Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare by Niki2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
hostility is an automatic reaction, a way to defend a belief in the face of evidence against it. When argument fails, belligerence and defensiveness saves the day.

Right on. And that's how Rappy, and others, deflect the topic without replying. You forgot to add that exactly the same method works to turn the topic from one thing onto something completely different, which it does just as well from what I see.

Wow, this started out one way and ended up another. Wild how that happens! (And that wasn't a reference to the above remark.)

As to believing in evolution AND creationism, isn't that what 'Intelligent Design' is all about? The concept that "God" created the world, then let it go to see what happened?

If I believed in a god, I might be tempted to feel the same, but for ME, there's been enough scientific evidence to put me firmly on the side of science and evolution, in that matter.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I didn't present my speculations as fact or science. Why should my musings about possible economic motivations have any scientific rigor in them?

Um.... Because questioning the scientific rigor of the studies makes "scientific rigor" kind of THE central issue? Because you saw fit to offer a lecture on the scientific method, thus setting yourself up as something of an expert? Because you're interested in forming ideas based on real, provable, reality? Or maybe because, as you said yourself...

"Lower quality evidence = less confidence. A LOT of lower quality evidence = still less confidence."

...and you'd like people to have some confidence in the ideas you present?

Quote:
Now, be nice and stop calling me a hypocrite. Or I won't buy Ruddiman's book. :P

Stop being hypocritical or there's really no point. :p

Cause let's review: You came out and claimed that scientists are using methods that "do not meet scientific rigor" and that therefore "it is correct to point the shortcomings out." Apparently you meant that it is correct for you point out the shortcomings of other people's methods, but it is not correct for me to call out the shortcomings of your methods.

Hypocrisy?

You say: "Less confidence does not mean the hypothesis is dismissed. It just means I am much more open to the possibility that it may be wrong. The lower quality the evidence is, the more I am unwilling to commit to any conclusions until I see better, harder evidence." And yet if I want better, harder evidence from you because I am open to the possibility that you may be wrong, I'm not "playing nice".

Hypocrisy?

You say: "My reasons for outcry over cap and trade is very different from my outcry over global warming. The first outcry is over cost to businesses and society, and the second outcry is over intellectual exaggeration if not outright fraud."

You flat-out call a body of scientific work "fraud" without showing any of that hard evidence you demand from the scientists involved.

Hypocrisy?

Name-calling?

Get as affronted as you like, I never said that YOU were guilty of fraud. Perhaps you thought you were name-calling into the void with no one to hear you, but not so. You threw that word into the face of every scientist out here. I have been trying to respond to your accusation with a reasonable discussion of the science. Are you capable of doing the same?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 11:03 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Mal4Prez...

Stop being so raciss.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
hostility is an automatic reaction, a way to defend a belief in the face of evidence against it. When argument fails, belligerence and defensiveness saves the day.
Right on. And that's how Rappy, and others, deflect the topic without replying. You forgot to add that exactly the same method works to turn the topic from one thing onto something completely different, which it does just as well from what I see.

Yup. Even if I know nothing about a subject, I can figure out how deep someone else's knowledge is. I just keep asking: "but why?" until they get mad.

It does make me some un-friends sometimes. Plenty of examples of that on this board.

I don't try to be mean, but if other people are going to raise the "hostility" shield and batter themselves on it, that's no reason for me to run and hide.

I don't think folks like Antimason and Causal (and my mom!) are aware of what they do. It's just automatic. But I think it's different with Rappy. He knows exactly what he's doing; he just likes to mess with people.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 2:32 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Mal4Prez...

Stop being so raciss.

According to you, Wulfboy, the mere act of you saying that proves that you have nothing else.

Is that true? Can you confirm that for us? Do you really have nothing to offer?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 2:38 PM

KWICKO

Quote:

As to believing in evolution AND creationism, isn't that what 'Intelligent Design' is all about? The concept that "God" created the world, then let it go to see what happened?

It's a stupid concept to start with. These are the same people who claim that this "god" person is all-knowing and all-powerful. Why would a being who KNOWS how it's all going to turn out need to start something and let it go to see how it all turns out?

Does not compute. But that's the problem with this idiotic "god" person - nothing but a bundle of asinine and contradictions, wrapped in hypocrisy, hyperbole, and hypotheticals.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 2:47 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

I don't think folks like Antimason and Causal (and my mom!) are aware of what they do. It's just automatic. But I think it's different with Rappy. He knows exactly what he's doing; he just likes to mess with people.

And some of us like to mess right back. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 3:14 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

As to believing in evolution AND creationism, isn't that what 'Intelligent Design' is all about? The concept that "God" created the world, then let it go to see what happened?

No, intelligent design is the theory that a supernatural being took an active hand in the design of all life.

There are a lot of people who believe that a supernatural being created the life spark of the universe and then let it go on it's course. They would still believe in evolution and a lot of Christians hold that belief.

Creationism is the belief that the world began around 6,000 years ago, created by a supernatural being known as God, basically the way that it is laid out in Genesis.

So to believe in creationism and evolution simultansously would be pretty difficult.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 4:55 PM

Fine. I will address the issue of hypocrisy one last time. But if you still don't get what I am trying to say, I will say we don't have enough common ground to invest in and move forward with a real debate. This horse has been beat to death.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Because you saw fit to offer a lecture on the scientific method, thus setting yourself up as something of an expert?

Yes, I am setting myself as an "expert" on the scientific method. At least, I am claiming to know what the scientific method is.

Quote:
Because you're interested in forming ideas based on real, provable, reality?

But see here. Not ALL my ideas are based on real, provable reality. Get that? Certain ideas of mine fall within the scope of science and require scientific proof. Other ideas are religious, philosophical, subjective, based on personal values and experiences. Those DO NOT require scientific proof.

I homeschool and believe it is what's best for my children. Do I have scientific, empirical proof of that? No. Do I need to? No. Homeschooling is not a scientific issue. See?

I think paranormal phenomena and aliens exist. Do I have scientific proof? No. Do I need to? No. While these topics could be the subject of scientific study, my speculation is NOT scientific. It is speculation based on personal experiences and values. I am not imposing this particular idea on others, so I don't really need proof for it. See?

I think mercury is a neurotoxin that should be reduced or eliminated from industrial emissions. Do I have scientific proof? Yes. Not extremely hard proof, but hard enough where I see support for taking precautions. Do I need it? Yes. Because I am claiming there is science to prove it, so I should show the proof. Moreover, I want others to take positive action based on my idea, so I need to demonstrate objective evidence.

I am skeptical about Suspect A committing the murder. Do I have scientific proof? No. You don't need to know who committed the murder AND be able to prove it to doubt that Suspect A did it. Do I need it? No. All you need is to point out certain inconsistencies that underlie the skepticism.

If GW were just a speculation, I might take a fancy to it. But we're talking about forcing our nation to shoulder huge costs to act on this. THEN, I require much more proof and rigor.

Do you see now, the difference between a position requiring empirical proof that has scientific rigor, vs personal preferences, personal fantasies, and skepticism/reasonable doubt?

Because if you don't, I think we have too many voculary and language differences to communicate with each other effectively.

Quote:
...and you'd like people to have some confidence in the ideas you present?

Sure. But I would expect their confidence to be commensurate with the level of proof I offer. Re oil and carbon sequestration, I already stipulated that it was speculation, and I didn't have any proof. If you have no confidence in it, that is perfectly fine with me. I don't have any confidence in it. What's the problem? Am I not allowed to speculate?

Quote:

Cause let's review: You came out and claimed that scientists are using methods that "do not meet scientific rigor" and that therefore "it is correct to point the shortcomings out."

Correct.

Quote:
Apparently you meant that it is correct for you point out the shortcomings of other people's methods, but it is not correct for me to call out the shortcomings of your methods.

You did point out shortcomings, and I acknowledged them. I also acknowledged that I had no "methods" regarding this one speculation--cause you know, it's speculation.

So where did you get the impression that "it was not correct"? My only contention that it was not hypocritical. Accepting shortcomings and being hypocritical are two different things.

Quote:
And yet if I want better, harder evidence from you because I am open to the possibility that you may be wrong, I'm not "playing nice".

Better, harder evidence about a speculation? Not going to happen--definition of speculation. Better, harder evidence about why I am skeptical about GW? I said that would have to come in a different, more detailed debate.

The not-playing-nice part only applies to your insistence that somehow, not having "better, harder evidence" for a speculation about economics is hypocritical.

Quote:
You say: "My reasons for outcry over cap and trade is very different from my outcry over global warming. The first outcry is over cost to businesses and society, and the second outcry is over intellectual exaggeration if not outright fraud."

