What is the current Republican position on this?

[Neally]

Who needs remedial reading?

You do. A grammar typo is not a reading comprehension issue.

 

[excaza]

****, people are selfish.

 

[Neally]

So the government should have done NOTHING during and after Hurricane Katrina?

Other than maintain order, and normal fire/police/ambulance services, no. That's what private charities like Red Cross are for. Up to $2 billion was wasted on fraudulent "help" that the government gave.

 

[Drachasor]

Other than maintain order, and normal fire/police/ambulance services, no. That's what private charities like Red Cross are for. Up to $2 billion was wasted on fraudulent "help" that the government gave.

Why exactly should fire services be run?

Correct me if I am wrong, but if your house burns down, that's your own damn fault, right? I mean, certainly the firemen shouldn't show up just to put out ONE house that isn't going to set others on fire.

Would you also say that the police should primarily focus on protecting the rich, since they pay most of the bills? And if someone happens to live in a high crime neighborhood, well, their the idiots that decided to do that, right? No point in policing an area like that much.

I assume that you also think that if someone shows up bleeding to death to an ER, and they don't have insurance or money, the ER should let them bleed out, right? They should just ignore the guy dying, or maybe manhandled him to make sure he doesn't get in their way.

And if little children are suffering from any of this, well, that was their stupid decision too, right? Dumb kids. If someone didn't have enough money to move, or a significant disaster only shows up once ever few hundred years, well, their own fault for lack of planning.

 

[Travis]

Sorry, but it is. You want someone else to pay for something you want.

So if I deny someone else their life it's no worse than if I stole a chocolate sundae?

Yes. For the most part living in a well known disaster prone area is a choice people make. You choose to live in a flood zone, don't expect everyone else to keep bailing you out when it floods.

Right so we should all live somewhere the disasters don't hit. You know, like...............that one place and.....................

 

[excaza]

Other than maintain order, and normal fire/police/ambulance services, no.

Why should I pay my money to help someone else maintain order?

 

[Bri]

Feel free to give to those in need according you your own conscience, don't force others to do so though.

In my opinion, when the logical conclusion of your argument comes out as absurd as citizens should be allowed to starve to death through no fault of their own, it's time to come up with a new argument.

Other than maintain order, and normal fire/police/ambulance services, no.

Why would you force me to pay for fire/police/ambulance for you if you were in a disaster?

-Bri

 

[johnny karate]

There is risks everywhere of course. Don't expect everyone else to make your life risk free.

Other than maintain order, and normal fire/police/ambulance services, no.

Behold the arbitrariness of one who lacks the conviction to fully embrace the anarchy of which his belief is the logical antecedent.

 

[Dancing David]

No I don't think a complete new system with 1,000+ pages was neccesary to put in place a system where those with no money can get insurance ( for the most part this already exists, i know many people who have low income and they all have insurance, maybe this is a new NY thing) and to add some sort of assigned risk program for people who because of preexisting conditions cannot get insurance.

A second reason is I don't want people to be forced to buy insurance. If I choose not to (as I have in the past) it should be my responsibilty to take the risk of losing my home etc if a major problem occurs.

It sure isn't an Illinois thing. I have been denied by private carriers in Illinois.

 

[Buckaroo]

Based on the evidence presented in this thread, having a conservative viewpoint has evolved to where it's indistinguishable from just being an *******. How did this happen?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I ask this in earnest as I have such a large personal stake in the matter. Maybe some of you do too. I know that's why most of my threads in this subforum have been about it. As you all know no private health insurance company would ever cover me. From my current point of view the only way I could get covered is with some sort of universal health care system being implemented. So what is the Republican plan to allow all Americans to have access to health care?

Here's a link. The presidential candidates vary on this. I prefer Ron Paul's position on this issue (not some other issues): Health care (other than traditional "public health" services like vector control and pollution control) is not the State's business. The taxpayers of one medium-sized US State could provide health care for everyone on the planet if "health care" means one aspirin tablet and one bandaid per person per year. The world's GDP is insufficient to keep even one person alive forever. You are going to die. Most of us, before we die, will get sick. Inevitably, for each person, someone decides if X additional days of life is worth %Y more dollars in treatment costs. In any system, for every person, the answer will be "no", eventually.

 

[Drachasor]

Here's a link. The presidential candidates vary on this. I prefer Ron Paul's position on this issue (not some other issues): Health care (other than traditional "public health" services like vector control and pollution control) is not the State's business.

