51
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 01:08 pm
@ican711nm,
Pardon my curiosity, ican, but have you read any commentary in your newsletters about census workers using GPS devices?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 01:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm sure you understand that the private sector cannot provide health insurance more efficiently, effectively, or economically than the government can.

I'm sure YOU, Cycloptichorn, SHOULD understand that the government cannot provide health insurance more efficiently, effectively, or economically than the private sector can. Even Obama confirmed that the government's Medicare and Medicaid health insurances are loaded with waste and inefficiency.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 01:20 pm
@wandeljw,
Wandeljw wrote:
Pardon my curiosity, ican, but have you read any commentary in your newsletters about census workers using GPS devices?

Ican writes:
No! Perhaps I overlooked such commentary. Is that a problem? Using a GPS map helps me determine the actual locations of addresses more quickly than using a paper map.
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 01:34 pm
@ican711nm,
I am sorry to put you "on the spot" about this issue, ican. There has been a theory that the use of GPS devices for the 2010 census has suspicious implications. Negative comments have appeared on some "right wing" blogs. I wondered if conservative political newsletters have also been promoting suspicions about the census bureau use of GPS devices.
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 01:40 pm
Likely voters are currently about 50%/50% on Approval/Disapproval of Obama.

Likely voters are currently 43%/56% Approval/Disapproval on Obama's support of Government Health Care.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says:
The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Obama appears to be interpreting that clause:
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the GENERAL defense and COMMON welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be UNIFORMLY NON-UNIFORM throughout the United States.

Definition of common
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=common&x=30&y=9
Definition of general
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=general&x=24&y=11
Definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
Definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 01:46 pm
@wandeljw,
Wandeljw, I have not yet encountered any commentary--except yours-- on the use of GPS devices for the 2010 census.

Please post quotes of some of those comments you have encountered.

wandeljw
 
  4  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 01:57 pm
@ican711nm,
Online suspicions about the census bureau's use of GPS was highlighted in a report today on the death of a census worker in Kentucky.

Quote:
Online Conspiracy Theories Latch Onto Census GPS Units
(By Kevin Poulsen, Wired.com, September 24, 2009)

The hanging death of a Kentucky census worker is likely to raise tensions among counters in the 2010 census, who have already been the focus of emotionally-charged online rhetoric this year because they use GPS.

Internet conspiracy theories have grown in recent months over the fact that census workers are now equipped with GPS-enabled hand-held computers that let them collect the geolocation of street addresses as they perform pre-census canvassing. It’s an improvement on the paper maps the census has historically used for the same purpose.

“The exact geographic location of each housing unit is critical to ensure that when we publish the census results for the entire country, broken down by various geographic areas ranging from states, counties, and cities, to census blocks, we accurately represent the data for the area in question,” the Census Bureau explains on its website.

But that explanation doesn’t wash with everyone.

A post on the widely-read Infowars.com in June warned: “I will tell you plainly, the NWO [New World Order] controlled American military wants these GPS markers so they can launch Predator Drone missile attacks, the aptly named HELLFIRE missile I might add, against a long list of undesirables here in CONUS, continental United States.”

Other commentators have posited less lethal theories. The American Daily Review warned in April that the Census Bureau is “shooting GPS coordinates of your doorway” in possible preparation for a secret Obama plan to cede some of America’s sovereignty to the United Nations.

“If the government decided to rely on foreign troops, perhaps United Nations personnel, most of which may not understand the street signs, much less know the lay of the land, they could use GPS devices to direct them to your front door,” the site explained.

And RightSoup.com suggests that the government, “and ACORN”, wants the coordinates for Americans’ front doors as “a jackboot convenience.”

The conspiracy theories have struck a chord with a certain type of American, and posts like these have collected comments from people vowing not to allow workers anywhere near their houses. A few comments have taken an ominous tone.

“Only a fool would allow the New World Order to come up and take GPS readings at your front door,” wrote a commenter to another Infowars.com post. “There is nothing good to come from Big Brother’s constant meddling into our lives! Beware, and carry a big stick… preferably .308 Winchester full metal jacket.”

