Gov’t Healthcare Coming
by CmdrFenix on Jun.23, 2009, under Political Discussion
There has been a lot of talk about a gov’t run health care program coming to all Americans. There are many reasons why I never want to see this come to pass. Some of those reasons are:
- It’s not within the gov’t mandate to provide for the common defense of the common cold.
- I have zero confidence in their ability to do it efficiently based on their proven track record of not running anything well.
- I have no desire to have my medical records anywhere near the gov’t in such form as a database, because we all know they have a proven track record of safe guarding that data and not violating my privacy.
- Every other country (including this one) that has tried this, has failed because it’s just so expensive, it’s not feasible. Who in their right mind increases taxes in a depressed economy as a means to take care of people who can’t even afford food?
First, the gov’t isn’t mandated to provide health care to Americans. No where is this listed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as something the federal gov’t should be providing to Americans, and everyone knows I am never in favor of giving the federal gov’t more things to do. IMHO (In my humble opinion) it should work toward providing for the common defense, clean up the rest of it’s act, and leave socialized medicine alone. I have talked to many doctors and health care providers (my own mother is an RN and a case manager) all of whom say dealing with Medicare and other gov’t programs is a nightmare due to the bureaucracy. I have no doubt that same bureaucracy will find it’s way into the new system with “the current crew” we have planning it right now.
Currently the gov’t is responsible for providing all health care on Native American reservations. From the research I’ve done, the results of this system seem to mirror attempts by other countries to nationalize health care.
- Lack of funding to provide critical care.
- Lower wages on gov’t projects drive away health care practitioners. With lower wages the doctors can’t afford the insurance needed to protect them against law suits. Nor can they afford their training and certification programs which is both costly and time consuming.
- Across the pond in the UK. Hospital consolidation to save money (which would definitely happen here) limits the number of beds available and you end up with a girl who’s heart operation was canceled three times because of this.
Still need more examples of the problems with socialized medicine? I found this article which links to many other countries who have tried and failed to do this. In principle it makes sense, but in practice it doesn’t work. I’m not saying the private sector is without problems, but transferring our health care system away from the private sector is definitely not the answer.
The gov’t has no place in my doctor’s office. Period. Ask some of our returning veterans what it’s like when the gov’t uses your medical records against you. Yes, I have come back to firearm ownership, but it’s an important part of my life and what I feel is the first right being slowly being taken away from us by an ever fearful gov’t. Don’t think they’ll illegally violate your privacy if it suits them?
So based on our government’s proven track record for protecting our rights, providing Native Americans great health care, and their attempts to look out for our best interests, you can be assured this is something I will oppose with every fiber of my being. Write your senators and oppose any attempts to socialize our health care system.
Ronald Reagan’s take on socialized medicine:
June 23rd, 2009 on 2:31 pm
You’ve been misinformed my friend. Let’s take it play by play:
“I have zero confidence in their ability to do it efficiently based on they’re proven track record of not running anything well.”
So again, give me some details into what aspects of how medicare, the coast guard, or the NPS are run you object too?
“I have no desire to have my medical records anywhere near the gov’t in such form as a database, because we all know they have a proven track record of safe guarding that data and not violating my privacy.”
As opposed to a private company without your best interest in mind, the same way your credit records are now kept? Cuz I mean… the credit union’s -never- fuck people over or lose data, right? …
“Every other country (including this one) that has tried this, has failed because it’s just so expensive, it’s not feasible. Who in their right mind increases taxes in a depressed economy as a means to take care of people who’d can’t even afford food?”
What planet are you talking about? We’re the ONLY first-world nation without some form of public health care, do you mean to say that people in every other first world nation are dying of scurvy in the streets? Have you like, actually read anything (that wasnt written with the idea in mind to discredit) about public health care in other countries? I challenge you to find someone who’s live in Canada, France, or the UK -and- lived in the states (and actually needed healthcare services) who would prefer our 100% private system to their 10-90% public system. Please, try.
I would suggest doing some reading on life expectancy and other such info in nations with a public plan, or public option, before deciding it sucks. For every case of “someone had to wait in line” you can find 100 cases of “poor kid got the braces he needs” AND such silly arguments make the incorrect presupposition that “waiting in line” and such never happens in our 100% private system – which is total bullshit.
As a closing thought, I find it amusing that you chose to use the words of an alzheimers patient to discuss health care – ignoring the fact that Reagan is arguably to blame for 90% of what’s “wrong” with our society for the last 20 years.
As for silly discussions about “a 200 year old constitution that couldnt possibly forsee future socioeconomic needs and scientific developments didnt explicitly mandate that funding for an organization to regulate the public radio airwaves, so it should be a wild-west free for all instead” .. well .. I’m not sure what to say. There are places in Africa right now with governmental models you might be more satisfied with, which also have a FAR higher social emphesis on private firarm ownership …
June 23rd, 2009 on 2:39 pm
Almost forgot – that clip you linked from Reagan is from an old LP that was funded for by Dow Chemical, which at the time was the primary manufacturer of penicillin in the united states and making record profits off the backs of the private health care system.
That clip/segment/LP is one of -THE- most often, and most easily, discredited Reagan citations.
You can’t use Aaron Sorkin, funded by the teamsters, speaking against union busting as a serious argument against it ….
June 23rd, 2009 on 2:44 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN3143203520080331?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/12/1817
June 23rd, 2009 on 6:05 pm
I’ll start with…
FCC organizing but not restricting who can get a license and within a few moral standards what they can do is not a problem and if this was Africa we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
What exactly did he do poorly?
- He ended the Air Traffic Controller strike swiftly as he should have. I am not very pro-union.
- Comparing the Charter administration and his, we had inflation drop from 12% to 4% and unemployment drop from 7% to 5% thanks to his across the board tax cuts.
- GDP in this country rose in his second year in office out of that depression we were in and continued to rise at a rate of about 4% a yr afterward which many attribute to the Tax Reform act he push through.
- He ended price controls for domestic oil production thus increasing the amount of cheap crude avail and lowering the price of oil.
- I disagree with his escalation and military build up, but his outcome was OK.
- I completely disagree with “the war on drugs”.
- … and of course we have the Iran-Contra affair.
So yes, no presidency is perfect, but in terms of economics, you cannot argue he did have a positive impact on this country’s growth.
Why don’t you look at the UK or Canada? As what their citizens think of their health care system. I linked articles describing the problems people have had with it.
Ahhh too-shea… except a private company can’t take away your rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. You can’t tell me the federal gov’t having your medical (including Psyc) records doesn’t give you pause. You sir, are way more trusting than me.
As for medicare, where do we begin. You have an overly complicated system that doesn’t even come close to covering the people who are on it. Where do you think the funding to bring it up to par is going to come from? Are you going to just seize the income of anyone who makes more than x amount per year? What is that x amount? How many times during the campaign did Mr. Biden change that number himself? How much business will that drive out of this country…
Oh and hello, the coast guard ISN’T a relevant argument here since as I pointed out before that IS something that “provides for the common defense”. Mentioning that is kind of silly.
How do you expect anyone who’s made money in this country and any business to react to something like what you and this current gov’t are proposing? Their message is valid IMO, as the UK/Canada are great examples of this.
June 23rd, 2009 on 7:08 pm
“FCC organizing but not restricting”
But they do restrict… not everyone can get a ham radio license, and not everyone can take a 2000kwt transmitter and start broadcasting between 100 and 108 fm. Why is that ok, since it isnt explicitly mentioned in the original constitution?
“but in terms of economics, you cannot argue he did have a positive impact on this country’s growth.”
I can absolutely argue it. On both a macro and micro issue. On the macro side, his “trickle down” voodoo led to almost 15 years of economic policies that led to the greatest gap between the top 1% and bottom 1% that this nation (or any) has ever seen, homelessness doubled during his reign, the average wage (after adjustments for currency valuations) went down by almost 15% from 82 to 91 if my memory serves the last I read about it. On the micro level, my parents worked multiple minimum wage jobs (which we can thank reagan and his cronies for freezing at a wonderful level that didnt increase to adjust for inflation or cost of living) because the big industry in our town went under and we didnt have enough money to move, and even with both parents working they were barely able to pay for rent, water (which was a metered service), etc.
Simply put, Reagan’s economics did more to destroy the bottom 80% of this country then anyone back to the great depression, and since. Sure, if you were in the top 5% or so, you should go kiss reagan’s grave, since he made you WAY better off. The rest of us, not so much. The needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few, and reagan did -NOTHING- to serve the needs of the many.
“Ahhh too-shea… except a private company can’t take away your rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights.”
It can’t? What are you going to do if they try, sue them? You and what army of lawyers? You’re talking rhetorical when you should be talking practical.
“You can’t tell me the federal gov’t having your medical (including Psyc) records doesn’t give you pause. You sir, are way more trusting than me.”
They already have mine.
“As for medicare, where do we begin.”
With the most cost-effective healthcare apparatus in the world.
“You have an overly complicated system that doesn’t even come close to covering the people who are on it.”
My grandmother is on medicare and gets new glasses when she needs them, and her arthritis meds always show up before the end of the month. No healthcare plan will cover 100% of people for 100% of needs 100% of the time. Medicare probably gets 95% for 95% 95% of the time, where as the private system gets less then 60% for as little as possible, as seldom as possible. Tell me why covering less people for less coverage less of the time is in ANY way desirable?
“Where do you think the funding to bring it up to par is going to come from?”
There are a lot of options for funding, and it’s certainly an issue to discuss further. I’ve got no strong feelings at the moment, but you and I both agree there’s a LOT of pork that could be boiled off to make room.
“How much business will that drive out of this country…”
Now you’re just sounding like rush. If businesses leave the country because they don’t want to contribute (would they even be? unknown since the majority don’t pay their current level of taxation anywy) to a common medical system, then frankly – I dont want THOSE businesses around anyway. According to all the free-market theory, they’ll be replaced soon after they leave.
“Oh and hello, the coast guard ISN’T a relevant argument here since as I pointed out before that IS something that “provides for the common defense”. Mentioning that is kind of silly.”
As mentioned before, the coast guard is a law enforcement entity. I’ll use your logic in the future and count programs like the FBI, and dare I say … ATF … as contributing to our common defense, and thus are totally OK to be funded and administered federally. Let’s not cherry-pick, right?
“How do you expect anyone who’s made money in this country and any business to react to something like what you and this current gov’t are proposing?”
You just got a dodge, right? Would you trust a Honda ad as a valid source of information, philosophy, and rationale as to why your purchase of a dodge was good or bad? If so, I’ve got some beachfront property in Arizona for sale, real cheap.
“Their message is valid IMO, as the UK/Canada are great examples of this.”
The UK and Canada both have superior healthcare systems to what we have here in the states. Now, before you go off the handle and try and link individual cases where someone had to wait in line for 20 minutes, I;ll _AGAIN_ remind you that -EVERY- single complaint about UK/CA’s healthcare systems is ALSO applicable to what we have here in the states, and in most cases the problems mentioned are WORSE here! I’ve had to “wait in line” for some pretty basic healthcare services. There will always be more sick people then doctors, no matter where you go or what paradigm is used. Every single “complaint” about public healthcare is worse with a wholely private system.
In the end, it comes down to one simple thing. A public system cares for more people more of the time. There’s nothing that can morally, ethically, or rationally justify not pursuing such an option.
June 24th, 2009 on 8:51 am
You are correct, but look again at my wording. “FCC organizing but not restricting who can get a license and within a few moral standards what they can do is not a problem…” I am not and have never been calling for complete anarchy. You can’t keep arguing a point by taking that argument to a ridiculous extreme. Everyone who is in the broadcast arena or wants to be is aware of how small the RF spectrum is and without careful rationing it would be chaos and nobody wants to see that. It could also be made a case, of which I agree with it, that without proper regulation, the emergency communications and military communications we rely on are affected and thus this is an issue covered under the “provide the common defense” clause, but you have derailed me. We were not talking about justification for the FCC.
