lawrocket 3 #26 October 10, 2007 QuoteEconomic system which is based on cooperation rather than competition Ironically, to succeed in a free market, you must be cooperative. It is the seller who is best at cooperating with a buyer who excels. It is why relationships are so important in business. The competition in the free market is with other sellers - not the buyer. Quote and which utilizes centralized planning and distribution. Ah! So here we see it. Hierarchy. A class based system. The government is the planner and distributor. And we see with whom "cooperation" must be extended - the people cooperate with the government. If there is a central plan and distribution, it becomes inefficient for people to cooperate with each other, for each deviation from the central plan and distribution causes great headache to the central planner. QuoteYes health care for xhildren would be that. What is so wrong or scary about it ? Allowing some one to be in a better advantage latter in life to become self sufficient and more productive. Because you cannot take competition out of human nature. You cannot remove arrogance. And the "Tragedy of the Commons." If you'll recall, the Tragedy of the Commons involved the hypothetical situation of a common pasture used by all. Human nature is taken into account, whereupon each herder wishes to maximize his utilization of the free - but finite - resource. Thus, the herders will increase the size of their flock because they do not bear the costs of each additional animal and can maximize the yield. THE COMMONS BEARS THE COST. Thus, each individual herder bears all benefit increasing his herd. The cost is spread out and borne equally by all other herders. But since all herders, as competitive and selfish individuals, realize the benefit they can receive by adding additional animals, the commons will be overgrazed in the long term and all will face the consequence. This is an example of an externality - an impact on a person who is not a party to a particular transaction. These are almost always associated with public goods, like air, water, etc. Thus, when you fly up to altitude, you pollute my air - a public resource. Externalities CANNOT be avoided with public resources. When you turn healthcare into a public resource, all of these problems occur. Imagine a parent who today says, "We cannot yet afford to have children." Well, when someone else is paying for it, this is no longer an issue. There is a highly limited cost to having children for the person who bears the child since the costs are spread out to everyone else. The market constraint of having a child now becomes mostly eliminated. Ah, but everyone realizes it. In the short term, we have done some good things. But the Tragedy of the Commons will ensue. Social Security is a commons. It did great things for the first 20 years, but then as it became overly utilized, far more expensive than initially thought, and in the long term Social Security will face two choices: 1) die; or 2) no longer be a common. Governmental intervention is necessary with the air we breathe. It is necessary with our water supply. It is necessary with many things. Universal Health Care is NOT an investment in the future. It is an investment in receiving short-term votes and let the next generation deal with the problems. Why should it be any different than Social Security? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #27 October 10, 2007 QuoteAnd what is the problem with socialism? it seems that to many people here helping out unlucky childs would not be a bad thing if it wasn´t called socialism. It's the difference between donating $100 to charity and having $20 taken from you. It's because I choose where my generosity goes. Not some government official who seems so nice when he spends other peoples' money on other people. QuoteThey are not interested in profit. good when it is my health what it is at stake. Um, do taxes get paid for it? Is there a government entity out there that is NOT interested in bringing in as much tax money as possible? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #28 October 10, 2007 Do you feel this way about all government spending, or only that spending that helps other people? How, in the greater scheme of things, do YOU benefit if an underclass grows up with substandard health? The problem with relying on tax deductible charity is the tendency of the wealthy to support opera houses and symphony orchestras rather than soup kitchens. I guess having your name on a bronze plaque in the lobby of the city opera house looks better than having it in the lobby of a soup kitchen.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #29 October 10, 2007 QuoteWe shuold probably get away from free public schools. We have been doign that. Private schools are nothgin new. It turns out that in most cases, the kids get a superior education copared to what the public schools offer. Say hello to government healthcare versus private healthcare. QuoteHow about free public raods? We should have tollways on all roads. All roads are toll roads in a sense. We pay fuel taxes that are designed to fund constructions and maintenance of public roads. Federal gasoline taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon in the U.S. In California, as of July, 2007 we pay 62.8 cents per gallon in state and federal gasoline taxes. The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon. California has an 18 cent per gallon excise tax for roads, etc. The remainder of the gasoline taxes are for other state and local sales taxes. So any motor vehicle user pays to use the "free" roads. QuoteWe should have tollways on all roads. Is it not interesting that toll roads are making a comeback? Is it also not interesting that toll road users face a double whammy of paying taxes to use public roads and then pay a private toll? And there are private roads coming up all over the place because the government typically does a lousy job of fixing them when they are public. So homeowners associations take charge of maintenance. QuoteMaybe we should charge for air too...for those who can afford to breathe, Ah, now you are taking things a bit too extreme. It is pretty impossible to achieve ownership of air, and it is a true public resource. But, healthcare and air are not equivalent. It has only been recently that people have started