The FBI is reportedly investigating the death of 51-year-old Bill Sparkman, who was found hanged on September 12 with the word “fed” written on his chest. The Census Bureau has suspended field operations in the Kentucky county where Sparkman was found, the Huffington Post reports.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 02:12 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm sure you understand that the private sector cannot provide health insurance more efficiently, effectively, or economically than the government can.

I'm sure YOU, Cycloptichorn, SHOULD understand that the government cannot provide health insurance more efficiently, effectively, or economically than the private sector can. Even Obama confirmed that the government's Medicare and Medicaid health insurances are loaded with waste and inefficiency.


Obama also mentioned that the private insurance system is far more loaded with waste and inefficiency than Medicare and Medicaid are.

If the government cannot provide health insurance more efficiently, effectively, or economically than the private sector can, then I'm sure you would agree with me that there is nothing to fear from a government-ran public option, because private insurance will clearly be superior and cheaper. If this is the case, why are you bunch arguing against it? Why is the insurance industry arguing against it?

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 02:51 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

Public. Option.


Public option ONLY for broad risk that private insurance does not wish to cover. Not public option for anything and everything.

The benefit to you is in having your healthcare costs and the costs to insure yourself against them lowered. The benefit to you is in not having your choices, freedoms, and options taken away and/or your taxes significantly raised.

Quote:
If it's risky to the insurance company then it's risky to the taxpayer. Reducing the risk is nice, but it doesn't change the fact that taxpayers are assuming risks that insurance companies won't.


Much better for the tax payer to take a highly selective risk as it does with flood insurance and earthquake insurance than to put the taxpayer at risk for all risk.

Quote:
Because the federal government is assuming the high risk customers, the insurance companies are free to continue to profit by collecting premiums for policies that are not likely to be collected on.


I am pretty sure that it is the emergency room charge for an earache, the broken leg, the football concussion, obstetrics, quickly curable cancer treatments, the recoverable heart attack etc. that constitutes the lion's share of health insurance claims paid. I know that auto insurers and homeowner insurance insurers pay more in than premiums paid in most years and make up the difference by investing the premiums they collect. I'm pretty sure we could see the same phenomenon occurring with healthcare given the right environment. It certainly should be part of the debate.

It is absurd to think that removing catastrophic insurance risk from insurance policies would allow insurance companies to incur little or no risk at all.

Quote:
Quote:
In this case the government is providing only that which cannot be provided more efficiently, effectively, or economically by the private sector.

Health insurance is the same. The people with pre-existing conditions or who are self-employed, or any number of prohibitive reasons cannot be covered by private insurance. Therefore it is reasonable for the government to offer a public option for them. However, if the government (taxpayer) is assuming this risk that insurance companies will not, then I think it's reasonable that I should be allowed to throw my hat in the pool, as a lower risk customer, to help offset that risk. After all, I have an interest in maintaining the solvency of such a program.


If reforms are enacted something along the lines I have suggested, the pre-existing conditions would be addressed and the self-employed would be as able as anybody else to acquire basic healthcare coverage. A public option as it was first suggested would put the insurance companies out of business. What I suggest would not. Did you read that CATO piece I posted yesterday?

Quote:
Doubtful it would change the current rates as the insurance companies don't now cover these people, so what would change for them?


I thought I explained that pretty well. At any rate your 'doubting it' does not make it something we shouldn't look at. Wouldn't you agree?


Quote:
Quote:
Again, the government would be doing only that which cannot be provided more efficiently effectively, or economically by the private sector.

In my opinion that applies to all health insurance. The private sector cannot provide health insurance (care) more efficiently than the government can, which is why private health insurance does not want to compete against a public option. If the government entered the health insurance market for the young, healthy, and able to pay (it's already in the health insurance market for everyone else) then surely your market forces would enforce your rule above. If the government option were not as efficient, effective, or economical as private insurance then they wouldn't get many customers, thus preventing them from "staying in business" in that market.