You flat-out call a body of scientific work "fraud" without showing any of that hard evidence you demand from the scientists involved.

First, I flat out said it was intellectual exaggeration. I did not flat out say it was fraud. Note the meaning of, "if not."

Second, what about "later in a different debate" don't you understand? I pointed out the holes in THEIR evidence in general, but if you want specifics, that will take some time and thought.

Quote:
I have been trying to respond to your accusation with a reasonable discussion of the science. Are you capable of doing the same?

Of course I am.

But what worries me is with this focus on hypocrisy, 1) you do not appear to understand the words coming out of my keyboard, and 2) you appear intent on attacking me personally as a hypocrite rather than my positions on GW.

I am not the best communicator on earth. I recognize that I can say the same thing 500 different ways and still fail to communicate to many people the ideas in my head. I am rapidly suspecting that you might be one of the people to whom my communication limitations apply. If this is the case, I could invest huge amounts of time in a real nitty-gritty debate, and you still won't hear me.

Now mind you, I have debated with plenty of people who disagreed with me. But we had enough common ground in vocabulary that despite being on polar opposites on a certain issue, we are able to move ahead quickly rather than rehash what "speculation" means or what "hypocrisy" means or what "science" means. I was hoping you'd be one of those people, but I'm losing hope.

Again, this is the last try I am throwing out there. If you still insist on calling me a hypocrite, the debate is closed on my end. But thank you very much for your time up to now. You can think of me as the worst hypocrite in the world, to your heart's content.

In case we never do debate, here are two articles that explains some of my doubts about GW very nicely. I'll leave you with that.

http://freedom2question.blogspot.com/2008/11/elusive-standard-deviatio
n.html

http://freedom2question.blogspot.com/2008/11/will-real-co2-please-stan
d-up.html

Edited to add: I like this one too.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. -- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 2:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Yes, I am setting myself as an "expert" on the scientific method. At least, I am claiming to know what the scientific method is.

And yet, you apparently can't have an extended discussion of the factual basis of your claims? You post a few links and tell me to go look things up? As interested as I am in having this discussion, I feel very little motivation to put time into going to those latest links and presenting your research for you, especially since the research I presented above fell dead.

I have tried and tried to have that factual discussion of Climate Change with you, but after about a post and a half what I keep getting is some variation: "Well, I don't need to get into that because I am not a scientist and my ideas are "religious, philosophical, subjective, based on personal values and experiences. Those DO NOT require scientific proof"

Quote:
I think paranormal phenomena and aliens exist. Do I have scientific proof? No. Do I need to?

Huh? I'm not and have never been talking about your home-schooling methods, paranormal phenomena, aliens, etc. I have very specifically been addressing your claim that Climate Change is "not scientific rigorous" "if not a fraud" (if you didn't mean to suggest it's a fraud you shouldn't have used the word and gone on to talk about the reasons for the fraud!)

In your own words, your objections to climate change are NOT religious or philosophical. You very specifically raised questioned "scientific rigor". So now I'm confused. Did you mean that or not? Is this temperature data actually what you mean as a "religious, philosophical, subjective" issue? Because if that's what you mean, then we do have a pretty uncrossable divide. In my world, religion, philosophy, and personal belief are most emphatically NOT part of scientific rigor.

Quote:
But what worries me is with this focus on hypocrisy, 1) you do not appear to understand the words coming out of my keyboard, and 2) you appear intent on attacking me personally as a hypocrite rather than my positions on GW.

I have been trying to follow up on claims you made, I have been trying to discuss facts with you, and have put some time and effort into presented my own ideas. You are the one who keeps turning this personal by saying you don't need to have a discussion of any scientific rigor because all this is your personal belief system.

You see how that works? If you make it all about *you* rather than about discussion the details of the science and the economics, it becomes all about you. Believe me, I'd MUCH rather discuss any of the issues we've touched on, but you're not letting me! You keep turning it back to you.

Things we could be talking about: Ruddiman's figures (they can be looked at and discussed even if you don't have the book in your hand), the details of your husband's 20% number, the exact process of sequestration, the earnings to be made or lost by climate change legislation, or your links to the temperature data.

I will even go to these links and read up, but at this point I'd need some assurance that I'd get a discussion in return, rather than a brush-off and a: "well, I may look into it later IF you're nice to me." Even if I disagree with what I find in those links. I need you to be able to see any disagreement with those links as scientific disagreement, rather than an attack on you.

And you may want to think about this: if this belief of yours is "religious, philosophical, subjective, based on personal values and experiences", is it even possible for someone to disagree with your stance in a way that won't feel to you like a personal attack?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 3:59 AM

We don't have enough of a common vocabulary to engage in a lengthy debate, Mal. If we don't agree on the meaning of the words, "later," "skepticism," "speculation," "hypocrite," etc., what chance do we have to discuss what "climate change" and "science" means?

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I have tried and tried to have that factual discussion of Climate Change with you...

And I've tried and tried to say, "LATER, after I've read Ruddiman's book and have had some time to formulate the kind of rigorous defense you are looking for. THEN we can engage in the factual debate you want on a separate thread."

Apparently I have to jump into it on your command or I am a hypocrite.

Eh. Hypocrite I am.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 4:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Things we could be talking about: Ruddiman's figures (they can be looked at and discussed even if you don't have the book in your hand),..

I can't talk about someone's "figures" just because some anonymous person posted those "figures" on the internet. That is not how I roll.

I have to read the original research, from the original source, and study its methodology, results, and discussion as intended by the author. All "figures" have to be understood in that context or else they don't have much meaning to me. Sorry, my training as a scientist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Things we could be talking about: Ruddiman's figures (they can be looked at and discussed even if you don't have the book in your hand),..

I can't talk about someone's "figures" just because some anonymous person posted those "figures" on the internet. That is not how I roll.

Huh. So now you're all scientific rigor. It does seem to come and go.

But this is another place you and I differ: I like to hear people expand on things they post. You know, to carry out a discussion. I can learn the context of the matter from what the person has to say, and at least get some of their point of view, even if they don't get all the details right. I can look things up myself if I have doubts. I'd wish you could have extended that kind of courtesy to me about Ruddiman--to at least hear me out, as I tried my best to hear you out--but I can see that's not your way.

I have made a resolution to never again walk away from a RWED discussion unless the other person is truly a waste of time (Rappy) which is the reason I've stuck with this, long after it became a beaten dead horse. I don't want to do the dramatic calling-it-quits thing, because I think we both are better than that.

I think you have great ideas, if only you'd dispassionately let them be discussed and debated. I'll be here whenever you want to pick it up again.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 8:07 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"...intelligent design is the theory that a supernatural being took an active hand in the design of all life". Ah, thank you Magons for clarifying that. I thought it was about the "spark" thing, which is different. If I were to believe in a "god", the spark thing would work for me. If.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 1:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, on the actual topic y'all left me in the dust with my head spinning a long time ago, but it seems one of the conundrums you're facing is that people are human, they believe in things, and balancing scientific input with life experience and faith isn't always the easiest proposition for some, and when discussions reach that point it is kind of impolite to ridicule the faith part even if one disagrees - not that I ain't as guilty, or more, of it than anyone else, given my hostility to such things in the first place.

But mankind, humans... we don't mentally operate on pure science, no one really does, there ARE things we take on faith, I mean what is our reality but merely the input of several senses processed by a black box process we've only begun to understand at all, and what is knowledge but our collective agreement on that sensory input.

Sure, maybe that sounds a bit mystical, but neither science nor faith should ever go unquestioned, for if anyone has ever noticed those periods when it is not are the darkest of all human history, and without the questioning of heretics, few if any advancements are ever made and sometimes even lost.

Testing science and faith against each other, unless a person suffers the mental aberrations of investment in a belief to the point of trying to enforce it upon others with violence, an all too common one in this dark day and age, should refine and strengthen either.

And this for a fact - Faith can be wrong, Science can be wrong, and it is only by pressing the question that one can figure out the how and where, and learn from the experience.

Remember, even now there are still people that believe human nature is inherently evil, despite plenty of evidence that both the science and faith behind that original assessment was badly flawed if not malicious in intent.

So always, ALWAYS question it, even and especially when it seems most sound, whether it be faith, personal experience, or science.

When a person fails to do that, when they stop learning and think they know all that is important for them to know - a part of them dies.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I'd wish you could have extended that kind of courtesy to me about Ruddiman--to at least hear me out, ...

I did, Mal. I did. It's the only reason I'm buying Ruddiman's book: because I did hear you out, and what you said was intriguing.

Quote:
I think you have great ideas, if only you'd dispassionately let them be discussed and debated. I'll be here whenever you want to pick it up again.

