or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libertarianism - Page 9

post #321 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually, yes. I also think there will be fewer in need, so that helps.

And if it doesn't work? What then?

Why don't we look at what does work, right now?
post #322 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And if it doesn't work? What then?

Why don't we look at what does work, right now?

Again, why assume it won't? Why not wait until it actually is a problem or we see it actually coming (rather than a hypothetical "what if") and apply our creativity and resources at that time. And even then, why would we have to apply a particular remedy (e.g., universal single-payer healthcare) to everyone to solve a problem with a small minority?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #323 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If you want to go by price alone, we're far better off when there's a single payer option because it causes competition.

Bzzzt! Epic fail on understanding of basic economics.

"Johnny to we have a consolation prize for our Loser?"

Johnny: "Yes we do! Reduced choice, quality, service levels. Extended wait times."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #324 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Historically, the US was a horrible place for the poor.

Why are you lying like this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We need it to be better.

I agree that the US can be better than it is now for the poor and everyone else. But the solutions you support and offer will not achieve this. Quite the opposite in fact.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #325 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Again, why assume it won't? Why not wait until it actually is a problem or we see it actually coming (rather than a hypothetical "what if") and apply our creativity and resources at that time. And even then, why would we have to apply a particular remedy (e.g., universal single-payer healthcare) to everyone to solve a problem with a small minority?

So contingency planning is not something we should do?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #326 of 735
Double
post #327 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Bzzzt! Epic fail on understanding of basic economics.

"Johnny to we have a consolation prize for our Loser?"

Johnny: "Yes we do! Reduced choice, quality, service levels. Extended wait times."

Ignoring the snark, for those who can't afford better, choice, quality and service are greatly improved.

Again, I support a mandated public option, not a public mandate.
post #328 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Again, why assume it won't? Why not wait until it actually is a problem or we see it actually coming (rather than a hypothetical "what if") and apply our creativity and resources at that time. And even then, why would we have to apply a particular remedy (e.g., universal single-payer healthcare) to everyone to solve a problem with a small minority?

We don't apply it to everyone. We apply it as an option.
post #329 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We don't apply it to everyone. We apply it as an option.

OK. So, in the event that a truly free market in health care (and health insurance) combined with charitable giving from various sources (individual, collective, secular and religious) in unable to provide for some small portion of the public...sure...a limited government option is worth considering.

I simply don't agree that this will be a significant issue.

Under what I propose health care products, services and insurance will be much better and much more affordable than they are presently reducing the scope of the problem you hypothesize about and that the aforementioned giving will be plenty available and ready to cover the gaps.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #330 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Again, I support a mandated public option, not a public mandate.

What the hell is a mandated option?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #331 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. So, in the event that a truly free market in health care (and health insurance) combined with charitable giving from various sources (individual, collective, secular and religious) in unable to provide for some small portion of the public...sure...a limited government option is worth considering.

I simply don't agree that this will be a significant issue.

Under what I propose health care products, services and insurance will be much better and much more affordable than they are presently reducing the scope of the problem you hypothesize about and that the aforementioned giving will be plenty available and ready to cover the gaps.

How do you propose to regulate the insurance industry to protect against dropping people who make claims, regular denial of claims, and denial of enrollment due to pre-existing conditions?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #332 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What the hell is a mandated option?

Just what it sounds like. What's not to understand?

It should be mandated that every citizen has the option of state sponsored health care. Meanwhile, every citizen should also have the option of private health care.
post #333 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

How do you propose to regulate the insurance industry to protect against dropping people who make claims, regular denial of claims, and denial of enrollment due to pre-existing conditions?

You don't. Those people are covered by the State if they need to be.
post #334 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Just what it sounds like. What's not to understand?

It should be mandated that every citizen has the option of state sponsored health care. Meanwhile, every citizen should also have the option of private health care.

So that's where we disagree again. If we're concerned about a safety net for those who are not or cannot be covered by the pieces I mentioned, then this government option would have to be limited to people who can demonstrate that these other options did not or are not working for them. Even then it out to be handled in a relief manner rather than an ongoing, permanent coverage manner.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #335 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

How do you propose to regulate the insurance industry to protect against dropping people who make claims, regular denial of claims, and denial of enrollment due to pre-existing conditions?

There are several things here.

The the first two issues should and ought to be covered under normal contract law. If you have a contract with an insurance company and the violate it by dropping you when you make a claim that is the issue there. Note that I assume here that the denial of claims or dropping of coverage is unwarranted. Frankly it could be warranted if the insured violated their part of the agreement in some way.

The last issue should be allowed and it makes sense to allow an insurance company to deny coverage for a press-existing condition. This would be no different than allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for a car that has already been in an accident or for a house that's already been burned down or flooded. Note, I suspect that insurance companies would find ways to over insurance for the person for things unrelated to the pre-existing condition so they could be covered for some things.