I believe private insurance can provide coverage for basic healthcare far more efficiently and effectively than government can if we didn't use any other basis to judge that on than what the government is already providing. The government hasn't managed social security well--it is broke and becoming more insolvent by the day. The government hasn't managed Medicare and Medicaid well--it is broke and becoming more costly and a drag on the economy every year that passes.

Who in their wildest dreams could believe that with a track record like that, the government will do better with the whole thing?

Quote:
Quote:
But a law allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would add a factor of healthy competition that almost certainly would break up oppressive monopolies in some states and would almost certainly reduce rates.

I'm all for breaking up monopolies but it seems like that could be done without removing the power to regulate the insurance industry from the states and giving it to the feds. Some 30 years or so ago we did what you suggest with credit card companies. The effect was one of regulation by lowest common denominator and in the long run it hurt consumers and the economy.


I am not wanting to take the power to regulate away from the states. I am wanting a federal regulation, in the interest of promoting the general welfare, to remove an obstacle to free market structures. The Feds share such limited shared regulation with the state on many things including media, transportation, use of the airways, energy, and utilities. Enacting one free trade rule would not be taking over all the regulation from the state.

Maybe it couldn't be done. But it should receive a thorough hearing and it should be part of the debate.

Quote:
What exactly does this mean "individually owned"? We can by individual policies now, it's just that no-one can afford them. We have COBRA now, but no-one can afford it. The whole reason why employer provided care is so prevalent is because individuals cannot afford to purchase it independently.


I am suggesting reform that would enable most people to be able to afford it. That's the whole purpose of reform isn't it? Or shouldn't it be? By individually owned, I mean every citizen or family would own their own insurance policy and it would be in effect regardless of who anybody worked for or whether anybody worked for somebody at all. They could move anywhere they wanted and would still be covered just as individually owned life insurance policies work. Not losing your insurance if you lose your job or change jobs would eliminate one of the huge problems in the existing system.

Again, did you read that CATO piece I posted?

Certainly this should receive a thorough hearing and should be part of the debate.

Quote:
Quote:
Add in the tort reform that all thinking people know is necessary, and a great deal of the broken system will be fixed without costing the taxpayer a dime.

What kinds of tort reforms?


Whatever is necessary to eliminate costs that arise out of unreasonable and unnecessary defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits, excessive malpractice insurance rates, class action suits that cost medical providers millions in legal fees and enrich attorneys but accomplish little or nothing in relief for the plaintiffs, etc.

This should receive a thorough hearing and it should be part of the debate.
____________________________________

I don't pretend to be smart enough to know how to fix the existing system, but I know that Americans have solved far more complicated problems than this one. I am smart enough to recognize what appears to be a reasonable solution and what would most likely put us on a steep slippery slope to unintended negative consequences.

All I ask is that the government not force something on the people that cannot be undone and that will be worse than what we currently have. It isn't too much to put it all out there in full view where it can be analyzed and thoroughly discussed with our elected leaders committed to doing the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing or the ideologically comfortable thing. It isn't too much to expect them to know what the people do and do not want.

It isn't too much to expect them to read the legislation they pass on our behalf.
FreeDuck
 
  6  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 07:17 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Public. Option.


Public option ONLY for broad risk that private insurance does not wish to cover. Not public option for anything and everything.


A distinction without distinction.

Quote:
Much better for the tax payer to take a highly selective risk as it does with flood insurance and earthquake insurance than to put the taxpayer at risk for all risk.

Why is that better? The profit is made from the low risk, so why is it better for the tax payer to assume only the high risk?

Quote:

I am pretty sure that it is the emergency room charge for an earache, the broken leg, the football concussion, obstetrics, quickly curable cancer treatments, the recoverable heart attack etc. that constitutes the lion's share of health insurance claims paid. I know that auto insurers and homeowner insurance insurers pay more in than premiums paid in most years and make up the difference by investing the premiums they collect. I'm pretty sure we could see the same phenomenon occurring with healthcare given the right environment. It certainly should be part of the debate.