I'll pick it up again when you stop calling me a hypocrite. I was dispassionate until I felt personally attacked. Again, that's not how I roll. Sorry. I would have continued the discussion on sequestration if you had just asked those questions without the accusations of hypocrisy.

We don't speak the same language, Mal. That is not to say mine is right, and yours is wrong. We just speak different languages. I'm going to read Ruddiman's book. But I won't be arguing about it with you.

Why would you want to discuss anything with a hypocrite anyway?

Edited to add:
My decision to walk away is not a reflection of your personhood as a "waste of time." Rather, it has been my experience that when two people speak different languages, it is too much work to advance ANY argument. (Witness how long it took us to discuss JUST the "hypocrisy" issue, and it's still not resolved.) In such cases, I think the debate is too inefficient (too much time wasted on too little progess) to pursue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
So always, ALWAYS question it, even and especially when it seems most sound, whether it be faith, personal experience, or science.

Frem, the fount of wisdom.

Notice one of my links is to a blog called "Freedom 2 Question."

I am all for questioning. That is why I'm here, with you pigheaded folks. Hahaha.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So now you're all scientific rigor. It does seem to come and go.

Let me explain it using small words.

If I am talking about science, I use science.

If I am talking about something that is not science, I don't use science.

See? :)

-----
“Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." --- Dr. Wayne Dyer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So now you're all scientific rigor. It does seem to come and go.

Let me explain it using small words.

If I am talking about science, I use science.

If I am talking about something that is not science, I don't use science.

OK. I'm getting your vocabulary. For you, accusing scientists of not being scientifically rigorous about a scientific matter is NOT talking science. When those IPCC people present their stuff, now that's science and you oughta judge them hard and fast and be so absolutely certain that they're not using good science so that you can call it pseudo-science and that means that when you knock their science you're not talking science and you need not solidly back anything because it's not really science.

Of course, except that you know that their science is bad because you're a trained scientist talking science, except remember that it's not really science in the sense that you need no science to support your view of how much the climate change -- scratch that, GW -- science sucks other then to say how you've heard some things here and there, and that certainly knocks down all the GW science -- scratch that, all the GW pseudo-science -- and besides there's this web page that tells about the bad science in full scientific detail that you don't need to take the time to explain because...

...wait for it...

you're not talking science.

Check.

(God that was fun.)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 3:15 PM

Niki

I don't think they're inconsistent beliefs.

1. If there were no govt. there would be no licensing, and no regulation, and there would be no AMA.

2. I don't have to guess that these things are the very things which make healthcare expensive, because I remember when healthcare was not expensive, and I'm guessing that most of the people on this board do. When I was a kid, a trip to the doctor cost around $3. My mom just went to the hospital for pneumonia, and the visit was routine, probably above par, but less attention and accuracy than you would have gotten even 30 years ago, for around $1500.

3. Given 1) and 2) the government has created a situation in which healthcare is not something that people can afford. If this is the case, then there has to be something which protects the people from having to pay it.

Think of this from another angle. My 2nd amendment right to have my own personal nuclear weapon is being infringed upon. Fortunately, my govt. works to protect me from nuclear attack. Okay, granted, the govt. created the problem by creating the bomb in the first place, and then making enemies, etc. but still, now the problem is here, and it needs dealing with.

Sure, no govt or limited govt. is an end goal, but not one to be hailed tomorrow morning, because there are a lot of american citizens with their own social security numbers and papers in order and they pay taxes and everything, oh boy, and yet I still feel uneasy with some of them toting around nuclear missiles, especially some of them being the sorts who might blow themselves up with nukes just to spite their parents and every form of sentient life for many miles around. (ah yes, nuclear teen angst)

So, yes, govt. performs a function in protecting you from a govt. created situation. Yeah, ultimately, I would much rather go to the doctor myself and pay regular cash, whatever it really merits, the result of the devaluation of three bucks, probably the $60 my local clinic charges, not $1500. When they prescribe me medicine, it should cost a couple dollars, not $200. If I want to completely opt out of the system, treat myself with herbs that I grow myself, that should be an option, and no one should fine my family $750 a head for doing so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 3:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So, yes, govt. performs a function in protecting you from a govt. created situation. Yeah, ultimately, I would much rather go to the doctor myself and pay regular cash, whatever it really merits, the result of the devaluation of three bucks, probably the $60 my local clinic charges, not $1500. When they prescribe me medicine, it should cost a couple dollars, not $200. If I want to completely opt out of the system, treat myself with herbs that I grow myself, that should be an option, and no one should fine my family $750 a head for doing so.

I completely agree with the gist of what you're saying. My take: suppose I break my arm. Suppose my neighbor is a doctor with full training in setting bones. Why is there no easy path to getting us together at a mutually agreed on price? Even damned chickens.

Why does the patient/doctor relationship go through so many middlemen?

So I see this healthcare bill as having two general possibilities: either the govt is being added as another useless middleman to be paid off, or it is the first step in breaking the choke-hold that the HMOs and big hospital conglomerations have on our medical care.

I don't think there's a clean answer to that, because I think interests on both sides have their hands in this bill. It could go either way. But I think - cautiously hopeful - that it's closer to the second.

Because HMOs are there to make profit, while govt is - or should be - there to serve the people. We have more control over govt. then we do over the small table of CEOs.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 4:08 PM

Mal

I suspect the bill will pull us in deeper in locking the industry to the practice.

Maybe you live in the middle of nowhere like I do. We had a small town doctor who died some years back. Another doctor came here from Slovakia to take over. It lasted a couple of years, but the regulations required him to have certain equipment, that equipment was under patent, those patents demanded high licensing fees that only a hospital could afford, the hospital was only willing to loan it out if the operation turned a profit. It didn't, because there weren't enough patients, because there wasn't enough population... so...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 12:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mal

I suspect the bill will pull us in deeper in locking the industry to the practice.

Maybe you live in the middle of nowhere like I do. We had a small town doctor who died some years back. Another doctor came here from Slovakia to take over. It lasted a couple of years, but the regulations required him to have certain equipment, that equipment was under patent, those patents demanded high licensing fees that only a hospital could afford, the hospital was only willing to loan it out if the operation turned a profit. It didn't, because there weren't enough patients, because there wasn't enough population... so...

Good lord. Reminds me of trying to get any cable internet company other than the Comcast out in VT. I called every one company in the phonebook - Federal laws prevented them from laying and using lines in my part of the state.

Should have figured the same bullcrap happens with doctors.

But with the bill, I have to ask: what route is there to fixing this messed up system? Anything giving people a choice so we can vote that way - choose not to use the big companies, is the right direction.

OK, and now I'm dreaming that the public option had passed.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 2:48 AM

Public option should be passed by states now. That would free us from the insurance companies grips. Also, I'm in favor of removing the requirement that corporations pay for health care, that just puts a fat cow to give perpetual food to the insurance industry. Instead, have corporations pay tax, then have the tax pay for the public option, then have the govt. negotiate with the healthcare providers and the drug companies.

Okay, I see the flaw in this plan: They'd just take over the govt.

Slight twist: Make several recipient non-profit corporations, no screw that, for profit corporations (if there's no profit in the company, they'll find it in corruption.) Then these companies can make competitive bids to pay for healthcare.

Whatever it is, the long term goal has to be bringing the price down to normal, and then cutting it free, except for the people so poor they can't afford a $60 visit.

Right now I think a decent rough estimate is around 90% of healthcare costs are absolute air, and would require no change. After that, I think you could trim it by maybe two thirds by being logical.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 7:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Make several recipient non-profit corporations, no screw that, for profit corporations (if there's no profit in the company, they'll find it in corruption.) Then these companies can make competitive bids to pay for healthcare

As I read it, that was kind of the idea of the public option, wasn't it? The government wasn't going to PROVIDE the healthcare, just charge the actual cost of the healthcare, eliminating profit, skyrocketing administrative costs, high salaries for insurance CEOs, etc., and negotiate lower costs for healthcare. I could be wrong.

As to nonprofits "finding" it through corruption, I believe the worst corruption in things like Medicare is from the PROVIDERS and the PATIENTS, not the nonprofit Medicare system itself, or am I wrong? I've worked with a lot of nonprofits; aside from over-paying their heads (in my opinion), I've seen little or no corruption making anyone rich. Just my experience.

I reject the idea that the government is to blame for the higher cost of health insurance, or health care. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
... and besides there's this web page that tells about the bad science in full scientific detail that you don't need to take the time to explain because...
you're not talking science.

Wow. That diatribe was downright mean. I must say, I'm surprised. I didn't expect that from you, Mal.

When I'm talking about science, I use science. I don't necessarily want to go into the complex details of the science right now, right on demand. Esp with someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word, "later."

