Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 1/24/09 01:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/24/09 12:34 AM, HandsomePete wrote:

At 1/24/09 12:16 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I've said this like 80 times today in different thread, but people have no idea how "Communist" we already are. We give more subsidies to companies, farms, etc. than China.

And have I stated that I support farm subsidies and the massive power that farming unions and organisations have over politicians in Washington.
No, I have not. I do not support subsidies, nor do I support an organisation that attempts to install an unatural price for any product.

What the fuck is up with the defensiveness? Why are you jumping to the conclusion that I'm accusing you of believing these things? You're really missing the point of what I'm saying, in that as much as America says it opposes anything Communist, it really only opposes CALLING anything Communist. It's a lazy, shitty defense, and it's used as, if not more obnoxiously thrown around than the race card these days, in that its impact is more global. But anyway, a truly free market would severely limit the quality of life for a country of 300,000,000. It would create an even larger gap in rich and poor than the absolutely shameful one we have now.

Extremely large big government, increased taxation, an extensive amount of power concentrated in the exectutive government, loss of personal liberty, and simple market economics.

Extremely large big government. I'm not going to insult the terminology of that, but the hyperbole. Increased taxes? We can fit this into the budget with minimal increase, and then you need to remember that you won't need to pay premiums, you won't have to joint pay with your employer, and ultimately, it can be done for about the same price on the average citizen. EXTENSIVE amount of power in the Executive branch? Really? Come on, dude, you're not talking to a kid here. Loss of personal liberty? Which liberty? The right to choose which HMO fucks you in the ass every month? The whole, "I can't choose my own doctor" argument is absolute bullshit, because that can be factored into any system. Market economics. Doctors, drug companies, and everyone associated with the medical profession still make a lot of money under nationalized health care. Assuming this is your complaint. Otherwise, you'll need to clarify, unless I covered this point under "increased taxes."

Your job shouldn't be forced to provide you healthcare, as in no business should. But if a business, with the wonders of supply and demand, wishes to attract better workers and more deseriable workers to thier business they will.
And likewise, you can presume whatever you wish about how I came to my opinions or why I defend them, I care not nor does it add wieght to the argument. If it makes you feel better by demonizing me as a sheep, so be it.

Again, you're throwing out imaginary insults here. I don't know what the hell it is that you're taking so personally here.

And I pay for a criminals poor decisions in life in paying for the police and the jail he stays in. I pay to feed him. I pay for his health care in there. If someone is careless and drops a match in a paper factory, and it burns down, I'm paying for the fire department to put it out.

Your paying for justice to be enforced, and your paying for rights that your side of the political spectrum usually screams about that they have.
If it makes you feel better, I have no qualms about restricting the rights of prisoners any more then the next person. They lost most of thier rights in due process.

I'm paying for quality of life and personal safety. Under the extreme lassez-faire, Libertarian view, why not have everyone hire their own security guards, pump their own water to fight their own fires, walk to work or drive over the grass, and leave all education up to selectively choosing what you'll study, doing it on your own, home schooling everyone, etc. etc., blah blah. Fight all our wars personally, see how long it takes for a few of your neighbors to gang up on you.
There's a reason that society has collectively decided that these things are essential to any modern state. Many other countries are finding it more effective to have a health care system that serves everyone. And these are people healthier than we are.

Look, if you ask around the US, you're going to find a LOT of people unhappy with the health care system. If you ask around any of the other countries that have been mentioned, they're not going to be as upset. They probably don't even think about their health care because they're happy with it. And I'd rather wait a couple of weeks to see a doctor about something than to go into bankruptcy to have some guy run a bunch of tests just to tell me I'm gonna be fine.

---

At 1/24/09 02:52 PM, HandsomePete wrote: Under the extreme lassez-faire, Libertarian view, why not have everyone hire their own security guards, pump their own water to fight their own fires, walk to work or drive over the grass, and leave all education up to selectively choosing what you'll study, doing it on your own, home schooling everyone, etc. etc., blah blah. Fight all our wars personally, see how long it takes for a few of your neighbors to gang up on you.

Wow, I've never seen someone so ignorant of libertarian ideology, and I've talked with a lot of idiots.

---

At 1/24/09 03:06 PM, Minarchist wrote:

At 1/24/09 02:52 PM, HandsomePete wrote:

Wow, I've never seen someone so ignorant of libertarian ideology, and I've talked with a lot of idiots.

I said extreme. I understand the general idea that most Libertarians share.

---

At 1/24/09 03:09 PM, HandsomePete wrote:

At 1/24/09 03:06 PM, Minarchist wrote:

At 1/24/09 02:52 PM, HandsomePete wrote:

Wow, I've never seen someone so ignorant of libertarian ideology, and I've talked with a lot of idiots.

I said extreme. I understand the general idea that most Libertarians share.

What you've described is not a part of any libertarian ideology. Libertarianism is not "do it yourself;" it's "associate freely."

---

At 1/24/09 02:52 PM, HandsomePete wrote:

At 1/24/09 01:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/24/09 12:34 AM, HandsomePete wrote:

At 1/24/09 12:16 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Extremely large big government. I'm not going to insult the terminology of that, but the hyperbole. Increased taxes? We can fit this into the budget with minimal increase, and then you need to remember that you won't need to pay premiums, you won't have to joint pay with your employer, and ultimately, it can be done for about the same price on the average citizen. EXTENSIVE amount of power in the Executive branch? Really? Come on, dude, you're not talking to a kid here. Loss of personal liberty? Which liberty? The right to choose which HMO fucks you in the ass every month? The whole, "I can't choose my own doctor" argument is absolute bullshit, because that can be factored into any system. Market economics. Doctors, drug companies, and everyone associated with the medical profession still make a lot of money under nationalized health care. Assuming this is your complaint. Otherwise, you'll need to clarify, unless I covered this point under "increased taxes."

Uhh, I hate when they group all thier replies in one giant paragraph.

#1 Increased taxation. You keep talking about fitting it easily into the budget, something I'm failing to see or realize as even feasible. When were pushing a nine trillion dollar debt, you'll have to excuse for not trusting in "can be easily fit into the budget."

#2 and #3 My own personal fears about big government. I despise the size of government now, do you think I would willingly and gleefully give them even more power over my healthcare and medical choices.

#4 Personal liberty. Yes, simply put choosing my own medical insurance, or finding a business that can do that is what I consider my own personal and economic liberty. As we have seen from other countries and with any of our current federally run programs, they seem to have an inability to be efficient or to worry about any sort of competition.

And with the market economics, while salaries that the doctors/insurance agencies etc are indeed some part of it, the other side is simply supply.

If you have X number of doctors in the country, state, county and you have Y number of pat

Again, you're throwing out imaginary insults here. I don't know what the hell it is that you're taking so personally here.

Trust me, I don't take anything personally on the internet, I mearly reply to what somebody has stated, and this would be in reply to your statement that I was told that a job providing healthcare makes more sense then a government providing it and that I've never questioned it.

What I was replying on was that you were basically presuming a lot in a debate for what I saw as an attempt to demonize me as little more then a sheep.

I'm paying for quality of life and personal safety. Under the extreme lassez-faire, Libertarian view, why not have everyone hire their own security guards, pump their own water to fight their own fires, walk to work or drive over the grass, and leave all education up to selectively choosing what you'll study, doing it on your own, home schooling everyone, etc. etc., blah blah. Fight all our wars personally, see how long it takes for a few of your neighbors to gang up on you.

My friend, find a libertarian supporter like that and I will find you somehow thats been in a nuthouse for all of his life.
Libertarians, and lassez faire supporters wish to harken back to the ideas of Locke and Smith, back to what our country used to be.
What your talking about is Anarcho-capitalism, not Libertarianism.

There's a reason that society has collectively decided that these things are essential to any modern state. Many other countries are finding it more effective to have a health care system that serves everyone. And these are people healthier than we are.

And who are the unhealthy ones beyond the people that can't afford thier own insurance. While I'm not going to point out all the differences between the more socialized nations and our current one, would it not be presumptious to assume that since something worked over there it has to work over here?

My own conviction is that you can't trust a government with this much power and responsibility. When your government fails to get water to the Superdome for three days, or fails to properly audit your taxes, or simply ignore the continued decay of American public schools, how can you, in all honesty, assume that they can do this?

When your government can't even take care of military veterans (see Walter Reed), how much trust and faith can you put into it?

I'm not going to argue that our system is perfect, hell unlike what you might presume I'm not even a huge fan of job based insurance(I just like it a lot more then government based) But, in my view, to help the system isn't to tie it down to the government, it's to open it up to the market. If the individual can pick and choose, make the independent choice for himself, think of what that could do for the insurance business. Competition and a realistic market cost for healthcare would be achieved.

To achieve that, one would need to add incentives of course along with education and welfare reform. But in my view, a better alternative to the one your prescribing.

---

At 1/24/09 07:22 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Uhh, I hate when they group all thier replies in one giant paragraph.

That was one response, to one issue.

#4 Personal liberty. Yes, simply put choosing my own medical insurance, or finding a business that can do that is what I consider my own personal and economic liberty. As we have seen from other countries and with any of our current federally run programs, they seem to have an inability to be efficient or to worry about any sort of competition.

Again, just look at the most successful healthcare systems out there. I can't give you any better evidence than that.

If you have X number of doctors in the country, state, county and you have Y number of pat

We have that now, what's the problem?

My friend, find a libertarian supporter like that and I will find you somehow thats been in a nuthouse for all of his life.
Libertarians, and lassez faire supporters wish to harken back to the ideas of Locke and Smith, back to what our country used to be.
What your talking about is Anarcho-capitalism, not Libertarianism.

You guys are picking out the word Libertarian like that was the important word in that paragraph. You're skirting the issue. If I'm left alone on health care, how is it different than being left to fend for myself in terms of protection? Again, we're under a tradition of HMO health care and we accept it as the norm. Picture for a moment the benefits of nationalized care, and I don't get how you can be against it. And don't respond to this paragraph, just think about it. I'm living through the opposite method, and I don't like it.

And who are the unhealthy ones beyond the people that can't afford thier own insurance. While I'm not going to point out all the differences between the more socialized nations and our current one, would it not be presumptious to assume that since something worked over there it has to work over here?

I'd have to push the back button and find the guy's name, but the guy with type 1 diabetes for example is someone who could use insurance. I could PROBABLY barely afford insurance now if I wanted to, but I don't want to pay into the current system which isn't going to do anything for me until I REALLY need it. And I probably could stand to go to the doctor, I've got a few medical issues that I just suck up and deal with, but if I were to get them treated, there's no way in Hell I could afford it. That's the problem with the system, you pay when you don't need it, and you still pay more when you do need it.
You'd be amazed at how similar the US and the EU is alike, it's really more about minor cultural differences.

My own conviction is that you can't trust a government with this much power and responsibility. When your government fails to get water to the Superdome for three days, or fails to properly audit your taxes, or simply ignore the continued decay of American public schools, how can you, in all honesty, assume that they can do this?

When your government can't even take care of military veterans (see Walter Reed), how much trust and faith can you put into it?

You make a good point there, but we're looking more at the last administration, which was riddled with cronyism, poor decisionmakers, and people who really should've been impeached and/or removed for incompetence. I've been saying for a while now that Bush has one mistake he should definitely fess up to - appointing Robert Gates to SoD. He actually appointed someone competent. I'm glad Obama kept him on.

I'm not going to argue that our system is perfect, hell unlike what you might presume I'm not even a huge fan of job based insurance(I just like it a lot more then government based) But, in my view, to help the system isn't to tie it down to the government, it's to open it up to the market. If the individual can pick and choose, make the independent choice for himself, think of what that could do for the insurance business. Competition and a realistic market cost for healthcare would be achieved.

But the fact that that realistic market cost isn't happening is exactly the problem. It starts with the drug companies, who spend billions researching the best way to make penis pills, then another few million advertising penis pills, and they pass the cost along to you on all of the drugs they make. Insurance companies are slightly less profiteering, and their costs rise as the prices of drugs do. But they still have a quota of claims to turn down every year in order to maximize profits. Then people, a problem in either scenario, do everything they can to get whatever drugs they can. And finally, doctors who don't care enough to tell people no, you don't need viagra to keep your blood pressure down.

Anyway, I meant to keep this one short, and I didn't. Sorry. If I respond again, I'll keep things to one paragraph.