the ultimate word on every subject. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:09 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: If regulations and restrictions have such a detrimental effect then why do other, more restrictive nations have much more efficient and effective health care systems? That is a complicated subject, and I do not believe I claimed that there is a large detrimental effect on costs, but in the spirit of your one sentence question, I will give a once sentence reply: Many apologies for being able to make my point without being long winded. Many countries ration health care more than the US, thus restricting their people to less health care than people in the US, and by not allowing people to choose low- effectiveness care paid for by other people, they reduce overall spending without significantly reducing certain metrics of effectiveness (NOT including customer satisfaction, though) Ha, you sound like a politician John. But how much less health care can there be in these universal systems considering some 16% of our country isn't covered at all? And are you saying that customer satisfaction is better in the U.S. because I'd have to call you on that one too. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
John wrote: Limiting myself to the US, and just listing a few incidents that come to mind: Indian Removal Act Legal slavery Jim Crow laws Coverture Japanese American internment Joseph McCarthy Richard Nixon Are we waiting for historical perspective to add Bush/Cheney to that list? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Warren Ockrassawar...@nightwares.com wrote: But you're not restricted from any of them. You listed certain things with minimal restrictions, but not ones that have more substantial restrictions. 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? Now you are not talking about health insurance in the sense of the true meaning of insurance, but rather having someone else pay for someone's routine medical care. Which may or may not be something worth doing, but it is not insurance against unexpected events. 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. Which is inefficient. People are paying more than the care is worth because they are not spending their own money. And the sextuplets (or 4 or 5) were likely able to be predicted, since the woman was probably on fertility drugs. When people talk about how much America spends on health care, these are some of the reasons for the high spending. No, you'd pass off responsibility to the free market system, wouldn't you? Passing responsibility? I do not feel I am responsible for everyone in the US, or everyone in the world. But it does please me to help those who I can, and who seem to be in the most need and derive the most benefit from my help. 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. No, insurance is not donation, it is receiving value for payment. 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? That would not be directly. It would be indirectly. More significantly, how can you be sure that *keeping* those pennies will make a difference for you or anyone else? If I were sure about something, then I would perhaps feel justified coercing someone else to do something to obtain a better outcome. Being unsure about most everything, I respect everyone's right to choose as they see fit. You could afford less than one half of one day of radiation treatment -- on your life savings. As I said before, that is the purpose of insurance, which pools money and covers unexpected expenses. I think you know this. My point is that most health care plans are not just insurance, but are cafeteria plans, all-you-can eat. 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 I am not arguing against insurance. Far from it, I like and buy insurance. I am only arguing against coercion and interference with insurance consumers and providers. Oh, so you can't do both? Why not? Because I don't have enough money to keep everyone in the world alive and healthy forever. That has never been true in ten thousand years of human history. There are private roads. I am familiar with some in the Chicago/Indiana area. They seem to be working fairly well. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
John: I just don't live on the same planet that you do, I guess. There is nothing you wrote in the last post that makes rational or compassionate sense to me. There is nothing I can respond to. We're too different. All I can say is that I'm glad the Libertarians and Ayn Rand worshippers haven't taken over yet, and I really hope they never do, because if it happens, we're doomed as a society. Obviously. Since the Libs and AR folks don't seem to know what society actually means. -- 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 11:58 PM, Warren Ockrassawar...@nightwares.com wrote: There is nothing you wrote in the last post that makes rational or compassionate sense to me. There is nothing I can respond to. We're too different. Everyone is different. That makes the world an interesting and wonderful place. All I can say is that I'm glad the Libertarians and Ayn Rand worshippers haven't taken over yet, and I really hope they never do, because if it happens, we're doomed as a society. Obviously. Since the Libs and AR folks don't seem to know what society actually means. There are also people who do not seem to know what freedom actually means. Nor respect, respect enough to understand that each person knows what is best for themselves. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
Charlie said: 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. The idea of insurance goes back to at least the Old Babylonian period in the early second millennium BC. It's such an obvious idea that it wouldn't surprise me if it's even older than that. Rich ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Jul 18, 2009, at 12:20 AM, John Williams wrote: There are also people who do not seem to know what freedom actually means. Nor respect, respect enough to understand that each person knows what is best for themselves. Evidently, for some people, freedom means the right to refuse to participate sensibly in rational arguments. Your presumption of the freedom to behave this way comes an exorbitant cost to others on this list, but you seem to have no problem demanding that we pay that price. Dave Pot. Kettle. Black. Maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