I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, that somehow you just have a different definition of "later." Now I'm convince you don't know what "later" means.

So, no more "later." I AM writing you off now, Mal. Have a good life.

-----
“Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." --- Dr. Wayne Dyer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I reject the idea that the government is to blame for the higher cost of health insurance, or health care. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I don't think the enormous cost of clinical trials and licensing of drugs/physicians and malpractice lawsuits/insurance, which are ultimately absorbed by the consumer, can be disputed.

When you reject the idea that the government is to blame for the higher cost of health care, do you mean these costs are justified and unavoidable?

What DO you blame for the higher costs of health care? Or do you think current health care costs are fair and cannot be reasonably lowered?

-----
“Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." --- Dr. Wayne Dyer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:14 PM

Niki,

ya missed my point, a few times, i'll try again

1) Corruption comes from the existence of power, not from any structural form of organization. Any corporation can be corrupt. Medicare possesses no power, the healthcare industry has a lot..

2) Competition between contractors for the provision of the *insurance*, not the healthcare. I thought I made that clear. The public option creates a govt. agency that would handle how the system should be paid. That *handing* is power. If there is power, there will be corruption. In this case, the corruption is that the healthcare providers would take over the regulatory agency which made those decisions to ensure that they spent more money.

3) You can choose to disagree, but it's not a matter of opinion, I was simply stating and clarifying a fairly obvious fact. Sure, most everything we say is opinion. Sometimes there is one thing which is right, and another which is wrong, such as that Hu Jintao is the leader of China, and not the leader of Japan.

Specifically, the fact here is the advent of the intervention of *our* govt. into *this* healthcare system, which was accompanied by soaring prices, sort of like the coincidence of college tuition and the trading of student loans. It's sort of obvious that one caused the other, even though, yes, correlation does not prove causality, because when you have enough statistical data, and any reason, then it makes sense, failing something else.

If you have any competing theory on what drove up the cost of US medical care and not that of the rest of the free market medical world feel free to share. Personally, I cannot logically conclude anything other than a US regulation would be the potential cause, and was postulating a possible mechanism for the relationship.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 6:07 PM

ANTIMASON

to attack the tea-party as a whole, for general differences in policy or principle among some of the people who associate themselves with the label.. is like marginalizing hollywood and its contributions to film, because of a few mentally deficient schizophrenics that occupy the place. its rediculous. how about the substance of the debate, which is a return to the US constitution? explain to me why thats a bad idea

id love to get rid of Medicare. unfortunately, we've created an entire class of people dependant on this service.. so maybe pulling the rug out immediately, isnt the greatest idea. of course.. creating another trillion dollar entitlement on top of it, and clainming to pay for it by trasferring non-existent money from an account thats virtually insolvant anyways is just incredible account gimmickry only a leftist could appreciate

you know, we could talk all day about some of the inconsistencies in liberal ideology. lets start with the most glaring, that being a party that promotes civil liberties, meanwhile simultaneously encouraging government to grow so large and intrusive, that it becomes the final arbitor of those 'rights'. so what do we get? dont let the government decide what a woman does with her body! except when she needs a doctors visit.. someones gotta pay for that. and dont try to regulate your own bodily intake of salt, trans fats or marijuana- we're too stupid to take care of ourselves- government knows best. we want equality! except when it comes to the poor, minorities, homosexuals and transgenders- they deserve special privelages under the law. we hate lobbyists and special interests, break their stranglehold on policy! just dont take governments ability away to interject itself in every segment and niche of the marketplace(thereby enabling the 'lobbying')

and yet, to the left, limited government advocates are the asbolutely intolerable ones. why the constant demoniziation of americans, upset at a government which has bankrupted its peoples futures? meanwhile, you throw your support behind.. what? the millions of illegal immigrants who are up in arms, demanding access to taxpayer funded entitlements such schools, hospitals, prisons, jobs? and yet, no mention of that fact that maybe, if liberals hadnt pushed this wellfare/entitlement state on us, we could have unfettered immigration. but because we are bankrupt, and can barely pay for these services for american.. we must be 'racists! racist.. if we dont want to open our borders and wellfare state to the entire world. im anxious for those charges of racism, should we be compelled to enforce the northern border.. curious how thatll be spun

this is insanity!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 9:18 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

CantTake: Did I say I rejected the government completely for the high costs? If so, I misspoke; I meant to say I reject the government as the SOLE, or even the BIGGEST cause. What do I blame? I’ll get to that in a minute. As to

Quote:
I don't think the enormous cost of clinical trials and licensing of drugs/physicians and malpractice lawsuits/insurance, which are ultimately absorbed by the consumer, can be disputed.

Clinical trials are done by the pharmaceutical companies; are you saying the government is responsible for that? They’d have to do clinical trials no matter what, wouldn’t they? Licensing isn’t that expensive, as far as I know; malpractice insurance definitely IS, but that’s because people can sue. You don’t think lawyers would find a way for them to sue, you blame the government for making malpractice illegal? If they hadn’t, doctors could do whatever they want; do you prescribe to the “doctor as god” principle, or do you believe we are entitled to some protection? Certainly I agree that it’s gone out of bounds, but the basic reasons for “malpractice” are, to me, valid. I blame the lawyers for expanding it and profiting from it, not the government.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 9:19 AM

http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec22/ch340/ch340b.html

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT: I’m not sure what you meant by missing your point(s). I was responding to your words:

Quote:
if there's no profit in the company, they'll find it in corruption.

I responded that the nonprofits I’ve worked for and with haven’t been responsible for corruption and that the corruption I’ve heard of in MEDICARE is mostly fraud on the part of providers and patients.

Then:

Quote:
Given 1) and 2) the government has created a situation in which healthcare is not something that people can afford.

and

Quote:
Personally, I cannot logically conclude anything other than a US regulation would be the potential cause

As to

Quote:
Specifically, the fact here is the advent of the intervention of *our* govt. into *this* healthcare system, which was accompanied by soaring prices, sort of like the coincidence of college tuition and the trading of student loans [you didn’t finish that sentence]. It's sort of obvious that one caused the other, even though, yes, correlation does not prove causality, because when you have enough statistical data, and any reason, then it makes sense, failing something else.

I disagree that it’s obvious one causes the other. As to

Quote:
Personally, I cannot logically conclude anything other than a US regulation would be the potential cause

Here is what I believe, as do many researcherst:

Quote:
Health care costs in the US are disproportionately high for many reasons.

Use of costly new technologies and drugs: Such use may be the largest single factor increasing health care costs. Use may be appropriate or inappropriate, but in either case, cost is increased.

Increased costs of health care goods and services: Drug costs have increased. One reason is the increasing cost of developing a new drug, often in the vicinity of $1 billion. The cost of drug development decreases the economic incentive to develop drugs with lower profit potentials or public health in general (eg, vaccines, antibiotics).

Marketing of new drugs and devices: Intensive marketing to physicians and consumers (with direct-to-consumer advertising) has been suggested as a cause of overuse of costly new technologies and drugs. Some of these new measures may be no more effective than older, less costly ones.

Overuse of specialty care: Specialists are increasingly providing more care; reasons may include a decreasing number of primary care physicians and an increased desire by patients to see a specialist.

Specialty care is often more expensive than primary care; specialists have higher fees and may do more testing (often pursuing less common diagnoses) than primary care physicians. Also, evaluation and treatment of a patient who could have been managed by a single primary care physician may require more than one specialist.

High administrative costs: The percentage of health care dollars spent on administration is estimated to be 20 to > 30%. Most administrative costs are generated by private insurance, and most of those costs are generated by marketing and underwriting, processes that do not improve medical care. Also, the existence of numerous private insurance plans in the same geographic area typically increases health care providers' costs by making processing (eg, claim submission, coding) complicated and time-consuming

Physician fees: Physicians in the US are more highly compensated relative to other professionals than physicians in many other countries. This disparity occurs partly because physicians in other countries typically spend far less on their medical education and malpractice insurance than those in the US and have lower office overhead.

Malpractice costs: The issue of malpractice adds to the cost of medicine directly and indirectly (by triggering defensive medicine).

The direct cost is the malpractice insurance premiums paid by physicians, other providers, health care institutions, and medical drug and device manufacturers. These premiums, which cover claim settlements and malpractice insurance company overhead and profits, must ultimately be paid from health care revenues.

Defensive medicine: Defensive medicine refers to diagnostic or treatment procedures that providers do to guard against the possibility of malpractice litigation, even though such procedures may not be warranted clinically. For example, a physician may hospitalize a patient who is likely to do well with outpatient treatment to avoid a lawsuit in the unlikely event of an adverse outcome.