looking at "healthcare" as a "right." Clean Air IS the responsibility of a government because something must regulate a commons. It doesn't work too well to insert charging for air as healthcare. A better comparison would be "air conditioning." Do we have a right to confortable air temperatures? Should the government ensure that heating and cooling are provided for free to all? It is not fair that some people can afford to keep the air conditioning at 72 in the summer while others keep it at 82 to help with energy costs. Actually, let us make electricity a right. The government will pay for the electrical supply needs of all people. There will be much rejoicing from the people when it is announced that the electrical grid will be federalized under federal government control. Now there will be no need to conserve - the government is paying for it! There will be no need to turn the television off at night. No need for efficient appliances. Just set the summer A/C for 65 and the winter heater for 76. It'll work, right? People have the right to electricity and power, and it simply is not fair that some people ave their utilities cut off. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #30 October 10, 2007 QuoteDo you feel this way about all government spending Most government spending. Any government spending that focuses the benefit and spreads the cost is somethign that I disagree with. Air quality? Heck, go for it. It spreads the benefit and focuses the cost on the creator of the externality. Those are fine. QuoteThe problem with relying on tax deductible charity is the tendency of the wealthy to support opera houses and symphony orchestras rather than soup kitchens. This is a value judgment that you are making. It so happens that I agree with you. My belief is that the tax deduction should be tested, because so many "nonprofits" are for-profits. If the deduction was for soup kitchens and other things, like the United Way or the Salvation Army, then most people would not have a problem with it. And the money I give to the Salvation Army would be better, in my opinion, than having the government take it from me. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #31 October 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteDo you feel this way about all government spending Most government spending. Any government spending that focuses the benefit and spreads the cost is somethign that I disagree with. Air quality? Heck, go for it. It spreads the benefit and focuses the cost on the creator of the externality. Those are fine. QuoteThe problem with relying on tax deductible charity is the tendency of the wealthy to support opera houses and symphony orchestras rather than soup kitchens. This is a value judgment that you are making. It so happens that I agree with you. My belief is that the tax deduction should be tested, because so many "nonprofits" are for-profits. Yes it is a value judgment. I like the symphony but I see no reason that my support for it should be assisted by the government (by way of a tax deduction). When I attend I don't see too many "poor" people benefitting, only those wealthy enough to pay their way anyway. I think soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc, should be in a different category altogether than opera companies. How would you deal with the children of a family that is thrust into poverty by, say, the death of the father. Let them stay sick?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #32 October 10, 2007 QuoteAny government spending that focuses the benefit and spreads the cost is somethign that I disagree with. So you are against high tech weaponry... they focus the benefit very nicely and spread the target out all over the place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #33 October 10, 2007 Quote I'll say it one more time--someone else's diaper-shitting crotch dropping is not my problem or responsibility. Fuck those who would make me pay for someone else's child. You breed 'em, you feed 'em. This must be those Right Wing Family Values we hear so much about. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #34 October 10, 2007 Quote Quote I'll say it one more time--someone else's diaper-shitting crotch dropping is not my problem or responsibility. Fuck those who would make me pay for someone else's child. You breed 'em, you feed 'em. This must be those Right Wing Family Values we hear so much about. I've never claimed to be right or left wing...Try again.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 October 10, 2007 QuoteHow would you deal with the children of a family that is thrust into poverty by, say, the death of the father. Let them stay sick? The government should be encoouraging the parents to be insured for such an event. I've got $2 million in coverage. It's enough to help my family out for a few years. Unfortunately, there is the societal EXPECTATION that the government will be there to help people out in this situation. The Commons. It would be nice, but it is simply not sustainable. And this is the place where private charity can assist those, as well. It is a difficult thing, Doctor. It really is, because it's the sort of thing that tugs at the heartstrings. However, Pragmatic solutions must be made. SUSTAINABLE solutions must be made. And any change that leads to personal responsibility is the proper change to make. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #36 October 10, 2007 QuoteWhy should I be forced to pay for the care and feeding of someone else's fuck-trophy Is this how you feel about your fellow citizens? Fuck everyone else ... me, me, me. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #37 October 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy should I be forced to pay for the care and feeding of someone else's fuck-trophy Is this how you feel about your fellow citizens? They're neither my problem, fault, nor obligation to help any more than the govt forces me to already.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #38 October 10, 2007 QuoteFuck everyone else ... me, me, me. How about Fuck you! You pay for my shit! Thats what they want. Everyone else to pick up the tab.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #39 October 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy should I be forced to pay for the care and feeding of someone else's fuck-trophy Is this how you feel about your fellow citizens? Fuck everyone else ... me, me, me. What do you expect? He's training to be a lawyer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #40 October 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteFuck everyone else ... me, me, me. How about Fuck you! You pay for my shit! Thats what they want. Everyone else to pick up the tab. Didn't YOU just admit to attending a taxpayer funded school?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #41 October 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy should I be forced to pay for the care and feeding of someone else's fuck-trophy Is this how you feel about your fellow citizens? Fuck everyone else ... me, me, me. It's actually THIS issue - everyone else is gettign fucked. I've decided using my hand is safer because I can't afford kids. And now I find out that I'm paying for their fun. And think about it - which is more of a "me, me, me" attitude? "Others should have to fork over the cash for my kids" or "I shouldn't have to fork over the cash for somebody else's kids." Is this how they feel about their feloow citizens? Cash cows and money trees to fund their lifestyles? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 October 10, 2007 QuoteQuotefind a way to charge by use for roads - great idea, hard to implement We already do that through gasoline taxes. and we're close to have the ability to charge for actual road usage. London already has the fee to enter the interior, San Francisco is starting to eyeball the notion. It's not too great a jump from Fastrak transponders for bridge crossings to billing for mileage in high use corridors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #43 October 10, 2007 QuoteSan Francisco is starting to eyeball the notion. So a government is looking at ways to make money by charging people to use what they already pay taxes to use? Hmmm. Who would have thought that a government would try to seek more money and profit? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #44 October 10, 2007 QuoteIt's not too great a jump from Fastrak transponders for bridge crossings to billing for mileage in high use corridors. Of course, the less well off will be given special "free" passes for such programs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 803 #45 October 10, 2007 I seriously doubt that the poor that truely need the child care the most would live what one would define as a "lifestyle". We need a more selfless mindset across the board...damnit people. I think some of you here wouldn't want an ambulance to be available unless they had a cash register mounted on the damn thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #46 October 10, 2007 QuoteI seriously doubt that the poor that truely need the child care the most would live what one would define as a "lifestyle". Why not? Some white trash having kid after kid, drinking beer and smoking meth but the kid is uninsured? WHat we need is looser adoption laws and to make it easier to terminate parental rights. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 803 #47 October 10, 2007 so you don't want the government to aide in the medical assistance, but the physical possesion of the children by the state would be ok? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #48 October 10, 2007 Quote so you don't want the government to aide in the medical assistance, but the physical possesion of the children by the state would be ok? Yep. If a parent cannot take care of a child, there are THOUSANDS of prospective adoptive parents to take care of these children. A parent cannot take care of the kid, then put the kid with someone who is willign to take care of the kid. Don't keep the kid with an irresponsible parent and have society foot the bill for the irresponsibility. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 803 #49 October 10, 2007 By no means would I disagree with your perspective on those situations. But back on topic...we're talking about health care for children, not bad parents. Being poor and underproveledged is not always by choice. Are you in favor of abrogating parental rights because they're poor? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #50 October 10, 2007 QuoteBeing poor and underproveledged is not always by choice. I disagree. As one who spent the first 6 years of life in section 8 housing, I know what it means to be poor. I know what it means to live off of Top Ramen for dinner. I know these things. My mom was 19 when she had me - and a twin sister. And my parents did something wholly unexpected in this world - they sacrificed to make sure that we were taken care of. I remember my dad driving a Pinto. My mom went to school and worked at night as a maid in an airport motel. My parents did not go out because they lacked the money. I ask you - whose choice is it to drop out of school? WHose choice is it to have a kid at 19? And how many people that make "mistakes" repeat the mistakes over and over and over? Being poor is something I was until I was 30 because I was a student. I am NOT in favor of abrogating parental rights because someone is poor. What I AM in favor of is enforcing some financial discipline on people. How many uninsured kids do you think have a Playstation? Or an I-Pod? Guess what I don't have? Ipods. And Playstations. I don't even keep my kegerator stocked anymore because I cut out drinking for the last couple of months to save money. I have some cases where the clients are, by most measures, poor. Some of them have a parent who spends more money than he has. Some having drinking and drug issues. Some have other issues. And some keep their kids insured and forego many of these self-pleasing things for their kids. A full time job TYPICALLY comes with insurance benefits. How many of these uninsured kids could be insured if ONE parent got a full time job? "$110 per month for health insurance? That's 5 jump tickets!" This attitude is not uncommon, is it? Let's let them jump. And for those who think it's unfair to pay your share of taking care of those kids, what do you expect? A parent to forego five jumps a month to insure his kid? So selfish and heartless of you. p.s. - guess why I haven't made a jump in four years. Hin t - my oldest has already turned 3. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