What's interesting is that we don't have lots of problems like this in things like life, home and car insurance and, in fact, I'm constantly bombarded by companies trying to get my business in each of these areas. While health insurance does have some differing characteristics, fundamentally it would still operate in a similar manner.

One final note...the pre-existing condition issue would be greatly diminished if insurance was detached from employment and people simply bought insurance contracts directly, keeping them and holding them regardless of employer or even employment. In fact, the possibility of being denied coverage for a pre-existing condition would be incentive to get insurance as soon as possible and keep it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #336 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So that's where we disagree again. If we're concerned about a safety net for those who are not or cannot be covered by the pieces I mentioned, then this government option would have to be limited to people who can demonstrate that these other options did not or are not working for them. Even then it out to be handled in a relief manner rather than an ongoing, permanent coverage manner.

Now here's where there's something that you clearly fail to understand. Unless the system is made extremely simple the administrative cost of need assessment is more than the additional costs absorbed by the state by simply offering the service to everyone.
post #337 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Now here's where there's something that you clearly fail to understand.

I don't fail to understand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Unless the system is made extremely simple the administrative cost of need assessment is more than the additional costs absorbed by the state by simply offering the service to everyone.

You're begging the question.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #338 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Other than comfort level, yes, they damn well should! You get a private ward and a nice meal of that's what you pay for. You can even fly to another state to get the best doctors and pay those doctors extra for priority service. I'm not a proponent of the Canadian system, but I think the Hong Kong system is fucking awesome and the British system is pretty damn good.

I disagree. People that have made different choices than I do or don't make as much money (or whatever the circumstance) are certainly entitled to basic healthcare, emergency care, etc. They are not entitled to unlimited on-demand services for health issues that aren't all that serious. I include in this things like chiropractic, therapeutic massage, acupuncture, brand name drugs, drugs for quitting smoking and every other benefit I get based on my choice of profession and plan.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #339 of 735
Double post.
post #340 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I disagree. People that have made different choices than I do or don't make as much money (or whatever the circumstance) are certainly entitled to basic healthcare, emergency care, etc. They are not entitled to unlimited on-demand services for health issues that aren't all that serious. I include in this things like chiropractic, therapeutic massage, acupuncture, brand name drugs, drugs for quitting smoking and every other benefit I get based on my choice of profession and plan.

We agree on more than you're man enough to admit. I don't think nor do I suggest that the state pay for those alternative treatments. Does your insurance pay for acupuncture? Seriously?

But I damn well fucking believe that the poor deserve the same treatment as you do for life threatening or life changing illnesses, paid for by taxes, without making them bankrupt.
post #341 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We agree on more than you're man enough to admit. I don't think nor do I suggest that the state pay for those alternative treatments. Does your insurance pay for acupuncture? Seriously?

Yes, it absolutely does. It pays for all it.

Quote:

But I damn well f*cking believe that the poor deserve the same treatment as you do for life threatening or life changing illnesses, paid for by taxes, without making them bankrupt.

We do agree there. But Obamacare goes much further than that. So does nationalized healthcare. And you ignore so many of the problems that occur in such a system, as well as the fact that we'd have to restructure our economy and entire government to pay for it. Moreover, the US Constitution grants no such authority to the feds to allow for such a system.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #342 of 735
It would also help if we stopped funding quackery. What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine. This homeopathy bullshit takes advantage of idiots--the government absolutely should not fund that.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #343 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It would also help if we stopped funding quackery. What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine. This homeopathy bullshit takes advantage of idiots--the government absolutely should not fund that.

See now, that's the great thing about government-funded stuff: BR gets to chose what gets it and what doesn't. Everyone else is relieved of having to make choices for themselves.

It's obvious this as at play in education.

It's was also clearly obvious that it was a motivation in healthcare.

What next?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #344 of 735
Thread Starter 
Gun laws explained:

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #345 of 735
Thread Starter 
You cannot prevent stupid people from doing stupid things by enacting stupid laws.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #346 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You cannot prevent stupid people from doing stupid things by enacting stupid laws.

So are you saying Americans are stupider than the Australians, who have heavily regulated firearms, and in return have seen a huge reduction in violent crime? So what works in Australia won't work in America because Americans are stupid?
post #347 of 735
Thread Starter 
Sounds like that's what you are saying.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #348 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Sounds like that's what you are saying.

No, what I'm saying is that regulation worked in Australia. Why shouldn't it work in the US?
post #349 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No, what I'm saying is that regulation worked in Australia. Why shouldn't it work in the US?