In terms of what your parents experienced, I cannot argue that. That is a major problem in our society today. My parents too worked 2-3 jobs at their peak, and while I was in college, I did 3 at one point. I know what it’s like to struggle to make ends meet. I am not saying I agreed with everything in his presidency, as I pointed out in those two specific things I have always disagreed with, but you cannot argue this point:
- Increase the taxes on businesses and they will cut costs to cover them or pass those costs onto the consumer. What business right now in MA isn’t increasing their cost of cigarettes and nicely eating that tax for the consumer? None… What business in their right mind wouldn’t do this in order to stay alive and many SMBs (small to medium sized businesses) are struggling to survive right now.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY
– Microsoft threatens to move a significant portion of their work force out of the US if the Obama tax plan goes into effect. – 6/6/09
How many jobs will that cost Americans? We are already dealing with a flood of businesses moving their operations overseas because the labor rate is cheaper. How much more can we honestly stand to loose? With those businesses and “rich folk” as you put them moving away from doing business in this country, who will replace all that glorious tax revenue and pay for Obama care? Guess what… you and me…
I am not saying what happened to you or your parents was right, but what he is proposing and you are supporting is NOT the answer.
I am going to consult with my mother and others on this one and respond later about it. Your grandmother from what you’ve said would seem to be the exception and not the norm. My mother, from her experience and her job, would paint a very different picture of the bureaucracy associated with the current Medicare system as her job is to assist the elderly with covering hospital, nursing home, and other health related care.
Most certainly without question.
Ouch man. You just called me Rush. I am hurt… I have never resorted to name calling geeze.
Which companies haven’t paid their legally obligated taxes and why isn’t the DOJ going after them? OK, so let me get this straight from you. We have companies that are supposedly not paying their taxes. So instead of taking them to court or trying to solve that particular problem, the answer you support is the drive them away, and raise the taxes of the businesses remaining? Isn’t that like cutting your nose off to spite your face?
OK, let me tackle this from a business standpoint being that I have a decade of SMB experience. If you have a customer that is struggling to pay bills and owes you money. Another SMB for example. You see their business model is solid, it’s just hard times. Do you cancel their service? Walk away? Take them to collection? If you do, you will leave a lot of business on the floor with no guarantee you will ever get paid. On the other hand you can work with them, maybe take a loss in payments for a few months, but a recovery later on when their business picks up. You may not get all of the money owed to you, but some return is better than no return.
Yep, and law enforcement on the federal level (that which crosses state boundaries) is needed more in this country. I have never argued otherwise. We need to cancel the war on drugs, increase funding to law enforcement, and start enforcing the laws we have. Not adding new ones.
Also, the US Coast Guard is considered an Armed Forces branch, so they are technically a military organization. My problems with the ATF aren’t in that it exists, but rather it’s complete management nightmare, corrupt at too many levels, and there is a general lack of oversight with them. Ask Mr. Olfson or Mr Savage what they think about the ATF’s methods…
Whoa, what planet are you living on? I am not referring to any instance where someone waited 20 minutes for a drug in line. Another extremely ludicrious example… None of the links off the one that I posted had anything so petty. They dealt with the management problems of a socialized health care system in the UK specifically.
As for Canada? Great health care? How about this:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/5/776-a
- 22 month wait for an MRI
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?ei=5090&en=ad12dcee61e8b584&ex=1298782800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
- 2-3 yrs for a hip replacement. My mother which had to have this would LOVE their health care system.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070409/cda_doctors_070409/20070409?hub=Canada
- 1-9 doctors who trained in Canada are choosing to practice, right out, in the US due to cost/bureaucracy.
That is just a few… believe me there are many more where that came from, but I have to get back to work ATM…
June 26th, 2009 on 9:08 am
You just dont get it :
Private, for-profit, healthcare serves its purpose (making rich white men richer) by DENYING YOU CARE!
Public, or otherwise non-profit, healthcare serves its purpose by PROVIDING YOU CARE!
I really just can’t understand how people don’t see the obvious wisdom in a public system…
June 26th, 2009 on 9:11 am
And honestly man, I really think you’re setting out to intentionally find supporting information against a public system … I’ve done some pretty extensive reading on the subject over the years, and I assure you – if you dig on both sides, you can find -more- “tragic stories” of private sector horrors then you would ever find out of public systems. Try signing up for blue cross and tell them you have lupus (or whatever) as a pre-existing condition and let me know how it goes for you.
Have you found someone who’s experienced both “sides” willing to give up their “big gub’mint beurocracy” plan for a US-Style private one yet?
June 28th, 2009 on 7:19 pm
If government control is so good, why don’t we just go down the Karl Marx road? I mean, if government should control health care so that rich white men don’t get richer, then we should have them build cars, provide food, shelter, and provide for all of our needs. We can just go to our government provided jobs and work all day, then go home to our government provided houses. Well, I dont know about cars, we should all go from our government provided high rise apartments onto trains to our government provided jobs. Then we can schedule our health care with a government worker and visit our government provided and educated doctor. Of course, then there would be no problems. We can all be happy. They can have a political class that takes care of us all and lives in palaces while driving on special lanes on the highway. They will eat caviar and fine foods and drink vodka. It will be hard for them, sacraficing for the common good of the rest of us and making all of our decisions for us, but someone has to do it. They can build our high rise apartments with special back doors that provide them acess and if we disagree, we can go into a center to make us more politically correct (or end up in an oven if we can’t be educated).
Oh, wait, this has been tried (and it ALWAYS fails). I’m more interested in liberty, nevermind.
June 29th, 2009 on 5:47 pm
“provide food, shelter, and provide for all of our needs.”
Except the things you mentioned, cars, etc arent needs. They are wants. Nobody advocates gub’mint providing for your wants, though arguments can be made for gub’mint providing for your needs.
As far as “this has been tried”, so where exactly? Before you try to compare gub’mint providing universal healthcare to the former soviet union or something, please .. please .. do a little homework first and save me the time linking to a few dozen articles explaining how the economy of the former soviet union -actually- functioned (disfunctioned, really).
For things like making awesome TV sets, or running agriculture, nothing beats the market – and nobody would argue that. However I’ll -again- point out that for things like helping sick people, the market fails by default as it has denying-care in its best interest.
And for the record, though its horribly off-topic, if you actually read anything by marx he says nothing … -NOTHING- … about government control over the economy. What the soviets were up too is called “state capitalism” where the government is itself a business, and leads to all the problems they ran into over the years. Marx talked about labor rights, gender equality, public ownership (NOT government ownership) over factories, and having wages based off of the utility-value of goods produced in the manufacturing industries … he said nothing about government … ironically, the majority of the gripes marx had with 19th century industry were eventually sorted out by capitalism anyway, so most of his writings ended up being a moot point.
June 29th, 2009 on 7:16 pm
The US healthcare system right now is bloated, expensive, wasteful, and unsatisfactory to patients, compared to the equivalent first-world *public* systems, which are thriving (NOT failing). See http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/are_patients_in_universal_heal.php for some solid data on that.
A public option for health insurance is NOT equivalent to a single-payer healthcare system or ’socialized medicine’ (like the VA or the Native system), and many of the critiques you make here would be applicable to the latter and not the former.
Obama himself said that the White House is not pushing for a single-payer system. See http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaforamerica/gGGGkD for a transcript of his speech to the AMA where he lays out what the actual plan is.
Given the current situation, it seems like a public health insurance option is a fairly reasonable, effective way to improve healthcare cost-effectiveness and quality, while at the same time not hampering our liberties or ability to choose our own care.
Your arguments and cherry-picked examples fail to address anything but your straw man, and the only thing they convinced me of is your ideological opposition to collective/government initiatives, without regard to actual efficacy.
June 29th, 2009 on 8:54 pm
My biggest problem is with collectivism, including in health care. You do not have the right to take my property or the fruit of my labor. When government comes and takes my property it does so without my consent. It uses force to take my property, or the threat of force or violence if I don’t comply. Government does not know what is in my best interest, nor do you. Don’t get into the crap about how I’m being selfish. You don’t have the right to take what does not belong to you. America is and always has been the most charitable group of people on the planet (this does not include the money taken from people by government and given to others, that is not charity, it is theft). Americans have always helped each other without government intervention. Government is not compassion, it is not love, it is not charity. It is force. People do not have the right to shelter, food, clothing, or health care. They have the right to go out and earn them or make them, or ask (key word, ASK) their neighbors for them. I will never understand people that think that more government is the solution to all the worlds problems. It is the cause of most problems. Including the problems with the current health care system.
June 29th, 2009 on 9:47 pm
(Slightly tangential, so I’m sorry to the blog host if you mind the minor derail.)
Jeremy, I can totally see your position there. But here’s the thing- typically, people need the apparatus of society to generate wealth. You need roads so your product can get delivered, you need unpolluted land upon which to build your facilities, your workers need to be educated to an extent and healthy.
From what I understand, facilitating the apparatus of society has become one additional task that the American people as a whole would like the government to contribute to. Because we, as a nation, have collective interests, it does sometimes benefit us to address those interests collectively, with tax dollars.
Obviously most goods and services are better taken care of under a mostly private system. We saw with the Soviet system the failings of centralized planning. But we also saw, with the Industrial Revolution and then the Great Depression, the failings of a strictly private system.
I seriously doubt that the issues we have with our private-sector healthcare industry are caused by government involvement. See the link I posted – there is substantial evidence that countries with a public healthcare plan spend less and are better served. If you have some evidence to the contrary, pony up.
You can argue about the rights and responsibilities of a strictly ideal government, and I will listen. But if you do that without actually looking at any real-world evidence? You shouldn’t expect too great of a reception.
June 29th, 2009 on 10:23 pm
I agree Jeremy, this is after all the land of opportunity. The United States never promised entitlements. It promised opportunity, if you chose to work hard and advance yourself you would reap the fruits of your labor.
Insurance was a good idea when it started because is was simply for catastrophic care. It evolved into anything you need will be covered. Add to that astronomical judgments for malpractice, and the ever increasing costs of malpractice insurance and everyone’s costs go up. But is anyone talking Tort reform? No.
I realize there are cases where certain doctors just shouldn’t be practicing, so remove them from practice, but many of the suits that are brought are from “ambulance chasers” out to make a buck. Let’s cap the judgments (or even the size of the payout to the lawyers), and we would see a dramatic decrease in the number of law suits. This will decrease Malpractice insurance and costs.
Bottom line is I don’t want an agency like the IRS reaching into my pocket for anything else. The problem with moving Healthcare from the private sector to the government is that once it is a government entity it is extremely difficult to get any real change into the system. If it is a free market system, then organizations are able to affect change and try new things without an act of congress. Businesses are motivated to look for new ways to cut costs and save money especially in a negative economy. There is absolutely no motivation in government to cut costs. The mentality is keep or increase your budget or loose the money.
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is “free”.
June 29th, 2009 on 10:32 pm
“My biggest problem….system.”
The problem with weak government, that does not have the power to tax, is that it simply doesn’t work. We tried it here, under the articles of confederation before the constitution, and it failed – horribly.
If you want to claim that taxation is theft, and not be hypocritical about it, you’re missing a few steps:
Don’t ever use public roads.
Don’t attend a public school or state university, and home school your kids.
While you’re at it, don’t file the forms to legally home school your kids since it takes tax money to process those forms.
Don’t use the telephone or internet, as it’s near impossible to do so without utilizing fiber or copper that was federally funded by tax money.
Whatever you do, don’t ever call 911 in the event of an emergency…
Oh, and lastly, don’t hope for a federal military to protect you in the event of a massive invasion. Load your musket and fend for yourself.
In the end, you -are- acting selfish. The needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few, and if you seriously think taking tax money from you is theft, then dont use any of the services I mentioned above which you don’t believe should be provided by tax money. Taxation isn’t theft, it isn’t “forced charity” or anything like that, we graduated from that school of thought in the 1700s.
If you honestly believe all that rhetoric about US Citizens being so charitable, stop working for a while (after all, why willfully get stolen from by those evil FICA overlords?) and survive on charity for a while. Go get some charity-based medical care and see how it stacks up (I’ll tell you all about it sometime… I’ve been there…), and go try to find charity that will re-pave your street after the pavement starts to break down in a few years.
June 30th, 2009 on 7:20 am
Interesting discussion. I am still not convinced the gov’t should be involved as deeply in health care. I see too many problems with the current system and I have talked with many people who know more about it (i.e. work in the currently health care field) than I do who agree that the way Medicare has been run is a confusing sham. I do not see how they can adequately fund this new initiative (to fix the problems with Medicare) without alienating / causing to flee a large portion of this country’s upper class due to high taxation. Then where is all that money going to come from?