What sort of "vectors" are you talking about? Disease vectors? Because keeping a population healthy makes it so that disease doesn't spread as readily and everyone is more productive. For instance, here's a non-proportional difference between 95% vaccinations and 70% vaccinations. That applies to a lot of other things health-related.

Add to that that preventative measures can stop a lot of problems before they start.

Related to this, if you consider roads the job of the State to maintain because they are an important part of our infrastructure, how can you rate people, also an important part of our infrastructure, as less important?

You are going to die. Most of us, before we die, will get sick. Inevitably, for each person, someone decides if X additional days of life is worth %Y more dollars in treatment costs. In any system, for every person, the answer will be "no", eventually.

Expense at the extremes of health care doesn't really justify not giving everyone adequate health care, which is exceedingly affordable. In fact, even the vast, vast majority of the more extreme cases aren't all that expensive for society to cover.

Anyhow, all that said, based on what you said, do you think Medicare should be dropped? Old people aren't productive and "they are going to die" even more so than other people. Do you think social security should be stopped? Why save money for the elderly, when you can just have people spend it when they are young. No reason to make a system to prop up old people and keep them from dying on the streets, right?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In my opinion, when the logical conclusion of your argument comes out as absurd as citizens should be allowed to starve to death through no fault of their own, it's time to come up with a new argument. Why would you force me to pay for fire/police/ambulance for you if you were in a disaster?

Try this:...
Eduardo Zambrano
Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy
Applications
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138.

"Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

The problem with the "public goods" argument for State )government, generally) provision of charity (medical care, education, welfare) is that oversight of corporate functions is a public good and the State itself is a corporation. Therefore, oversight of State functions is a public good which the State itself cannot provide. State assumption of responsibility for the provision of public goods transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

 

[Drachasor]

Based on the evidence presented in this thread, having a conservative viewpoint has evolved to where it's indistinguishable from just being an *******. How did this happen?

Pretty much. It's rather disturbing.

That said, the vast majority of Americans actually support Universal Health Care (as they did the Public Option), Social Security, and so forth. It's actually rather interesting to see how public policy doesn't reflect the will of the people.

 

[Drachasor]

The problem with the "public goods" argument for State )government, generally) provision of charity (medical care, education, welfare) is that oversight of corporate functions is a public good and the State itself is a corporation. Therefore, oversight of State functions is a public good which the State itself cannot provide. State assumption of responsibility for the provision of public goods transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

Gosh, that's hilarious given how common universal health care is in first world countries. It's also far more efficiently (and fairly) provided than we have in the U.S.

But I guess since it is "impossible" according to you, then reality must be some kind of illusion.

My personal stance: If the State can provide a service to the public more efficiently than private enterprise, then it should do so. There's no reason why the State, which is an institution OF the people (different than a corporation, really), shouldn't serve the people by saving them money like this.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What sort of "vectors" are you talking about? Disease vectors?

Yes.

Because keeping a population healthy makes it so that disease doesn't spread as readily and everyone is more productive. For instance, here's a non-proportional difference between 95% vaccinations and 70% vaccinations. That applies to a lot of other things health-related.

I can see an argument for compulsory vaccination, since there is a prisoner's dilemma aspect to the individual's calculation of whether to seek vaccination. For most other issues of individual health, each individual has sufficient incentive to maintain health that State attention to this is likely redundant and expensive.

Add to that that preventative measures can stop a lot of problems before they start.

Related to this, if you consider roads the job of the State to maintain because they are an important part of our infrastructure, how can you rate people, also an important part of our infrastructure, as less important?

Roads do not respond to incentives and cannot maintain themselves. People do, and can. I have not used professional medical services in 20 years.

Expense at the extremes of health care doesn't really justify not giving everyone adequate health care, which is exceedingly affordable. In fact, even the vast, vast majority of the more extreme cases aren't all that expensive for society to cover.

Define "adequate". We all, ultimately, receive "inadequate" health care.

Anyhow, all that said, based on what you said, do you think Medicare should be dropped?

LBJ was a snake. Medicare is unconstitutional and one of the major contributors to the unsustainable US debt..

Old people aren't productive and "they are going to die" even more so than other people. Do you think social security should be stopped?

The welfare State cannot last. Politicians have made more promises than they can keep. The longer policymakers defer addressing the entitlement issue, the narrower and less favorable their options will become. How to gracefully default is a complex issue. I don't know. Yes, better not to have made these promises in the first place.

Why save money for the elderly, when you can just have people spend it when they are young. No reason to make a system to prop up old people and keep them from dying on the streets, right?

Up to you and your grandparents. Inevitably, somebody or some body decides when to pull the plug on grandma. It will either be family or some committee in Washington. Take your pick. Just don't pretend that the State can confer eternal life.

 

[Neally]

Why exactly should fire services be run?

Taxes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if your house burns down, that's your own damn fault, right?

You're wrong.

I assume that you also think that if someone shows up bleeding to death to an ER, and they don't have insurance or money, the ER should let them bleed out, right?

That decision should be up to the ER to make.

So if I deny someone else their life it's no worse than if I stole a chocolate sundae?

That's a decision for them to make.

Right so we should all live somewhere the disasters don't hit. You know, like...............that one place and.....................

I already addressed this straw man.

Why should I pay my money to help someone else maintain order?

Why shouldn't you? I never argued against a basic level of police protection.

In my opinion, when the logical conclusion of your argument comes out as absurd as citizens should be allowed to starve to death through no fault of their own, it's time to come up with a new argument.

Ah yes, the "if you believe in some limits, therefore you have to believe in the complete extreme" straw man.

Why would you force me to pay for fire/police/ambulance for you if you were in a disaster?

Because I believe in certain basic limited services are best delivered through the government.

Behold the arbitrariness of one who lacks the conviction to fully embrace the anarchy of which his belief is the logical antecedent.

Ah yes, the "if you believe in some limits, therefore you have to believe in the complete extreme" straw man. You seem to have quite the habit of throwing out straw men in many of your postings.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Eduardo Zambrano
Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy
Applications
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138.

Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

The problem with the "public goods" argument for State (government, generally) provision of charity (medical care, education, welfare) is that oversight of corporate functions is a public good and the State itself is a corporation. Therefore, oversight of State functions is a public good which the State itself cannot provide. State assumption of responsibility for the provision of public goods transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

Gosh, that's hilarious given how common universal health care is in first world countries. It's also far more efficiently (and fairly) provided than we have in the U.S.
But I guess since it is "impossible" according to you, then reality must be some kind of illusion.

Pretty much. I believe that Drachsor has fallen for State-worshipful propaganda.

My personal stance: If the State can provide a service to the public more efficiently than private enterprise, then it should do so. There's no reason why the State, which is an institution OF the people (different than a corporation, really), shouldn't serve the people by saving them money like this.

I might agree about State provision of some services, except for the consideration that State operation or subsidization generates a crowding-out effect (Social Security displaced mutual aid societies, government schools displaced independent and church-operated schools). We disagree about the State. It is a corporation, legally. Does Drachasor contend that the government of North Korea is "OF the people"?

 

[Drachasor]

Yes.I can see an argument for compulsory vaccination, since there is a prisoner's dilemma aspect to the individual's calculation of whether to seek vaccination.

That's not unique to vaccinations.

For most other issues of individual health, each individual has sufficient incentive to maintain health that State attention to this is likely redundant and expensive.Roads do not respond to incentives and cannot maintain themselves. People do, and can.

Ahh, so you favor tax incentives so that people maintain healthy habits then?

I have not used professional medical services in 20 years.Define "adequate".

Oh, right, because you are lucky and haven't had any health problems, everyone can do without. I suppose you ignore the fact that a good bit of that is pure luck?

Medicare is unconstitutional and one of the major contributors to the unsustainable US debt..

The only problem with it is that it isn't universal and it is crippled by law (e.g. it can't negotiate medication prices). Looking at other First World countries it is pretty clear that provided health care can work just fine.

The welfare State cannot last. Politicians have made more promises than they can keep. The longer policymakers defer addressing the entitlement issue, the narrower and less favorable their options will become. How to gracefully default is a complex issue. I don't know. Yes, better not to have made these promises in the first place.

What's your evidence that Social Security can't last? It's perfectly fine through 2038 and after that if NOTHING is done, it will still be fine at 80% payouts. The only reason for the problems is really the growth disparity.

Up to you and your grandparents. Inevitably, somebody or some body decides when to pull the plug on grandma. It will either be family or some committee in Washington. Take your pick. Just don't pretend that the State can confer eternal life.

You are not familiar with the fact that one of the reasons Social Security was implemented was because old people were dying in the streets? Get rid of that and you'll see a lot more homeless old people dying.

 

[Drachasor]

Pretty much. I believe that Drachsor has fallen for State-worshipful propaganda.

Oh wow, so other first world countries don't have universal health care? Or are you saying it isn't more efficient? Please explain.