There are some real problems with that reasoning. From wikipedia:

Quote:
Gun politics have only become a notable issue in Australia since the 1980s. Low levels of violent crime through much of the 20th century kept levels of public concern about firearms low. However, in the last two decades of the century, following several high profile multiple murders and a media campaign, the Australian Government co-ordinated more restrictive firearms legislation with all State Governments. Australia today has arguably some of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the world.

And

Quote:
In the year 20022003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.[27] In 19971999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia.[28] Knives are used up to three times as often as firearms in robberies.[29] The majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides, of which many involved the use of 'hunting rifles'.[26]

It's pretty clear that the major problem we face in the U.S. is cultural and social. By that, I don't mean hunters and collectors, target shooters, etc. I mean crime in the inner cities, the glorification of violence in the major media. I mean the socioeconomic and racial divide in education. Implementing Australian-like laws is not going to solve those problems. Illegal guns will still flow, just as they clearly do in Australia.

Beyond all this...let's be realistic. Even if the above reforms were undisputedly effective, they can't be passed. The 2nd Amendment is not going to be repealed or re-written. We have to work within the Constitution to address these problems.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #350 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There are some real problems with that reasoning. From wikipedia:



And



It's pretty clear that the major problem we face in the U.S. is cultural and social. By that, I don't mean hunters and collectors, target shooters, etc. I mean crime in the inner cities, the glorification of violence in the major media. I mean the socioeconomic and racial divide in education. Implementing Australian-like laws is not going to solve those problems. Illegal guns will still flow, just as they clearly do in Australia.

Beyond all this...let's be realistic. Even if the above reforms were undisputedly effective, they can't be passed. The 2nd Amendment is not going to be repealed or re-written. We have to work within the Constitution to address these problems.

Your wiki quotes prove my point.
post #351 of 735
Thread Starter 
You: Pretend in the 80s, government nationalised cell phones.

You: Everybody gets a cell phone.

You: They're bulky, cost $2000 (through taxes).

You: But are free on the surface.

You: You get one in the mail.

Stranger: Oh no, please no.

Stranger: This is an awful idea.

You: Now flash forward to alternate-2012.

You: We still have these government-mandated phones that haven't been updated. Still expensive (no government department ever tends to shrink over time).

Stranger: Because there's no motivation to innovate.

Stranger: Because the government would have a monopoly.

You: And then I were to say to an average person "government shouldn't give out phones."

You: The response might be something like "But how can poor people afford phones themselves? Why are you against cell phones?"

You: And if I were to try and explain the magical devices we could have had by this point, it would sound utopian.

You: But using force only results in diversion of resources.

Stranger: True.

Stranger: Force is always (and has always been) an incredibly impractical way of getting things done.

You: In this case, from a bunch of competing companies with incentive to improve quality and cut costs, to a monopoly who is guaranteed the money each year, no matter what.

You: Now let's look at the things that people always claim the government has to provide, and realise that we are in that alternate-2012 right now.

You: Public Education, Public Housing, Public Roads, Public Security.

You: All the things that are crumbling apart.

You: It's not a coincidence.

Stranger: Because of lack of motivation to improve.

Stranger: Because of lack of competition.

You: Right.

You: Imagine, if you will, an "Apple" of education.

You: Imagine what that could look like, each year striving to improve and innovate, meanwhile cutting costs for the students to beat out competition.

Stranger: Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.

You: Instead we have schools that kids hate.

Stranger: That foster hate.

Stranger: And ignorance.

You: They are unnaturally regimented.

Stranger: And mediocrity.

Stranger: And, frankly, stupidity.

source

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #352 of 735
Great post jazz.

The example could be given in other areas like food and clothing...cars and housing (though those latter two suffer from innovation stifling government intrusion.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #353 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Your wiki quotes prove my point.


No, they prove the only guns taken away are the legal ones...or ones that used to be legal. Criminals don't turn in their guns when a new law is passed.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #354 of 735
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #355 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


I hate it when people steal all the best platitudes.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #356 of 735
Omfg!

People on the right and Libertarians support "giving generously to help those in need", while the left doesn't?

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the right has been more generous with their voluntary giving?
post #357 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, they prove the only guns taken away are the legal ones...or ones that used to be legal. Criminals don't turn in their guns when a new law is passed.

Over a period of years, those guns go out of circulation and stop being used/traded. Don't ignore Australia.
post #358 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Omfg!

People on the right and Libertarians support "giving generously to help those in need", while the left doesn't?

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the right has been more generous with their voluntary giving?

Ummm, yes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #359 of 735
Are churches considered charity in those tallies? I wouldn't necessarily count that money.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #360 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Are churches considered charity in those tallies? I wouldn't necessarily count that money.

Of course you wouldn't. But you're a religious bigot, so who cares what you'd count or not in regard to this?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism