Obama's State of the Union Address

[Richard Masters]

So because a private pharmacy and a physician's office bungled your prescription refill you think there should be no prescription drug regulations? I'm sorry but you've not made a valid analysis.

I know you mean well, but intentionally or unintentionally you see have misrepresented most of what I've said.

I'm not saying there should be no prescription drug regulations. I'm saying the regulations are excessive. I would be happy if Congress were unable to pass new laws for a few years.

Also, why should I have to pay $100+ for a 15 minute visit to see my doctor to request refills? if I already have been taking this medication for so long? In the end it's an undue burden on me.

How about comparing the benefit of prescription drug laws against the risks/costs instead of looking at a single event?

Suppose there were no regulations and instead the pharmacy you went to talked you into buying something ineffective. You left the store took the replacement, found out it didn't work, had to go back, then found out they were out of the other drug and so on and so on. The pharmacy and the doctor screwed up your refill. It wasn't the prescription drug laws that were the problem.

Try again.

Why would I get a replacement? It's a completely different molecular profile with different benefits and different side-effects.

 

[Richard Masters]

If the civil rights bill were repealed today, some overt racial discrimination would begin immediately. You can legislate integration & equal access, you can't legislate internal feelings. For some, the only thing that kept those feelings from resulting in actions were laws. There would be separate bathrooms and food counters within weeks and it would grow from there.

Most of the racial segregation in the history of the United States was legislated and institutionalized. In this case, fewer Jim Crow laws, would be the best scenario. As a matter of fact, most of the racial laws today are intended to mitigate the racist laws we put in place years ago. In the case of racist laws, was it not a good thing that we repealed laws preventing interracial marriage?

Things are better because we took away that power from the state, not the other way around.

 

[RandFan]

¹I would be happy if Congress were unable to pass new laws for a few years.

²Also, why should I have to pay $100+ for a 15 minute visit to see my doctor to request refills?

• #2 Is a problem.
• #1 would obviate a solution to #2

What exactly is it that you want? FTR: There is lots of bad regulation. That fact isn't an indictment of regulation. One might as well posit that the fact that there is a lot of bad reasoning is an indictment of reasoning.

 

[RandFan]

Most of the racial segregation in the history of the United States was legislated and institutionalized. In this case, fewer Jim Crow laws, would be the best scenario. As a matter of fact, most of the racial laws today are intended to mitigate the racist laws we put in place years ago. In the case of racist laws, was it not a good thing that we repealed laws preventing interracial marriage?

Things are better because we took away that power from the state, not the other way around.

We gave power to the state to enforce anti-discrimination laws, desegregation, etc.

I can't understand your point unless I assume some CT of lawmakers to establish and perpetuate segregation. Laws are simply a reflection of society. The laws might perpetuate the segregation but they are not the source of the sentiment that feeds it.

 

[Richard Masters]

You've not made your case that the laws are "unneeded".

Well, I only presented the example you asked for.

This is a straw man argument. That is not the mentality. The actual 'mentality' is the government has a useful role to play.

Those two are not mutually exclusive. Government has a useful role to play.

Ron Paul spouts an ignorant slogan "the government is unnecessary" and you are echoing it.

I'm not saying it's unnecessary. I'm saying we don't really need too many more broad reaching laws. Our quality of live can also be improved by repealing badly written laws. Or by lessening the impact of laws that should never have been put in place to start.

But you are not looking at the pros and cons, you are simply declaring your personal freedom is impinged therefore all laws are bad.

But I'm not appealing for all laws to be done away with. I'm also not saying all laws are bad.

If all those laws were gone you would find your personal freedom in a lot worse shape as every individual with more power than you simply took your rights away.

For example?

More straw. While the farm subsidies may have once been useful, they currently serve to pad the pockets of crony constituencies. I am specifically for ending these subsidies. That doesn't mean everything the government does is unnecessary.

I never claimed everything the government does is unnecessary. I'm saying we are oversaturated with laws and a Paul presidency would mitigate that temporarily.

Actually, we need laws to protect homosexuals from the people who disagree with homoseuality and then want to unfairly discriminate against gays.