No offense, but I'm not going to debate with you things that you are "pretty sure" about it. Bring facts or stay home.

Quote:
It is absurd to think that removing catastrophic insurance risk from insurance policies would allow insurance companies to incur little or no risk at all.

It's absurd to think otherwise.

Quote:

If reforms are enacted something along the lines I have suggested, the pre-existing conditions would be addressed and the self-employed would be as able as anybody else to acquire basic healthcare coverage.

That wasn't evident by your description.

Quote:
A public option as it was first suggested would put the insurance companies out of business.

How? You said the private sector can provide it more efficiently and economically. If that's the case I would think the reverse would be true.

Quote:
What I suggest would not. Did you read that CATO piece I posted yesterday?
No. Did you write it?


Quote:
Quote:
Doubtful it would change the current rates as the insurance companies don't now cover these people, so what would change for them?


I thought I explained that pretty well. At any rate your 'doubting it' does not make it something we shouldn't look at. Wouldn't you agree?

I have to disagree as to the quality of the explanation. If you can explain how absorbing costs that insurance companies do not now pay would somehow make insurance cheaper, I'd love to hear it.


Quote:

I believe private insurance can provide coverage for basic healthcare far more efficiently and effectively than government can if we didn't use any other basis to judge that on than what the government is already providing. The government hasn't managed social security well--it is broke and becoming more insolvent by the day. The government hasn't managed Medicare and Medicaid well--it is broke and becoming more costly and a drag on the economy every year that passes.

Medicare and Medicaid both cover people that private insurers can't profit from: old people and poor people. If they are broken, it is precisely because they are absorbing the higher risk, high cost patients without benefit of premiums paid by young, healthy people. Again, the taxpayer is absorbing the high cost patients in order to preserve the profits made off of people who don't use as many services -- people who pay high premiums out of fear rather than out of a desire to get something for their dollar.

Quote:
Who in their wildest dreams could believe that with a track record like that, the government will do better with the whole thing?

Who believes that private companies, with their track record of care rationing, dumping people, and denying claims while jacking premiums, can do it?

Quote:

I am not wanting to take the power to regulate away from the states. I am wanting a federal regulation, in the interest of promoting the general welfare, to remove an obstacle to free market structures.

That obstacle being state regulations? You trust the feds to know what's best for all states' consumers of health care in this?

Quote:
The Feds share such limited shared regulation with the state on many things including media, transportation, use of the airways, energy, and utilities. Enacting one free trade rule would not be taking over all the regulation from the state.

Maybe it couldn't be done. But it should receive a thorough hearing and it should be part of the debate.

It should be debated just long enough to expose it for the industry backed profit grab that it is. And then promptly put away in the box of really bad ideas that we've seen before.

Quote:

I am suggesting reform that would enable most people to be able to afford it. That's the whole purpose of reform isn't it? Or shouldn't it be? By individually owned, I mean every citizen or family would own their own insurance policy and it would be in effect regardless of who anybody worked for or whether anybody worked for somebody at all. They could move anywhere they wanted and would still be covered just as individually owned life insurance policies work. Not losing your insurance if you lose your job or change jobs would eliminate one of the huge problems in the existing system.

Again, we have that power now, so what you're really proposing is making insurance affordable, which the president also proposes. But I'll ask, in a free market system, how do you enforce this? Are you talking about subsidies or price controls? What effect would these things have on the market? And if we're proposing to meddle so much in the market that the only "free" left in the "market" is the ability of the insurance companies to continue to "freely" profit while taxpayers foot the bill, then we're better off taking it over.

Quote:
Again, did you read that CATO piece I posted?

Again, no. Are these not your ideas? If you support them fully enough to argue for them then you should be able to explain it.