Aging of the population: Although often cited as a factor, population aging is probably not responsible for recent increased costs because the generation now in old age has not yet increased disproportionately; also, more effective health care has tended to delay serious illness in this generation. However, the aging of baby boomers may affect costs more as the proportion of the population > 65 increases from about 12% currently to about 20% after 2030.

Quote:
The New York Times’ Paul Krugman noted that a major reason for the high spending is $98 billion a year in excessive administrative costs.

U.S. doctors’ high average incomes of $274,000 for specialists and $173,000 for general practitioners are the source of another $58 billion of the difference each year. The high costs are not due to doctors’ charges per procedure, but to how many patients they see and how many procedures they perform – a volume of business 60 percent higher here than elsewhere.

The U.S. also spends $57- $66 billion a year more for drugs than other developed countries, mostly because drug companies are able to charge, on average, 60 to 70 percent more for brand-name prescription drugs.

The study estimates the cost of providing full medical care to all of America’s uninsured at $77 billion annually.
Quote:
http://acpp.info/2007/03/02/study-examines-reasons-behind-high-us-heal
th-care-costs/
Quote:
Factors that contribute to current high levels of U.S. expenditures, inefficiency, and waste. overuse, inappropriate, or ineffective use of care;

• payment incentives that reward the delivery of more services, without consideration to clinical value or cost-effectiveness;

• market power of insurers, providers, and the health industry, including pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and other suppliers to set prices above competitive market levels;

• a low ratio of primary to specialty care physicians and services;

• access barriers to preventive and primary care that contribute to avoidable hospital admissions, emergency department use, and complications of chronic and acute disease;

• a lack of well-coordinated care that leads to unsafe, duplicative, or conflicting care;

• inadequate information systems and information exchange; and

• high administrative costs, including the high proportion of insurance premiums used to cover overhead costs, the complexity of insurance benefit design and duplicative and uncoordinated requirements, and administrative costs for providers.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Davis_slowinggrowthUShltcareex
penditureswhatareoptions_989.pdf?section=4039

That’s some of what I found. Do you disagree that these things contribute to the high cost of health care? If you could clarify what you mean about me missing your points, as those were the only ones I was addressing in my post, I’ll try to better understand.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 9:42 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Anti: I never attacked the Tea Party in the way you described, so I won’t address that.

As to

Quote:
being a party that promotes civil liberties, meanwhile simultaneously encouraging government to grow so large and intrusive

I have to stop you right there. Do you want facts and figures showing that Republican administrations have grown the government far more than Democratic ones? I can provide them, and the cites, if you’d like. It’s a fact.

As to

Quote:
dont let the government decide what a woman does with her body! except when she needs a doctors visit

I hate to tell you, but it’s REPUBLICANS which are limiting the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body, via laws and other tactics, not the “liberals”.

Quote:
someones gotta pay for that. and dont try to regulate your own bodily intake of salt, trans fats or marijuana- we're too stupid to take care of ourselves

I believe the salt and trans fats things are not ILLEGAL, they are required to be SHOWN on packaging, so people can make up their own minds whether to ingest them or not. Or am I wrong? Marijuana and other drugs are illegal, and KEEPING them illegal is the purvey of the right, very much so.

Quote:
they deserve special privelages under the law

We can disagree about that one, as I happen to think it is government’s job to protect EVERYONE, and given the situation of “poor, minorities, homosexuals and transgenders”—you’re forgetting women, by the way—I think the government trying to give them equal protection under the law is a good thing. We do NOT give them special rights; in fact, when it comes to homosexuals, we definitely PREVENT them from exercising their rights in several ways, especially marriage, serving in the military, and more, and transgenders are hugely persecuted. It’s not special treatmen to give all people the same rights. At least that’s what I believe; you obviously believe differently.

Lobbyists USE the government to get special treatment, special laws; it’s not because government sticks its nose in for the most part, it’s to gain laws that increase their profits. There are tons of facts and cites on that one, too, if you want them.

Quote:
why the constant demoniziation of americans, upset at a government which has bankrupted its peoples futures?

Uh, once again, the government which bankrupted people’s futures was just a REPUBLICAN one, remember? As to demonization, dear gawd, the left has been demonized at LEAST as much as the right has ever been; can you actually DENY that???

Quote:
you throw your support behind.. what? the millions of illegal immigrants who are up in arms, demanding access to taxpayer funded entitlements such schools, hospitals, prisons, jobs?

Well, I’m not sure there’s any “throwing of support” behind anyone specific; we’re against SPECIAL TREATMENT of anyone, singling out a class of citizens—for myself, it is largely because it pre-empts the right of ANY citizen the police decide MIGHT be illegal. I’ve never seen any illegal immigrants DEMAND access to those things you listed; when it comes to entitlements, they get none, when it comes to prisons, there are more minorities behind bars than anyone else—you think they DEMANDED that?? Nor did they “demand” jobs, they take lower-paying jobs than a citizen would consider to survive, and it’s our GOVERNMENT which makes that possible. Hosppitals and schools I’ll give you; tho’ again never DEMANDED, I’m not much in favor of letting people die on the streets, tho’ free schooling is something I’m on the fence about.

How in hell you equate “unfettered immigration” with “wellfare/entitlement state is beyond me. You’d have to explain that one.

Quote:
but because we are bankrupt, and can barely pay for these services for american.. we must be 'racists

Again, we’re bankrupt because of a Republican administration...we came out of the last Democratic one with a surplus, remember? And before that, the first Bush ran up the tab, too. It is also through DEREGULATION that a lot of this came about; again “pushed” into being by a Republican administration.

“Racist” refers to those who want to put a special class of people (not just “illegal”, but anyone who, in the police’s eyes, MIGHT be illegal) in danger of being jailed for months because they can’t produce papers no other state (currently) requires of them. Making laws that allow perfectly legal citizens to be detained and jailed just because they look a certain way isn’t “racist”? ANY tourist from any number of countries can “look” Latino—according to one politician, even because of their SHOES--and be questioned, detained and jailed for lack of papers. You like that?

This whole thing is a rant against “liberals”, a gross generalization equal to that of which you condemn all “liberals” as demonizaing Tea Partiers. If you want to blame whoever is actually responsible for things, you need to check your FACTS, not just rant and blame liberals for things conservatives might actually to be to blame.

You're being "Anti" anything and anyone with a liberal viewpoint doesn't change facts, much as you might like it to.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I meant to say I reject the government as the SOLE, or even the BIGGEST cause.

Thank you for clarifying.

Quote:
What do I blame?

...Increased costs of health care goods and services: Drug costs have increased. One reason is the increasing cost of developing a new drug, often in the vicinity of $1 billion. The cost of drug development decreases the economic incentive to develop drugs with lower profit potentials or public health in general (eg, vaccines, antibiotics).

....Clinical trials are done by the pharmaceutical companies; are you saying the government is responsible for that?

First let me say I agree one of the biggest contributors to the high costs of health care is the "increasing costs of developing a new drug." The question is, where do these new drug costs come from?

Yes, in my view, the govt is responsible for clinical trials, which constitute a significant portion, if not the majority portion, of these "increasing costs." By requiring them, the govt forces drug companies to spend a lot more than if they didn't have to pursue clinical trials.

Quote:
They’d have to do clinical trials no matter what, wouldn’t they?

No, they wouldn't. If the govt didn't force them, they wouldn't HAVE to. Isn't that the point of legislation, to make sure people can't opt out?

Quote:
Licensing isn’t that expensive, as far as I know;

The education required for licensing is very expensive indeed.

Quote:
you blame the government for making malpractice illegal? If they hadn’t, doctors could do whatever they want;...

Malpractice suits are part of our law, and law is govt.

Ah. I am not necessarily BLAMING the govt for these huge costs. At least, not yet. Right now, I just want to establish whether or not it is partially or largely because of govt and regulation and laws that health care costs are so bloated. You categorically denied it is largely responsible. I am trying to make a case that it is largely responsible.

If we agree on that, we can move on to whether these govt-responsible health care costs are necessary or helpful, and how government can change certain things about how it works to help bring costs down. Identifying responsibility, partial or whole, doesn't have to be about blame. It can be about power, the power to cause a desired effect and the power to change.

If the govt did not require clinical trials or that physicians attend medical schools to practice medicine, would health care costs go down? Answering yes doesn't mean we WANT to do that. But it does establish that the govt is responsible for those costs. Maybe then, we can discuss how the govt can change current drug approval regulation or current physician licensing regulation in a way that clinical trials and licensing do not have to be so expensive. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Anyway, I think you've answered my question quite satisfactorily. I understand where you're coming from much better. You see these costs as necessary with or without govt, and therefore you do not see that the govt is responsible. Thank you for answering.