Instead of making gay marriage legal, why not be legally indifferent about heterosexual marriage? By repealing an unfair law, you make things more fair for homosexuals.

There are legitimate issues with copyright infringement that need to be resolved in the new era of file sharing and freedom of Internet access to information. This particular legislation is not well devised. But something is needed. I await a better version.

These laws tend to be abused. I made a website pointing out a scam, and the company running the scam used DMCA to silence me. What new laws would you propose?

This conclusion is naive. I'm guessing you don't live in the South or maybe you approve of the discrimination against Muslims.

No, I don't live in the South. What kind of legislation is going to solve discrimination against Muslims?

You are poorly informed here. Currently insurance companies reimburse doctors, not patients so your argument is unsupportable.

This shows a complete misunderstanding on your part. I never claimed companies reimburse patients or implied anything of the sort.

Currently those patients that do pay for health care subsidize the costs of the freeloaders.

Please elaborate.

If you want to say it's OK for the hospitals to let people who can't pay die on the steps of the ED then you can make your argument that mandatory health care coverage is wrong. As long as society is unwilling to do that, then the freeloaders are better covered by either tax dollar supported national health care insurance or directly provided care in government run hospitals and clinics. Short of that, mandatory private insurance is the next best option.

Which freeloaders are these? It's not a rhetorical question. I'm not following you.

Ron Paul's position is to pretend charity will pay for all the freeloaders. But it already currently does not. The costs of unpaid medical bills are included in paying customers' charges.

I know charity will not pay for all of those in need, but how are unpaid medical bills included in paying customers' charges?

Ridiculous. Do you seriously think as long as you are motivated by lack of health insurance you'll never get cancer or an infectious disease or Lupus or MS or...... on and on?

I never made that claim. Please don't do that.

Your position is absurdly naive.

That's because it's probably not my position. You seem intent in twisting my words.

In your version should the government not pay then if the un-medically-insured injured driver caused the accident and isn't a victim in the way you describe?

I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are driving without insurance why should the government pay for your medical bill if you caused an accident?

Aren't these mostly government stepping in solutions?

Yes. At a minimal level - addressing issues that are in the best interest of society. That is not inconsistent with my position.

Funny isn't it. When you actually look at Ron Paul's positions they just don't work in the real world. People can certainly disagree how the government should intervene, but a blanket, "the government doesn't need to intervene" is not realistic.

You seem to be missing the point, or indulging in straw man arguments.

What is your point? I take it you don't have health insurance and you are telling us how you survived without it. Suppose that same injury was more significant than your previous fracture and you mistakenly thought you were qualified to diagnose your own injury?

Then I'm at fault. Right? Why should you pay for my mistake?

Then where would you be?
Toe fracture complications: Copays are a reasonable way to limit one seeking unneeded health care.

Why shouldn't it be my choice whether I want to pay $7000 a year for medical insurance, or pay a one time fee of 300 dollars for x-rays and associated medical care?

I take it you are talking about:I don't see Obama's rhetoric as claiming it was a winner take all world economy. To be number one doesn't mean number two loses all. The op ed author sees the comments differently than I do.

Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you - America will always win,

and

Don’t let other countries win the race for the future.

These types of comments are directly in response to the Republican view that "Obama wants America to lose". I understand why he made them. I just think that this level of discourse is retarded at best.

 

[Richard Masters]

Your premise implicitly assumes the conclusion that bureaucracy is inherently and fatally flawed and incapable of solving problems. It's like saying "using human reasoning to solve problems of human reasoning". As if that is not possible.

You are right, I should have been more specific. The problem of bureaucracy I'm specifically talking about is the oversaturation of laws. Have you ever been to a law school library?

Bureaucracy is certainly capable of solving problems. My contention here is that we throw laws at everything. Even things that don't require laws for solution.

 

[Richard Masters]

Yeah, Richard, let's get one thing straight. Lack of government and government solutions is negatively correlated to flourishing societies.

I'm not proposing anarchy. It's certainly possible to have too many laws. And it is especially easy to have bad laws.

My comment on affirmative action is the idea that I qualify as a minority at multiple levels and I can benefit from this law despite the fact that there is no legitimate reason why I should.