Quote:

Whatever is necessary to eliminate costs that arise out of unreasonable and unnecessary defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits, excessive malpractice insurance rates, class action suits that cost medical providers millions in legal fees and enrich attorneys but accomplish little or nothing in relief for the plaintiffs, etc.

Whatever is necessary... no, I don't think so. You could eliminate these costs simply by passing a law that says that patients can't sue, period. Is that what you propose? How can anyone support "meaningful tort reform" when it means "whatever is necessary". You would never accept such absurd vagueness from the president.

Quote:
I don't pretend to be smart enough to know how to fix the existing system, but I know that Americans have solved far more complicated problems than this one. I am smart enough to recognize what appears to be a reasonable solution and what would most likely put us on a steep slippery slope to unintended negative consequences.

Are you smart enough to know that the solution you "recognize" (I think I know how this recognition occurs) will also have negative unintended consequences? Are you prepared to lay them out and weigh them?

Quote:
All I ask is that the government not force something on the people that cannot be undone and that will be worse than what we currently have.
Well, then we are in agreement on at least one thing.

Quote:
It isn't too much to put it all out there in full view where it can be analyzed and thoroughly discussed with our elected leaders committed to doing the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing or the ideologically comfortable thing. It isn't too much to expect them to know what the people do and do not want.

Whether or not it's too much to expect, the fact is that "what the people want" is a public option, as indicated in poll after poll and the last election. It's not what you want, and it's not the ideological comfortable thing for you and those who share party affiliation with you, but it is "the right thing".

Quote:
It isn't too much to expect them to read the legislation they pass on our behalf.

No it isn't. I would have loved it if they'd read the Iraq War resolution or the Patriot Act before passing them, but didn't. I certainly hope they will read these health care bills before passing them. You might be interested in supporting this bill with me, as we agree on this.
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 08:28 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo wrote:
Obama also mentioned that the private insurance system is far more loaded with waste and inefficiency than Medicare and Medicaid are.


Come on, Cyclo....have you ever worked with a Govt agency? I work with the Govt every day (DoD) and there is absolutely no way that private industry could be more inefficient or wasteful. The profit motive of private industry is self-policing causing elements that fail to make money be sloughed off very quickly. Govt has no such self-policing incentive to save money or increase efficiencies. As an example, the budgets of Govt agencies dollars are defined at the beginning of the year based on some justifiable (?) increase from the previous year. Once received you are expected and judged by your ability to spend every dime thus justifying an increase in your budget for next year. That is why you always see huge government spending sprees every Sep.

Another example...Incompetent employees in the Government are entitled to a hearing before dismissal. At that hearing, the boss is required to demonstrate not only the employees incompetence, but the fact that he's provided sufficient training, as well as properly counselled and warned the employee repeatedly, in writing. The easiser alternative is always for the boss to simply encourage the dunderhead to exercise his incompetence in some other government organization.

The only place that the government could ever be more efficient and less wasteful than private industry is in the most optimistic dreams of the left.
Foxfyre
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 09:30 am
@FreeDuck,
Rather than continue this boring (for me and everybody who reads it) 'is too' 'is not' argument, let's agree to disagree. You seem to have no opinions on healthcare reform other than anything I or anybody else on the right or suggests is foolish, anything most of the people want is irrelevent, and anything the government wants is a-okay.

I accept that as your opinion, and let's move on.

If you should choose to actually articulate your own argument rather than just trying to discredit mine, we can continue to the discussion.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 09:34 am
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
Obama also mentioned that the private insurance system is far more loaded with waste and inefficiency than Medicare and Medicaid are.


Come on, Cyclo....have you ever worked with a Govt agency? I work with the Govt every day (DoD) and there is absolutely no way that private industry could be more inefficient or wasteful. The profit motive of private industry is self-policing causing elements that fail to make money be sloughed off very quickly.