-----
“Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." --- Dr. Wayne Dyer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 10:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

As to TWO of those aspects of rising healthcare, yes, I see them as necessary. Me, I wouldn't want someone treating me who had no education as a doctor, nor would I want to take a drug which hadn't gone through clinical trials! I'm certainly not saying the government's demanding these isn't government "interference", seen from your angle.

I'm not sure about malpractice lawsuits. I live in a state with the highest per capita number of lawers in the country, and worked for them for eight years. I have full faith in them to find a way to sue doctors for "malpractice", whatever it's called and whatever the laws, or get those laws MADE.

That said, what about the other causes? And how do you propose to lower the costs of those two? I'm certainly amenable to lowering them, but I don't see how it could be done. Also, doesn't the government subsidize some of that education through loans? That way, they're making it easier and less expensive (tho' the loans have to be paid back eventually), aren't they? I think that comes partially under "funded mandate", doesn't it?

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 11:33 AM

PERFESSERGEE

Quote:
I did read your posts in their entirety, and I apologize I did not express myself clearly enough to show it.

In my view, it's like this. There is science, and there is "science." Real science, good science, makes observations, tests hypotheses in experimentation, measures data, and calculates statistical probabilities that the measured data reflects the influence of the independent variable rather than random fluctuations. Then they retest it, and so forth. This is the scientific method.

Not every field allows for this kind of experimentation and data measurement. So other fields do the best they can, taking measurements, calculating correlations, look for patterns. In recent years, they have had the benefit of computer modeling as an added tool. Strictly speaking, none of these fields do rigorous science, since there is no experimentation to test hypotheses. However, they still carry the label of a "science" because they dutifully carry out the first steps of the scientific method the best they can--observation and hypothesis.

I like to call disciplines that engage in experimentation "science," and disciplines limited to observation and hypotheses, "quasi-science."

Much of the social and behavioral sciences, medicine, paleontology, paleogeology, and climate studies are quasi-sciences. They cannot engage in experimentation and lack the most critical tool of the scientific method.

CTS,

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I need to jump in on this quotation. I think you either don't understand the philosophy and methodology of science or you are misrepresenting it. Experimentation is by no means the only way of conducting true science, and it never has been. You are referring to the hypootheticodeductive model, which isn't even the only form of deductive science (comparative studies are just as valid, and often use deductive reasoning), and you've completely left out inductive reasoning, which has been around just as long and can be just as powerful. Some of the most important advances in science have come about by induction (plate tectonics, evolution by natural selection and relativity are a few rather important examples). Thankfully, practicing scientists and philosophers of science have a rather wider view than the one you present.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 1:30 PM

Niki

Merck's research is good, their politics, appalling.

1) Increased costs of health care goods and services: Drug costs have increased.

Yes, why is that? Oh yeah. You raised the price, which you could do because you bought so many politicians and so many heads of the FDA were Merck execs, not to mention Rummy...

2) lol@$1 billion.

3) Marketing of new drugs and devices

Sorry, not buying...

4) Overuse of specialty care

again, not buying it, if these reasons were a factor, they would show up in other private care systems like in the UK, Korea, and they just don't.

5) High administrative costs

Agreed, but this is part of the system I'm describing. While not the driving force by itself, is part of teh overall AMA structure.

6) Physician fees

More AMA. It's a giant union, what did you expect.

7) Malpractice costs

I agree, get rid of Malpractice insurance, then maybe they'd stop killing people. Really. I mean, shouldn't they ask themselves "Does this procedure really *need* general anesthesia? Or are they just doing it so the patients won't kibbitz their butchering of it.

Near here a doctor just lost his license after botching 143 operations, killing an undisclosed number of patients. That's how long it took before they removed his license. He lost a million in a malpractice suit about ten years ago for killing a young woman during a C-Section, but malpractice insurance carried him, and he went on butchering.

8) Defensive medicine

Another very old and bogus argument It's just not true. It's far cheaper to use preventative care.

9) Aging of the population

Another red herring. If this were true, you'd be able to witness it in other parts of the world where you see this, and it's just not what you see.

Here's the logical shootdown of #9: Humans may be living longer, but they're dying in roughly the same amount of time. Today's 70 yo or 80 yo is actually in perfect health, people are declining in their 90s, the way they once declined in their 70s or 80s. As a reasult, they're seeking said care at an older age, but not more of it. You don't get a lot of people taken deathly ill at 70 and dying of it at 100. Sure, you get some, but then again, you always did.

Okay, Merck had a couple valid points, and a lot of spin. Hopefully Krugman has something more insightful

a) administrative costs.

Okay, conceded, but that doesn't make me wrong, it's still an organized labor and regulation problem.

b) U.S. doctors’ high average incomes

again, agreed.

c) The U.S. also spends $57- $66 billion a year more for drugs than other developed countries

Sure, but why is that? Perhaps because there's no consumer to put an objective judgment on whether the medicine is worth that or not.

d) The study estimates the cost of providing full medical care to all of America’s uninsured at $77 billion annually.

That seems pretty reasonable. I'll bet you can trim that down by doing away with the overcharges. Very often the "new drugs" are just the old drugs with a new set of shoes. Also, if doctors "hours" were measured honestly, they would be very short. Yes, the doctor has to see me and do some paperwork. Let him do that in my presence, and I can clock him. I guarantee you the only reason I'm waiting there for and hour and a half is that he's seeing six other patients at the same time. That means that he spent 15 minutes total on each of us, probably 5 min on the visit and 10 min on the paperwork. Let him charge 15 min to each of us, not an hour.

e) payment incentives that reward the delivery of more services, without consideration to clinical value or cost-effectiveness;

sure, but then the system is rigged to make you pay more, so there's no incentive to change that.

f) market power of insurers, providers, and the health industry

Sure, many middlemen overcharging at every level, that's why the little aircompressor can cost $400 instead of $40, it's the contract biz, it's like the military.

g) a low ratio of primary to specialty care physicians and services;

I haven't noticed this, but I live in an unusual setting, there are no people here. I'm going to hazard a guess that my ER waits are dwarfed by people in the city, particularly people at my income level.

h) access barriers to preventive and primary care that contribute to avoidable hospital admissions, emergency department use, and complications of chronic and acute disease;

Interestingly, Krugman is directly contradicting Merck here. Krugman is right, of course.

i) a lack of well-coordinated care that leads to unsafe, duplicative, or conflicting care;

No kidding. The problem is that it's too regimented and too organized, there's no room for independent planning and time spent. I have gotten my doctor to spend time with me on my healthcare issues, but then once he refers me, I'm back in the inhuman machine, and nothing works...

j) inadequate information systems and information exchange

Yes, and not just the lack of EMRs, but the lack of doc actually read what the PA wrote.

k) high administrative costs

again.

These are largely detailed symptoms of the disease of the system I just described. Some of them are bogus old arguments which were never true, others are just the result of the conrolled corporatist/govt regulated system we have.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 6:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
I think you either don't understand the philosophy and methodology of science or you are misrepresenting it. Experimentation is by no means the only way of conducting true science, and it never has been.

Certainly, I have heard this argument before. I came first from a social science background. So it is not that I don't understand the philosophy and methodology of science. It is that I have chosen the definition that best represents the high degree of confidence people have come to expect from the method. Experimental science is the classic definition of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So what is "true" science? Some people define it as any type of systematic study of a subject matter. But I feel that definition is too broad. It lends the high credibility of "science" to fields that, because of experimental limitations, cannot earn that high level of confidence.

This broadening of science beyond the scientific method, in my opinion has had disastrous consequences. The overuse of the label has diluted the rigor of the method and contributed to so much scientific illiteracy that most people can't tell speculation and philosophy from scientific research. Everything that comes down from academia and carries the label "science" is accepted as Truth or Near Truth, and "scientific truths" are easily manipulated by political agendas.

That is why I deliberately choose the classic, purist, narrower definition.

I understand you disagree. That happens. But please don't mistake disagreement for ignorance. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 7:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
And how do you propose to lower the costs of those two? I'm certainly amenable to lowering them, but I don't see how it could be done.

OK, I will tell you my ideas. But please don't freak out; it's scary.

1. Open up the market, part 1. I understand that most people want drugs tested by clinical trials and doctors who have been to medical school. Funny enough, I don't. So, I say, let the govt open up the health care market to whoever wants to practice "medicine" with whatever intervention they choose. The FDA will still be there, overseeing clinical trials. Medical schools and licensing boards will still be there too. You can still get the same kind of officially trialed and licensed health care you want, at the high prices it comes with. But for anyone who wants something cheaper, the other unofficially trialed option is available too.

2. Open the market, part 2. Make drugs available at different phases of the clinical trial process, with prices commensurate with the level of testing. It takes a drug around 8 years to go through the trials. Consumers are absorbing 8 years of very expensive research at the end. If someone wants to try a drug, knowing that it has not yet been tested, early in the trial saga, he should be able to buy it and get it cheaper than if someone prefers to wait until the end of the 8 years. This also solves the orphan drug problems and experimental drug problems. Of course, it goes without saying the drugs should come with thoroughly informed consent of all the risks.

3. Reform medical education. European medical schools usually last around 6 years, and start right after high school. Shave 2 years off the college experience, and you save yourself a bunch of money. A few American school have a a similar program, like Brown U, but the model could be used more widely.

Oops. I've gotta run. Will stop for now.

-----
“Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." --- Dr. Wayne Dyer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 7:23 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT, I agree to disagree. I think your view is skewed toward blaming the government for everything, and as I've seen before, when you think you're right nothing will change your mind.

The reasons I listed are the same in many articles by many authors on the internet and in books. Unless you can prove your points with facts and numbers, they represent your opinions, to which you are certainly entitled.

Canttake, it's past my bedtime, so I gotta run too. Will ome back tomorrow.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 8:47 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky]
2. Open the market, part 2. Make drugs available at different phases of the clinical trial process, with prices commensurate with the level of testing. It takes a drug around 8 years to go through the trials. Consumers are absorbing 8 years of very expensive research at the end. If someone wants to try a drug, knowing that it has not yet been tested, early in the trial saga, he should be able to buy it and get it cheaper than if someone prefers to wait until the end of the 8 years. This also solves the orphan drug problems and experimental drug problems. Of course, it goes without saying the drugs should come with thoroughly informed consent of all the risks.

I think the reasons for all the exacting trials is because of the disasterous consequences - think of thalidamide and the outcomes for that. Half tested is kind of not good enough in a lot of cases.

However, I do believe that you can be part of clinical trials here - at the last phase and get free or cheap drug treatments.

QUOTE]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 9:03 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
niki2-

Anti: I never attacked the Tea Party in the way you described, so I won’t address that.

i didnt say you did, specifically, im just commenting in general. ill be honest, i take offense because i am for personal liberty! why is that a crime? thats what the so-called 'tea party' is supposed to stand for. i want libertarianism- i dont care what you do with yourself, just dont bother me! as far as im concerned, that is the primary role of government- to protect this 'contract'. if thats the theme, ironing out the inconsistencies is a healthy part of the process. why not participate in defining a movement, rather than stand in opposition, and serve the interests of authoritarianism? unless thats what you promote personally, then we just have to agree to disagree

Quote:
i have to stop you right there. Do you want facts and figures showing that Republican administrations have grown the government far more than Democratic ones? I can provide them, and the cites, if you’d like. It’s a fact.

I hate to tell you, but it’s REPUBLICANS which are limiting the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body, via laws and other tactics, not the “liberals”.

i didnt claim the republicans are any better. but the democrats are a lost cause. ill probably have a heart attack if by some miracle the democratic party platform in 2012 included 'a return to constitutional, limitited government'! oh man... and if they followed through!? id switch parties in a heart beat! i question whether the republicans are truly serious; although ill die converting them to libertarianism. but the democrats? they are now totally committed to collectivism and statism! this is the party that in liberal areas, such as the coasts, they ban smoking on your own property! i mean lets be real. its a shame how far the democrat party has fallen. this was the party that 150 yrs ago, under people like senator Calhoon, suppported even slavery under the pretense of states rights. they would have agree with Goldwater, a republican, who was against the civil rights act because it infringed on states rights(and would likewise be against the current federal abortion law).

Quote:
We can disagree about that one, as I happen to think it is government’s job to protect EVERYONE, and given the situation of “poor, minorities, homosexuals and transgenders”—you’re forgetting women, by the way—I think the government trying to give them equal protection under the law is a good thing. We do NOT give them special rights; in fact, when it comes to homosexuals, we definitely PREVENT them from exercising their rights in several ways, especially marriage, serving in the military, and more, and transgenders are hugely persecuted. It’s not special treatmen to give all people the same rights. At least that’s what I believe; you obviously believe differently.

but people are already granted these rights, as individuals, under the constitution- we didnt need extra, federal laws. all youve done is infringe on the rights of private citizens, to restrict the manner in which they choose to operate their businesses. im against bans on gay marriage, or discrimination of gays in the military- because i believe everyone has a equal right, as an individual. someone else can do whatever he/she wants, they just dont have the right to force their views on me. but likewise, this is why we should be against affirmative action, since it interjects a presumed racial bias at its outset.

Quote:
Lobbyists USE the government to get special treatment, special laws; it’s not because government sticks its nose in for the most part, it’s to gain laws that increase their profits. There are tons of facts and cites on that one, too, if you want them.

lobbyists exist because the government assumes oversight of a particular industry. why are the health insurance companies, big oil, or big pharma so threatening? because government regulates these industries to the extent that special privelages are written into law. maybe, if government were impartial, not intervening(but to enforce contract), companies would be forced to stand under their own weight, through competitive, free market processes. the constitution already protected us from environmental abuses and monopolies-- we didnt need layers upon layers of money sucking beauracracies to overcomplicate things

Quote:
Well, I’m not sure there’s any “throwing of support” behind anyone specific; we’re against SPECIAL TREATMENT of anyone, singling out a class of citizens—for myself, it is largely because it pre-empts the right of ANY citizen the police decide MIGHT be illegal. I’ve never seen any illegal immigrants DEMAND access to those things you listed; when it comes to entitlements, they get none, when it comes to prisons, there are more minorities behind bars than anyone else—you think they DEMANDED that?? Nor did they “demand” jobs, they take lower-paying jobs than a citizen would consider to survive, and it’s our GOVERNMENT which makes that possible. Hosppitals and schools I’ll give you; tho’ again never DEMANDED, I’m not much in favor of letting people die on the streets, tho’ free schooling is something I’m on the fence about.

its implicit. ive lived in southern california, i know firsthand that illegals benefit from every public service we offer. so what do you on the 'left' want? allow everyone to come here who wants, and pay for their expenses?? please, make that argument for me..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 3:47 AM

Niki,

You are trying to misrepresent my position, again.

I'm just being objective. Govt. is usually wrong, I don't make it wrong, it does it all by itself. The taliban is usually wrong too, but I don't have to deal with them.

Here's a classic govt. story:

Burt Rutan builds a private space ship, a thousand times more efficient than nasa, on private money. No harm no foul.

The govt. gets interested, a defense contractor takes it over and starts a project for a B4 bomber, and kills three workers.

Almost every situation is going to come down like this where there' govt. involvement, because govt. handles things no one wants, which involves force, etc. I wouldn't have to color these stories in order to make them look bad, they look bad all by themeselves.

You are, of course, misrepresenting my position, which if you really, was in *favor* of the public option, *against* the corporate run healthcare system. However, I only want this to be a transitional stage because I distrust government, and while I don't trust corporations, I do trust the consumer, who I think will not endlessly overpay for something which doesn't work when something better is available, which I'm pretty sure govt. will.

No numbers or statistics were asked for or required.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 3:50 AM

I strikes me that people are too combative. Consider that everyone here is just trying to help.

CTTS,

I generally prefer drugs that have been field tested for a long time, if at all possible, I take a supplement instead. Only if i was pretty sure that I was going to die from something would I be interested in an experimental drug, but I agree that you should have access to them. Still, such cases will represent a minority of the fiscal burden on the healthcare system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 6:20 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

CTTS: I didn't find your suggestions scary (I'm not sure what made you think I would). To respond:

1) I believe there are already many who aren’t doctors who practice medicine, if people want to utilize them. I could be wrong, I don’t know what licensing procedures there are for people like midwives, homeopaths, chiropractors, and people who advise others on herbal medicines. So I can’t speak to that. Me, I want a doctor licensed...even that doesn’t protect me from abuse, but it’s the best I can do, aside from choosing my own doctors, which I do.

My view of both doctor and p-docs is this: they are people with a lot of knowledge at their finger tips, so I will listen to what they say and take it into account. If I don’t like it, I discuss it with them and ask them to offer me alternatives. If they pull the “doctor as god” thing: “Do as I say, no questions” (terribly rampant in the p-doc field), I leave. If their treatment doesn’t solve the problem, I don’t go back. But I want them trained. I would worry about people practicing without some kind of licensing; as it IS, there are a million con artists out there with “degrees” who abuse their education. I think if it were cheaper, since many people now choose alternative health care, more would, and I’m not sure it would be good; give people something cheaper or for free, a lot of them will take it, and not think about the consequences. That’s just how I feel, I can’t speak for anyone else.

2) Magons covered for me. And yes, one can be part of clinical trials anytime one wishes, and whoever is DOING the trials pays for the medication, monitors it, and even pays transportation costs to and from the place of treatment.

3) I have no problem reforming education, as well as the cost of same, if it’s valid. It may well be, I don’t know enough to form a solid opinion. Anything that’s been done one way for a very long time probably needs reforming (government or otherwise).

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 6:22 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT: I’m not misrepresenting your position, and if you can believe me, I’m not “trying” to either. I responded only to the words you wrote, it wasn’t personal. I didn’t respond to any of the rest of your posts, only the parts I felt were pertinent for me to respond to. That said:

As I said, I realize you’re in favor of the public option, I’m not misrepresenting you. I responded to what you said, as I understood it, and only to specific points. We disagree on most of those points, that’s all. I offered statistics to prove the point I was making, never said you requested them. Statistics help me learn about things and what’s behind them and the causes, so I either provide or offer them when making a point sometimes.

As you said, you’re for the public option on a short-term basis. You trust the consumer; I don’t. I think I distrust the consumer about equally to that of the government. The idea of the public option was for people to pay “at cost”, rather than entail all the administrative and other costs (and yes, a lot of money DOES go into advertising a drug, hospital costs COULD be lessened, and we DO have too many specialists, I’ve experienced that one myself. The “gatekeeper” concept is ridiculous, and it was created not by government but by the private insurance companies.

We disagree; it’s not about combativeness (if you were referring to me), it’s about presenting opinions and debating them, nothing more. If you think I’m being combative, then you’re either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I’M saying. No offense intended.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 6:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Anti: Good, I’m glad we got that cleared up. I was just checking. I respect many members of the Tea Party, I just think they’re misled. Tho’ I do lump them together and occasionally make fun of them, I’m usually talking about the more absurd ones, and I do find some of their positions confused and at odds with one another (see title of this thread). That’s all.

Yes, they are supposed to stand for personal liberty. But there are contradictions in what they believe, and I think if they were to experience COMPLETE personal liberty, they’d be angrier than they are now. Examples are what I cited, both “don’t touch my Medicare” and a Second Amendment gathering protesting (I believe out of fear) the government limiting their freedom to own weapons (which isn’t going to happen) while standing on a park Obama JUST made legal for people to carry weapons in.

I stand in opposition to the movement because I believe it’s misguided and the effect it is having is to lessen bipartisanship and I think will damage the Republican Party. I want as viable a two-party system as possible, since we only have two “viable” ones, and I don’t think the Tea Party actually IS for personal liberty, tho’ they think they are. An example would be their position on abortion, and recently their position on stripping people of their civil rights both in Arizona and regarding the New York bomber. What I feel they want is “freedom to do as I please, but stop you from doing what I DON’T please”, I just think they don’t see that.

I understand you have little use for the Republicans, but it is to dismiss the Democrats as you do with which I disagree. I don’t see the opposite as you do, but I think currently the Republicans are the ones who are misguided, and frequently led by people and organizations with their own agenda, which is NOT the good of the people or the country, but themselves.

Quote:
they are now totally committed to collectivism and statism.

I don’t believe that’s true.

People may be “granted” rights, but unless those rights are enforced, many will ignore that and abuse others’ rights. It happens all the time to some of the groups you listed and I referenced, it has and will without some form of restriction. Granting rights doesn’t make them happen. The girl who wanted to go to the prom; what about her civil rights, her personal freedom? Look what happened there because of prejudice; that’s only a small example. If you think others don’t have the right to infringe their views on you, then you’d best look at the Republican Party in that light, because many of the laws they’ve passed infringe like hell on personal freedom; the idea of “limited government” has been, to recent Republican administration, freedom for people to do as THEY believe, and not the freedom to do as one wishes.

As to

Quote:
the constitution already protected us from environmental abuses and monopolies-

Despite that, they existed. The Constitution isn’t a guarantee of anything; people will take advantage of others if they can, and I repeat, unless there is enforcement of the Constitution, it will be abused. I disagree that

Quote:
lobbyists exist because the government assumes oversight of a particular industry

I think if the government had no oversight of a particular industry, lobbyists would still exist, partly to get laws WRITTEN in their favor which went against the Constitutional protections we are “granted”, but which don’t exist unless enforced. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I live in Northern California, there is a difference but not that much. We have tons of illegal aliens as well. Yes, they get services; my point was that they also PAY INTO that system, pay taxes on the things they buy, many of them on their payroll, and receive as much of those services as they pay for, or less, depending on how you calculate it. They do not receive entitlements (SSI and Medicare) which they pay into, they do not receive unemployment or other services which their taxes pay into, etc. It’s a debatable point; what we personally experience should go against the larger statistics and facts if we’re going to make a fair decision, and there’s a lot more to it than “they get services”.

I’m not sure it’s “implicit”, and what I’M against is a law which gives the police the right to demand papers of ANYONE they think “looks” like they might be illegal. Isn’t that government intruding on personal lives? To me, it’s the epitome of same; so is making abortion impossible. It IS obvious from statistics and what we see and hear both that the anti-choice movement, when unable to get Roe v. Wade overturned legally, has found many tactics to make it increasingly difficult if not impossible for anyone without the money to get an abortion. What happened to personal freedom to make THAT decision? The tactics recently put in place are truly government infringing, forcing a woman to have a vaginal ultrasound, FORCING her to either look at the ultrasound or have it described to her by a doctor who’s job it is to make it sound as horrific as possible, the woman having to fill out forms which are displayed on the internet, the doctor not having to tell the woman if there is something wrong with the fetus and being protected from lawsuits if the child turns out to be one the woman is totally incapable of dealing with financially; giving people the right not to do their job if it goes against their “conscience”—those are state laws as far as I know, which means “states rights” are infringing like crazy. What about the people who pay for those services and their personal freedom to buy medications, decide what to do with their bodies, etc.? These are not infringing on people’s freedoms? Yet they are laws.

Those are my opinions on these matters; obviously our opinions differ, and there are arguments on both sides. But generalization of what “liberals” want ignores the fact that many who consider themselves “liberals” have differing opinions on different matters. I recognize there are “moderate” Republicans with whom I share many views; I don’t dismiss the entire party or all conservatives as lumped into one category or trash them all. You feel differently, that’s all. I'm making my points; you're making yours; they are different perspectives and different opinions.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 7:13 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
niki2-

Anti: Good, I’m glad we got that cleared up. I was just checking. I respect many members of the Tea Party, I just think they’re misled. Tho’ I do lump them together and occasionally make fun of them, I’m usually talking about the more absurd ones, and I do find some of their positions confused and at odds with one another (see title of this thread). That’s all.

well i do to- and it annoys me as well. what i absolutely resent, is people like Dick Cheney and his daughter, neocons, claiming to represent the tea party. Cheney is symbolic of everything that was wrong with the republican party over the last 15 years. the republicans lost in '06 and '08 because of the war, because of domestic spending and the neglect for civil liberties. why does Cheney get to lump himself in with us? the tea party arose because there was no party that was consistent with libertarian ideals of personal liberty and freedom from coercion!

now i dont dislike Sean Hannity, but hes out there daily championing the 'tea parties'. at the same time, he believes that Bush will be seen as a good president 'through the prizm of history'. what?? he doubled the deficits and plunged us into endless wars in the middle east(that Obama and the dems are perpetuating, i might add). for him to promote 'national defense' as preventative war, secret renditions and torture, then to claim these are universal values of the 'tea party'.. i feel like flying off the handle!! those are not libertarian ideals, and are but a continuation of the status quo, not revolutionary in anyway. so clearly we have a way to go

but the fact that polling suggests the tea party is split between conservatives and libertarians.. i find that absolutely encouraging! because libertarians have never had this much represention.

and the beauty of libertarianism is that it unites progressives and liberals on civil liberties, personal privacy and peace, and the conservatives on economic liberty and freedom from coercion. so if we can just come to a common understanding on the limitless bounds of liberty, we will have a movement united behind that single principle. in that respect its encouraging to me

Quote:
I understand you have little use for the Republicans, but it is to dismiss the Democrats as you do with which I disagree. I don’t see the opposite as you do, but I think currently the Republicans are the ones who are misguided, and frequently led by people and organizations with their own agenda, which is NOT the good of the people or the country, but themselves.

the problem is the democrat party has strayed soo far from what they once stood for.. its hard for me to endorse them. if i were to compare just the two parties platforms, the republican platform is closer to libertarianism. the dems are in the position the repubs were 5 years ago! a national ID card, immigration reform, war in the middle east, expanding entitlement programs, a balooning deficit and debt. and the patriot acts still there! so.. its hard for me to give the dems a pass on this one

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 10:56 PM