*shakes head* I am not saying our private system is best, but there IS a reason why anyone with the means anywhere in the world who develops a serious illness wishes they could come to the US for treatment and not Canada or the UK. I think some simple regulation could resolve our problems without getting into such an expensive proposition. Again, I do not work in the health care system, and neither do any of us as far as I know, so before you go on about how well run Medicare is, talk to the case managers at hospitals (I know several) who have to organize and help people find ways to pay for things.
Public roads are funded by towns and local gov’t. Nobody has ever said these were a bad thing. The discussion here was if the federal gov’t should put together a more developed health care system. I’m just trying to keep us all “on the same road” so to speak.
June 30th, 2009 on 9:14 am
“anyone with the means anywhere in the world who develops a serious illness wishes they could come to the US for treatment and not Canada or the UK.”
According to the CIA, france and cuba currently serve the highest percentage of foreign (to them) medical patients.
I think you are under a misnomer that taxation has any kind of direct correlation to businesses moving and such. You linked a thing from microsoft saying they’d move jobs, but what that omits is that they’ve BEEN moving jobs and already have plans to continue to do so… so their threat is really just “If you enact this tax package, we’ll not-stop our already-existing plans”. Taxes do not cause job loss. Companies that move jobs due to taxes move only one kind of job : accountants. They relocate a “corporate headquarters” to Dubai and put 20 accountants in it to run the books, and not much else changes.
Frankly, you should be MORE concerned about the existence of businesses that are -SO- borderline that a 2% tax hike might make the difference between profit and loss … oh wait, it wont – I forgot, they’re just cheap fucks who want to maximize already-obscene profits and say fuck-the-little-guy. My mistake.
Funding for a public option, or national plan, could very easily be achieved by actually collecting all due taxes and ending -all- the loopholes, not just the halfass plan Obama has to shut down a few of them. According to the WSJ a couple of years ago, if all taxes owed by business pre-exemption and pre-deferment were actually collected, our national debt would be gone in 20 years, and we’d STILL have a budget surplus after paying the bills each year. But instead, our current socioeconomic model places a higher value/priority on allowing megalocorps and billgateses to weasel out of paying the same tax rate as the rest of us. You and I paid effective tax rates probably somewhere between 20-30% last year on our declared income. Walmart (the main corporate entity) paid an effective tax rate in 2008 of 7% …..
Why doesnt the DOJ crack down on it? Because currently, its LEGAL !
THAT’s the problem we have to fix if you want to fix funding of basically -any- federal program/initiative/etc. Or just cut back on stealth bombers, but you know as well as I do that won’t ever pass the would-I-get-smeared-by-fox-news test in the senate.
June 30th, 2009 on 9:14 am
Tim,
With regard to your comment;
“The problem with weak government, that does not have the power to tax, is that it simply doesn’t work. We tried it here, under the articles of confederation before the constitution, and it failed – horribly.”
The United States didn’t have an income tax until 1913, and we were getting along just fine. In fact one representative commented that we had an embarrassing 320 million dollar surplus. Americans were saving and there was no national debt.
“Don’t ever use public roads.”
Public Roads are paid by direct taxes from Fuel Sales.
“Don’t attend a public school or state university, and home school your kids.”
I do home school my kids and they are better educated. I have a problem with “State run” schools and universities anyway, but that I’ll reserve for another discussion.
“While you’re at it, don’t file the forms to legally home school your kids since it takes tax money to process those forms.”
The only form I need to file is a statement of intent to home school, and my children’s end of year evaluations and that only because I am required.
“Don’t use the telephone or internet, as it’s near impossible to do so without utilizing fiber or copper that was federally funded by tax money.”
“Whatever you do, don’t ever call 911 in the event of an emergency…”
Telephone utilities are paid for by the phone companies. It was AT&T and private money via stock holders that paid for the communications infrastructure and any taxes attached are to pay for federal regulation and bureaucracy and the 911 service.
“Oh, and lastly, don’t hope for a federal military to protect you in the event of a massive invasion. Load your musket and fend for yourself.”
The Federal military budget used to be exactly equal to all the corporate taxes collected. Most of the military spending is now paid by borrowing.
I am not selfish when I wish to decide how I spend the wealth my labor creates. I choose to pay a gas tax when I buy gas and intern that pays for the roads. I don’t choose to have the “gub-ment” reach into my pocket, or bank account and extract money from me to pay interest on a debt that no one has control over. The government is ever looking to take more and more. I pay close to half my income in taxes now. That isn’t liberty or freedom, that is slavery.
I really don’t have a problem paying reasonable local taxes, but I have a real problem with any federal income tax, and the debt we incur. We keep running up debt which creates yet another tax – inflation. Small government is good government.
June 30th, 2009 on 4:59 pm
I’m not an anarchist. I need to clear up my problem with taxes. I believe that any tax that transfers money from one person to another is theft. I have no problem with paying fuel taxes when I drive on the road, after all, I use the road. I was private schooled (my school cost about 2800$ per year when the average in my state was around 9,000$) and I got a much better education). I paid for my college with my money (not my parent’s or neighbors money).
On the health care front, I believe that any state that wants to do any form of health care should, with the consent of the citizens of that state. That is how the founders set up the country. The Fed had very strict limits on its power (read the 9th and 10th amendmant) and anything more is illegal. The states were supposed to be centers for experimentation in government, and people could live in the one that suited them best. We now have a huge central government that has completely overstepped its obligations. I believe that the best thing that could happen right now is to repeal the 16th amendmant and go back to a census tax only. The states can and should resume governing themselves as they see fit (without federal intrusion).
The federal government is supposed to provide military and navy to protect the country. I’m a former Marine Sergeant, and have spent time and sweat protecting this country. I have no problems calling 911, I’m a volunteer fire fighter, and am working on becoming an EMT (notice the VOLUNTEER part, at no cost to you). Every time I make a phone call, part of my bill goes to paying for the service.
What bothers me the most is that my 4 month old son is already a slave to the massive wasteful spending of the federal government, and it will not stop spending itself into collapse. At some point people should realize that government is not the solution to every problem, but people are.
I will never understand people that go off on old greedy white men. You have to realize that the liberty that this country offered brought huge innovation and growth of wealth, and anyone who want’s to work hard can acheive it. The technologies we have today didn’t come from the government, it came from people who were allowed to try, and most importantly fail! If we have a government takeover of health care, we will stifle that innovation in new technologies for making lives longer and healthier.
July 1st, 2009 on 9:31 am
What a joke. You wingnut conservatives on here should be supporting the “public option”. It’s an “OPTION” not a requirement, and YOU wont even pay for it – the people who use it will !
If anything a public OPTION will increase competition in the field of health services, and competition is good right?
In truth, that wimpass optional plan from Obama is nothing but a half-measure. He supposedly was the “most liberal senator” (thought that was Hillary?) and got elected by the “far left” and all that, so I’m struggling to figure out why he’s pulling these wishy-washy moderate policies and initiatives.
What Obama SHOULD be doing is being loyal to those of us on the far left who got him elected. He needs to immediately nationalize all hospitals, form an enlisted component to the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and draft all homeless/unemployed into it. This will provide a HUGE amount of workers for the new program, and end unemployment in a single stroke. This can be paid for by a progressive asset tax. An asset tax is different from an income tax, since instead of taxing income (of which rich people don’t declare much since they can afford good lawyers) it taxes net-worth each year, like a property tax. This way, poor folk will pay almost nothing and the rich will FINALLY put in their fair share towards the society that let them get so rich in the first place. After this is established, all private insurance companies will be shut down so that rich people and poor people get EXACTLY the same medical care. Only this way will the proletariat finally cast off the yoke of medical-inequality, and rich people will stop out-surviving poor people. The labour class in this country has been kept under the thumb for too long, and it’s time to finally get our kids the medical care they need regardless of “cost”.
If any rich people try and buy enough guns to stop the government from this, we can just nationalize local police (would give a good excuse to finally standardize the uniforms at least…) to deal with that. If any southern states try and secede again (IM LOOKING AT YOU TEXAS!) we’ll need to reinstate the draft to crush the rebellion, Lincoln-style. Probably best to start the draft up again ahead of time just incase, plus it would give us an ample supply of public labour if needed.
As for that “tax is theft” nonsense, taxes are a “membership fee” to live in society. If you people like Jeremy and sheepdog thing taxes are theft, you are free to go live in a log cabin and have your little house on the prairie style survivalist economy out in the middle of nowhere, and leave us big kids to play with electricity and indoor plumbing. That guy who posted that streets and 911 are funded locally couldn’t be more wrong. First, it varies from state to state, and secondly the check is cut from the state or local account, but the vast majority of the funds in that account are from federal allocations. 90% of the telecommunications infrastructure in this country was funded mostly-or-totally by federal programs. You need to get your head out of the so-called ‘austrian school of economics’, it isnt even one of the major schools of thought on the subject anyway. Everyone else laughs at it, literally (google for kruegman austrian school caller).
Of course, this is moot since the end goal is, and should be, a global money-less society. Once we abolish the concept of money, and the pursuit of material wealth instead of quality of life wealth, we’ll be on the first step to utopia.
If you sissies like muse and tim want moderate centrist crap you can vote to re-elect the impostor-in-chief Mr. Obama. Those of us who want REAL liberal reform in this country will need to take a different path, and get someone into office who’s a REAL liberal with no interest in “bipartisan” crap or “center seeking” policy.
All power to all of the people.
July 1st, 2009 on 4:39 pm
Wow! Utopia, brought to you by government!
Can’t wait!
This has been tried before many times in many places, and it always fails. The problem is, all power to all of the people ends up being all power to the political class, and the rest end up slaves or in an oven or gas chamber if they dont agree with the political class. Good luck with that.
If you want that, there is always the option of moving to one of those countries that provide utopia, and leaving us greedy Americans here to build material wealth through our ambition, hard work, and liberty.
If it does come to your utopia, I will be in a log cabin in the mountains (I’m sure you will hunt me down eventually). It will be better to be free and spend my days toiling to produce my own food and find fuel for heat than a slave in your system.
I do agree with you though, people on the left should just go all the way left, not somewhere partially left. Stop dragging it out, just go all the way.
July 1st, 2009 on 6:34 pm
Ha! TJ had me going there for a bit, thinking he was all serious and shit.
Good times.
July 1st, 2009 on 10:14 pm
About the only thing powers said there thats worth much credit is that the public option would increase competition and make private options better in the long run, and should be supported by conservatives. The rest was … mostly drivel.
As for jeremy/sheep, sadly I think you guys are having the wrong discussion. Youre talking rhetoric about the nature of taxation and such, which really has little bearing on a public option for health care. As the link from muse pointed out, public health care is far from disasterous (seriously, click it .. it has hard data..) and far from expensive (agian, actually click and read it..).
If you want to argue the merits/etc of taxation in general, I think its a pointless discussion but a discussion for another topic just the same.
In regards to a public option, all actual data (ignoring pundit vomit) indicates that a public option would be affordable and effective. It really is silly to oppose, especially since those who dont want it wont pay for it … *shrugs*
July 3rd, 2009 on 5:56 am
An interesting view on the British NHS, this guy -REALLY- hates it …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E07ZHWxT834
July 3rd, 2009 on 9:48 am
The fact is you can find data to support any position you want on this topic. I would rather look at the history. I like cmdrfenix work with many clients and know people in the health care industry, and none except a few fringe, like working with a government run system. Currently, medicare medicaid will pay 50% of what they approve on most claims. That’s 50% of what they approve as “reasonable” rates. This in a competitive market.
If the government takes the whole system then bankrupts it as it does everything else, the only logical step is to ration, then to become selective about who gets health care and who doesn’t, and then decide who is terminal and who isn’t, then decide who is productive and who isn’t. Those who produce are good for society, and those that aren’t are are drain and we should let them die after all that is good for the whole of society. Yeah, that’s the kind of “compassion” even the IRS couldn’t touch.
The fact is that there is and never will be compassion in government no matter who’s running the system. Man is simply too selfish, and no matter who you put in power they will corrupt the system and direct power and wealth to their own ends. So the only option is to keep government and corporations small.
July 6th, 2009 on 9:13 am
“If the government takes the whole system then bankrupts it as it does everything else,”
Who’s talking about “taking the whole system”, last I checked the issue on the table is for a public healthcare OPTION that people would opt-in to.
Also, since when is the US Marine Corps bankrupt?
“Man is simply too selfish”
So, ‘cant win, dont try’ eh? I’m glad we don’t all think that way.
July 6th, 2009 on 2:14 pm
Sorry been away this weekend for the 4th and also enjoying a new toy I just bought. OK, to address the points and to reiterate my feelings on the topic of a gov’t run health care system:
1. There is too much wasteful spending in gov’t right now and way too much bureaucracy in the current Medicare system to say they would do a better job. Fix the problems with the current system and maybe I’ll reconsider.
2. Make it an option for me to OPT-IN, and then my objection is moot.
3. Fix and regulate the current private system.
I am not a health care system guru by any means of the imagination. The above items, I think, are a fair way of heading toward a solution to the problem. All the statistics in the world will not convince me that expanding the current Medicare system is the answer to our problems.
July 6th, 2009 on 3:32 pm
Just curious, what are you looking at that makes you think medicare is so incredibly bloated with beaurocracy and such? In your readings, you MUST have found out that it only has an administrative overhead of 4% (compared to almost 60% for our current private insurance companies) and is the most effective healthcare option in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness. I’m just dumbfounded that people keep saying medicare sucks because of bloat that simply doesnt exist.
July 6th, 2009 on 4:49 pm
The argument that we need government “competition” in health care insurance is absurd. If we need competition in health insurance, why not some healthy government competition in all types of services and products. We can have a line of government cars (oops, already do…), government refridgerators and appliances, government roofing shingles. After all, competition is always good, especially when it’s government making the product, right?
I think people bash medicare because it doesn’t pay doctors what they have in cost, let alone what they bill the customer. The system is bankrupt and full of fraud. Like social security, it’s basically a ponzi scheme (which appears to be ok if the government does it?). I pay alot of money into subsidizing medicare and will probably never see a penny,and I have no choice in the matter. (unless I want to go to jail or stop working)
I realize that we will never agree on this subject, but I think that we have gotten to the point where people believe that government is the only solution to problems, and I believe it is the problem in most situations. Just on example, here in my home state, any health insurance policy sold is required by law to include gastric bypass surgery. I’m 6′2, 185 lbs. I don’t need that on my policy, but government will not allow me to purchase a policy without it. There are 26 pages of insurance mandates here. Another example of how government caused a problem and will destroy the system trying to fix the problem it created. It will be no different with government mandated insurance (or massive fines if you don’t buy a policy)
July 6th, 2009 on 8:16 pm
What I find interesting is that all these ponzi schemes you talk about are A-OK if they are some private entity that makes people richer, but not-OK if it’s a public entity that doesnt make anyone richer.
*shrugs* I guess we all have our priorities.
July 6th, 2009 on 8:39 pm
I never said it was ok for private corporations or any one else to steal from someone through deciet or by any other means. Come on now, that’s completely unfair. By the way, it certainly does make people poorer wether it’s a private theif or a government theif. I just want to be left alone to pay for what I use and not pay for what everyone else. This is America, not France. When you tell me that the federal gov’t has any legal option to do this, then I might be more up to discuss it. Read the constitution, read the founders notes and writings.
I’ll leave you with a quote from Samuel Adams,
“The utopian schemes of leveling [re-distribution of wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distrubition, aka. socialism], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.”
I know I will never convice you that government is not your friend, we will just have to agree to disagree. This country was founded on individual liberty and personal responsibility not collectivism or government mandates.
July 7th, 2009 on 9:33 am
“What I find interesting is that all these ponzi schemes you talk about are A-OK if they are some private entity that makes people richer, but not-OK if it’s a public entity that doesnt make anyone richer.”
At least we can shut down a private ponzi scheme. You can’t shut doen a government ponzi scheme. There is no real oversight for government, and who do you put in Jail for illegal government policies? Government answer is no answer.
July 7th, 2009 on 9:35 am
I’ll close by saying that we -have- amended the constitution a couple of times, and if you read more then the first page or get brave enough to dive into the US Code, you may find the federal gub’mint has a little more “authority” then you previously thought.
July 7th, 2009 on 4:46 pm
I’m all for amending the constitution, or trying. I’ve read the entire constitution as well. Sorry, not much in there about the gov’t running banks, car companies, retirement plans or health insurance. Leave that stuff to the states, it’s not the job of the people in washington to run my day to day life. Just because someone printed up a bunch of US Code doesn’t make it constitutional. Read the *gasp* 10th Amendmant, it pretty much takes care of shutting down mandated health insurance. I’m sorry we’ve dragged this out so long, you’re clearly in favor of gov’t running your personal life. Soon it will run more and more of mine whether I want it to or not.
July 15th, 2009 on 7:01 am
Really good vid I found online where some film makers took cameras into Canada to observe the healthcare system there.
July 20th, 2009 on 10:22 am
Total cherry picking.
-AGAIN-, I dont know how many times I have to say it, maybe it’ll stick this time …..
If you look at the FACTS, the numbers, you’ll find that a public option is a win-win … if you listen to position-ads, you’ll never know whats going on. For every “ZOMG old lady died from EEEEEVIL socialized medicine” you can find HUNDREDS of “ZOMG poor kid died of polio in EEEEEEVIL american healthcare system”….
Just let me know how many more times to stress that point that it’ll take to sink in so I can do it all at once.
July 20th, 2009 on 5:33 pm
I can look at the facts. You are much more likely to die of breast cancer or prostate cancer in Canada or in the UK. You want health care reform, deregulate insurance, allow me to buy it where I want with what provisions I want. Get government out completely (unless any of the states want to do it, read the 10th amendment). Just look at plastic surgery, there is no insurance, but people shop around and buy what is the best value and it’s not very expensive compared to going to the hospital for stitches when you cut yourself. You need to read the bill they’ve proposed in the senate and house. Congress and the white house are exempt, you have little choice, and the competition would be subsidized by taxing wealthy people into poverty. As if we need to tax them past the 60% mark. It would drive private insurance out of business (which is the intent). Stay out of my life and leave me alone!
July 21st, 2009 on 6:40 am
“deregulate insurance, allow me to buy it where I want with what provisions I want”
So…. when none of the insurance providers offer what you need (nevermind what you want), you’ll do what exactly?
Oh right, just “not get sick”. Sorry, I forgot for a moment. Oh wait, you have a pre-existing knee injury? Forget about being covered for the lung cancer you’ll get in 40 years, it’s obviously related…
As for “taxing the rich into poverty” I’d honestly love to live somewhere where adjusted net income (not gross) in the millions of dollars range is considered “poverty”. I’m also highly amused that you’re so concerned about protecting a group of people that actively seek to fuck you over, but hey too each their own
July 21st, 2009 on 6:38 pm
I try to become one of those bastards through hard work, as most of them became millionaires through their efforts. In my state, we have 26 pages of insurance mandates. We only have three carriers that will provide insurance here because of regulation (many states have even lesse). Maybe if we regulate it a little more, we’ll have a few less here. Health care is not a right. It’s a business. Insurance is not a right, it’s a business. Businesses set their price and policies in a free market. If you have lung cancer, you will get care in any hospital in the country regardless of your ability to pay. I guess we have a crisis that needs government intervention (more than there already is).
Last time I checked, poor people don’t provide people with employment, paychecks, or insurance provided to employees. Usually, people that have lots of money do. When you tax the shit out of those people, they stop hiring, providing pay checks, and insurance. I work for a very wealthy individual, he pays me well, provides me with a “free” family insurance plan. Stop with the class warfare marxism crap, last time I checked it’s not a crime to make lots of money, actually, we used to think it was a good thing. Maybe in your world, the government provides us with credits for food, insurance, housing, and clothing and the system works all by itself (without those wealthy people that pay for it now).
July 22nd, 2009 on 7:25 am
“Health care is not a right. It’s a business.”
There was a time when voting wasnt a right either, and a time when non-discrimination based on race wasnt a right. It’s called progress. It may take us another 200 years, but basic healthcare -should- be a right, and is in many places.
“Last time I checked, poor people don’t provide people with employment, paychecks, or insurance provided to employees. Usually, people that have lots of money do.”
What you meant to say was “corporations that have lots of money do”. There’s a very significant difference.
I still find your defense of the overly wealthy to be really amusing, you presume that even a small percentage of them got “rich” through so-called “hard work” which is just outright false. When you say hard work, I think about laying brick or a plumber. When you say rich person I think of a stock broker or similar desk-jockey (I include myself as a desk jockey, and I’ll never claim that IT work is “hard”).
Successful “rich” small business owners get “rich” by paying you less for your labor then it produces them in profit. It’s a very common misconception that the price of goods and the margin on units sold is what generates the profit in the modern economy, but the simple fact is that if you actually look at the numbers the majority of profitable SP small businesses pay -way- below average wages. It isnt “class warfare marxism crap” (which was obsolete many years ago), it’s math.
You didn’t address the core points in my previous post though. When you get your dreamland of deregulation and the options for your healthcare choice all suck and none of them will cover what you want (ignoring what you may actually need) and not be prevented from denying you care because you stubbed your toe 10 years ago without reporting it… well … I hope I never live in a place like that. To paraphrase an anti-public-healthcare ad, “a choice that sucks is no choice at all”.
Its also a widely held misconception that regulation drives out businesses. I’m not sure how this gets ignored by the “deregulate” crowd, but many parts of the world have -WAY WAY- more regulation over their economy then us, and yet … low and behold … they still have a successful economy, and have businesses that provide goods/services comparable with our own. How is that exactly? How do “over regulated” countries like, oh, the rest of the first-world, manage to keep ANY business at all within their borders? There’s a mountain of evidence that regulation does nothing to scare off business, and just results in more lawyers (which I concede, is not an ideal situation).
Anyway, we’re getting off topic again. Here’s a fun link of lewis black that should give everyone a chuckle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91bI2EZb3Hg
July 25th, 2009 on 7:43 pm
I hope you get a chance to read HB 3200, this pretty much sums it up…..
Confine insurers to single states; make it prohibitively expensive to actually write insurance policies; prevent re-insurance so insurers can’t protect themselves and their policyholders; stop insurers from denying coverage to people who abuse their insurance agreements; require insurers to provide mandatory minimum levels of coverage on all policies.
On the other side, tax workers and businesses so heavily that the former can’t afford private insurance and the latter would be business-foolish to offer it.
If the insurers have no profit motive and people cannot afford private insurance, private insurance will cease to exist (except for those people who can afford high-quality care).
Seems to me that’s very much the point of H.B. 3200.
It’s not even subtle.
In the end, government takes over and controls healthcare.
July 25th, 2009 on 10:07 pm
I have read HB3200, and that isnt how it sounded to me at all. I read nothing in it that “confines insurers to single states” – what you meant by that statement was that if insurers have clients in multiple states, they actually have to abide by the laws of ALL the states they insure people in and not just their home state, which you see as business-disadvantageous and thus “confining” them to their home state. Either your getting your summary from coultergeist or you are making assumptions that insurance companies are unable to adjust to a changing business environment.
Or maybe you dont think businesses should actually have to, you know, adapt over time? Meh who knows.
As for “tax workers and businesses so heavily” .. so where in HB3200 was the 80% tax hike that I didn’t see? You seem convinced that increases of less then 5% on -some- taxes, or actually collecting taxes already due by closing loopholes and such, somehow is enough to put microsoft in the poor house. I’m not sure how you reach that mindset.
“If the insurers have no profit motive” – Since when was the profit motive the only reason it is ever ok to do something? Does national defence have to make a profit? Does a police department have to make a profit? What attribute of medical care makes it so that it is somehow required for it to be a profit-driven service? As for private insurance ceasing to exist, I disagree – sucky private insurance companies that are incapable of adjusting their business model may struggle for a few quarters (boo hoo), but the private insurance industry as a whole isnt going anywhere unless they -REALLY- fuck things up for themselves, and im sorry but that wont be the gub’mint’s fault….
In any case, I’ve about lost energy for this discussion. It’s likely that I’ll end my commentary here, so feel free to chime in with the last word.
Thanks much for the discussion so-far, while I disagree I do feel that you’ve raised some valid criticisms that need to be addressed regardless of the type of solution to the “healthcare question”.
July 26th, 2009 on 9:13 am
I don’t think the private insurance companies will “f–k” things up. The government taxpayer subsidized “competition” will. I have no problem with businesses having to adapt. I don’t think we have a crisis that they need to adapt to. The argument that there is a health care crisis in America is simply not true. I appreciate the discussion, even knowing that I will never convince you that government isn’t capable of fixing all our problems through force. We’ll wait for the next topic to discuss!