I work for a government (State) agency, a Law school. I spent several years during a hiatus of my college career working for a Fortune 50 company. I can not see any differences in the level of efficiency or waste. While I understand your theory, the reality of my experience has been that waste occurs just as frequently, personalities and idiots riddle private enterprise to the same level as public, and the end results come out on schedule about as often.
Quote:

Govt has no such self-policing incentive to save money or increase efficiencies. As an example, the budgets of Govt agencies dollars are defined at the beginning of the year based on some justifiable (?) increase from the previous year.


It's justifiable, b/c the populations they serve keep growing. In order to provide the same level of service with an expanding population, you need expanding funding to keep up. Not hard to understand.

Not all Gov't agencies work this way, btw. My Law school has trimmed many employees lately and my office now does the work with 4 people that we used to do with 7 - and we do it better and faster, thanks to process improvements we've made. We didn't need some 'profit motive' to make those improvements happen, either; simply caring about your job and the mission of your company is enough.

Quote:

Once received you are expected and judged by your ability to spend every dime thus justifying an increase in your budget for next year. That is why you always see huge government spending sprees every Sep.


I believe this is a rather childish view of the budgeting process, or perhaps just an exaggeration on your part. Either way, it is not accurate.

Quote:

Another example...Incompetent employees in the Government are entitled to a hearing before dismissal. At that hearing, the boss is required to demonstrate not only the employees incompetence, but the fact that he's provided sufficient training, as well as properly counselled and warned the employee repeatedly, in writing. The easiser alternative is always for the boss to simply encourage the dunderhead to exercise his incompetence in some other government organization.


This is a good thing, not a bad thing. If 'bosses' don't want to take the time to correct an employee's problems, and work with them, that's their failure. A company should be willing to put the same level of commitment into working with it's employees, that they expect the employees to display towards the company.

Quote:
The only place that the government could ever be more efficient and less wasteful than private industry is in the most optimistic dreams of the left.


You're quite incorrect about this. The overall management cost, as a percentage of total outlays, of Medicare is lower than that of private insurance.

Cycloptichorn
FreeDuck
 
  8  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 09:38 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Rather than continue this boring (for me and everybody who reads it) 'is too' 'is not' argument, let's agree to disagree. You seem to have no opinions on healthcare reform other than anything I or anybody else on the right or suggests is foolish, anything most of the people want is irrelevent, and anything the government wants is a-okay.

I accept that as your opinion, and let's move on.

If you should choose to actually articulate your own argument rather than just trying to discredit mine, we can continue to the discussion.

I'm familiar with these declarations of victory coming from you and bearing no relation to the actual debate, so I'm not goaded. Tossing bombs and then running away, all the while pretending to a level of maturity not evident in your behavior, is an ineffective means of politely ending debate. Nobody is fooled.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 09:48 am
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
Obama also mentioned that the private insurance system is far more loaded with waste and inefficiency than Medicare and Medicaid are.


Come on, Cyclo....have you ever worked with a Govt agency? I work with the Govt every day (DoD) and there is absolutely no way that private industry could be more inefficient or wasteful. The profit motive of private industry is self-policing causing elements that fail to make money be sloughed off very quickly. Govt has no such self-policing incentive to save money or increase efficiencies. As an example, the budgets of Govt agencies dollars are defined at the beginning of the year based on some justifiable (?) increase from the previous year. Once received you are expected and judged by your ability to spend every dime thus justifying an increase in your budget for next year. That is why you always see huge government spending sprees every Sep.

Another example...Incompetent employees in the Government are entitled to a hearing before dismissal. At that hearing, the boss is required to demonstrate not only the employees incompetence, but the fact that he's provided sufficient training, as well as properly counselled and warned the employee repeatedly, in writing. The easiser alternative is always for the boss to simply encourage the dunderhead to exercise his incompetence in some other government organization.

The only place that the government could ever be more efficient and less wasteful than private industry is in the most optimistic dreams of the left.


As I have previously related here, I was working in the business office of a hospital when Medicare went into effect. It became apparent almost from Day 1 that the government was not going to be any kind of watchdog over medical costs and almost immediately the bills were padded by those who would profit. The doctors wrote down hospital visits they didn't make. Some justified this that it only made up for extra time they had spent in other visits that they couldn't charge for. We saw an immediate substantial increase in the average hospital bill. I'm sure that phenomenon was repeated in doctor's offices, rehab centers, pharmacies, etc. all across the land.