John wrote: No, it was not. The myriad government restrictions have a significant effect on costs. If regulations and restrictions have such a detrimental effect then why do other, more restrictive nations have much more efficient and effective health care systems? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
Dave said: Your presumption of the freedom to behave this way comes an exorbitant cost to others on this list, but you seem to have no problem demanding that we pay that price. Really? And there I was thinking that it was easy to skim or skip posts that don't interest you, and even dialup networking costs are hardly exorbitant in most places. Rich VFP IPoAC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: If regulations and restrictions have such a detrimental effect then why do other, more restrictive nations have much more efficient and effective health care systems? That is a complicated subject, and I do not believe I claimed that there is a large detrimental effect on costs, but in the spirit of your one sentence question, I will give a once sentence reply: Many countries ration health care more than the US, thus restricting their people to less health care than people in the US, and by not allowing people to choose low- effectiveness care paid for by other people, they reduce overall spending without significantly reducing certain metrics of effectiveness (NOT including customer satisfaction, though) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Dave Landdml...@gmail.com wrote: Your presumption of the freedom to behave this way comes an exorbitant cost to others on this list, but you seem to have no problem demanding that we pay that price. I respect your freedom to choose not to pay that price. I will not complain if you do not wish to read what I write. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On 18/07/2009, at 5:33 PM, Richard Baker wrote: Charlie said: 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. The idea of insurance goes back to at least the Old Babylonian period in the early second millennium BC. It's such an obvious idea that it wouldn't surprise me if it's even older than that. Yeah, that's what I was alluding to with Mediterranean traders. Guaranteed by Hamurabi (sp?) himself, IIRC. C. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
Charlie said: Yeah, that's what I was alluding to with Mediterranean traders. Guaranteed by Hamurabi (sp?) himself, IIRC. Oh, okay. And yes, it's mentioned in Hammurabi's law code (which was probably a set of examples of what the king would do or had done in different circumstances rather than an actual code of laws). But if I recall correctly, the Babylonians of that period didn't themselves trade much or at all in the Mediterranean basin, but by land into Anatolia and Egypt, across the Zagros mountains into what is now Iran and Afghanistan, and by sea through the Persian Gulf with the coast of Arabia and the Indus civilisation. (There was trade on the Mediterranean involving the Minoans, the Egyptians and others though, and it's very possible I may not recall correctly.) Rich ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.orgwrote: Franklin founded the first one in the States, arguably the first of the modern mutuals. But he didn't invent shared or mutualised risk. Risk has been mutual forever. John Donne said it well: No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manner of thine own Or of thine friend's were. Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee. The fundamental truth behind that writing is conveniently ignored by champions of liberty who insist that freedom frees them from a community's obligation to organize itself to care for those in need. It is a strange sort of liberation that frees us from our deepest bonds, best fought with its true name, greed. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Why not discuss the topic?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:55 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: 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. Agreed. But, where he and I agree and where a John would disagree is that a free market can be shaped by the laws within which it resides. For example, if you required insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions, you would get rid of one of the major problems with the present system. If you got rid of the strong incentives for hospitals to refuse admissions and for insurance companies to deny claims, then aspects of the market can be helpful. For example, our local grocery store has a cheap clinic in it; with minimal overhead and total cost for minor problems (including those that would be major if left untreated). My son had a staff infection that could have killed him if left untreated, and the total cost of treatment without insurance was $60.00 (we have insurance with a modest per person deductable he didn't reach). 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.) I wouldn't call it socialism, because it is pooling resources voluntarily because any one of those who pooled it could be the unlucky guy/gal. I bet, if you knew you'd never get in an accident and if it wasn't required, you'd be far less likely to pay 2500/year for car insurance just to help those who do get into accidents. 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 a different concept...it's about helping folks who need it. In fact, Jesus directly compared this to helping those who you know will be in a position to help you later. I'll give you a personal example of this. When we took in a teenager who was thrown out of the house by her drug addict mom and was living in a used car her grandfather had given her (I'd say a quarter step above homelessness), we didnt do it because we thought we or our kids would be homeless. We did it because, as Christians, we felt called to do so. (And I am not saying that the non-Christians on the list wouldn't do thisI'd just say that they'd have a parallel feel for the moral requirement to do so). Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Why not discuss the topic?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:41 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic? 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. OK, are you arguing that the bubbles and busts in history when government had all but no regulation were products of that small regulation because government regulations is known a priori to be the cause of all problems in the market? That one cannot look at multiple cases with small and large regulations, and compare them to get a decent rough estimate of the effect government regulations? Dan M. ___ 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