In the free market, prices settle at the amount that generates the most profit which is generally the amount that the largest number of people are willing to pay for the product or service. Increase the price beyond that and the people do without.

You are absolutely right that those in government have little incentive to reduce costs and therefore the amount necessary for their budgets. The bigger their budgets, the bigger the salary and benefits to administrate it. Just avoid scandal and keep the number of complaints down and you can aspire to rise to the top. There is little or no reward of any kind for frugality, efficiency, or effectiveness.

The government should be doing nothing that cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically in the private sector.

Foxfyre
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 09:50 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Rather than continue this boring (for me and everybody who reads it) 'is too' 'is not' argument, let's agree to disagree. You seem to have no opinions on healthcare reform other than anything I or anybody else on the right or suggests is foolish, anything most of the people want is irrelevent, and anything the government wants is a-okay.

I accept that as your opinion, and let's move on.

If you should choose to actually articulate your own argument rather than just trying to discredit mine, we can continue to the discussion.

I'm familiar with these declarations of victory coming from you and bearing no relation to the actual debate, so I'm not goaded. Tossing bombs and then running away, all the while pretending to a level of maturity not evident in your behavior, is an ineffective means of politely ending debate. Nobody is fooled.


I tossed no bombs. I have articulated a reasoned argument for my opinions and posted links to support them where necessary. You rarely offer a reasoned opinion but simply pronounce mine moot or wrong or silly. Again, such 'is too - is not' back and forth process is tedious and boring and I choose not to participate in it. I would be happy to participate in an actual discussion with you providing your argument for your point of view and me providing mine.

And yes, when I have made an argument and it has not been rebutted by an equally credible opposing argument, I do win. Read up on formal debate rules some time.

Meanwhile I am having a good day and prefer to spend what time I have here actually discussing concepts, ideas, and possibilities.

Thank you for understanding.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 09:54 am
@Foxfyre,
One would think that someone who was actually familiar with 'formal debate rules' would understand that individual participants generally cannot declare themselves the winner in a debate; that is the call of the judges or audience, not the proponent of an argument. And what more, it is poor form and quite insulting to do so.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 10:01 am
@Foxfyre,
Addendum to my post re slkshock's observation:

My comments should not be construed to mean that there are no dedicated, competent, and effective people working for the government. I know many including members of my own family.

I also know many who simply put in their time, do as little as they can get away with, and draw their checks, benefits, and retirement.

I am not as critical of the people in government as I am a system that demands inefficiency (in a one-size-must-fit-all mega format) plus ineffectiveness (the title of the agency and legislation is often more important than anything it will accomplish) as well as encouraging maximum spending as Slkshock described.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 10:11 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I have articulated a reasoned argument for my opinions and posted links to support them where necessary.


I must have missed the links to the data that supports your claims that tort reform will bring down insurance premiums. Could you post that again? Thank you.
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 10:16 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

One would think that someone who was actually familiar with 'formal debate rules' would understand that individual participants generally cannot declare themselves the winner in a debate; that is the call of the judges or audience, not the proponent of an argument. And what more, it is poor form and quite insulting to do so.

Cycloptichorn


As one who IS familiar with 'formal debate rules', I am absolutely one hundred percent confident that I am correct that if you cannot adequately and competently present and defend your own argument, your opponent wins. No debate judge I've ever know would judge "that's not true" or "that's stupid" or "you're wrong" as a competent rebuttal, and for most, blatant ad hominem or direct personal insults would almost certainly cause the guilty party enough points to lose if it didn't disqualify him outright.

A good debater will effectively dismantle his opponent's argument with fact, not emotion or prejudice or weak unsupportable assertions, and will present his own argument competently to make it difficult to dismantle.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 09/20/2018 at 02:29:43