This attack on govt as if it can only cause more problems than it can alleviate or mitigate has no basis in reality. You are welcome to believe that and argue in favor of that but please don't argue as if it is a given. Especially when there exists empirical evidence to counter the proposition.

What exactly are you trying to get at here? Can you give examples?

 

[Richard Masters]

• #2 Is a problem.
• #1 would obviate a solution to #2

What exactly is it that you want? FTR: There is lots of bad regulation. That fact isn't an indictment of regulation. One might as well posit that the fact that there is a lot of bad reasoning is an indictment of reasoning.

I'm just explaining why I prefer 4 years of no new additive laws versus 4 more years of terrible legislation.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of arguing. I'm really trying to engage in constructive conversation.

 

[RandFan]

You are right, I should have been more specific. The problem of bureaucracy I'm specifically talking about is the oversaturation of laws. Have you ever been to a law school library?

Bureaucracy is certainly capable of solving problems. My contention here is that we throw laws at everything. Even things that don't require laws for solution.

I'm convinced that America is overegulated and there is much bad regulation. We agree.

 

[RandFan]

I'm just explaining why I prefer 4 years of no new additive laws versus 4 more years of terrible legislation.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of arguing. I'm really trying to engage in constructive conversation.

Fair enough. But I would think that what we need isn't a time out for legislation but a focus on fixing bad legislation. That will come from understanding why there is bad regulation in the first place. I suggest we look to see who benefits from bad regulation. Americans need to become skeptical and critical thinkers.

 

[Richard Masters]

Fair enough. But I would think that what we need isn't a time out for legislation but a focus on fixing bad legislation. That will come from understanding why there is bad regulation in the first place. I suggest we look to see who benefits from bad regulation. Americans need to become skeptical and critical thinkers.

I agree, but I don't see that coming from any of the incumbent law-makers or any of the current candidates.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know you mean well, but intentionally or unintentionally you see have misrepresented most of what I've said.

I'm replying to what you write. I can't read your mind.

I'm not saying there should be no prescription drug regulations. I'm saying the regulations are excessive. I would be happy if Congress were unable to pass new laws for a few years.

Also, why should I have to pay $100+ for a 15 minute visit to see my doctor to request refills? if I already have been taking this medication for so long? In the end it's an undue burden on me.

Well guess what? That pharmacist probably had prescriptive authority. They do in this state. So for whatever reason he/she could have refilled your prescription but chose not to accomodate you. In addition, prescribing drugs is under state control. Only narcotic prescribing is under additional federal control.

Why would I get a replacement? It's a completely different molecular profile with different benefits and different side-effects.

We are back to your opinion on some specific federal regulation. You have not made your case.

Are all regulations good or perfect? Of course not. Is it about volume of regulations? No, it isn't and that's where you are not making your case. We could have used more regulations in the mortgage and banking industries and less government intervention when it comes to crony capitalist subsidies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Most of the racial segregation in the history of the United States was legislated and institutionalized. In this case, fewer Jim Crow laws, would be the best scenario. As a matter of fact, most of the racial laws today are intended to mitigate the racist laws we put in place years ago. In the case of racist laws, was it not a good thing that we repealed laws preventing interracial marriage?

Things are better because we took away that power from the state, not the other way around.

Isn't the Civil Rights Act what made the Jim Crow laws moot?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Deleted, duplicate post. See below.

 

[RandFan]

I agree, but I don't see that coming from any of the incumbent law-makers or any of the current candidates.

Neither do I but I don't see them taking any significant time off either. At the end of the day we have to work with what we have.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I only presented the example you asked for.

The example you presented did not support your case. I have described why twice now.

Those two are not mutually exclusive. Government has a useful role to play.

So this is going to be one of those discussions then, where you reply to a subsequent post as if the first post wasn't part of the conversation? That's very annoying. The exchange went like this:

I don't know why there is a mentality that if you support something, there needs to a law for it.

This is a straw man argument. That is not the mentality. The actual 'mentality' is the government has a useful role to play.

Those two are not mutually exclusive. Government has a useful role to play.

I said you argued against an argument I never made. Then you changed your argument to an agreement with me, not an argument against what I said.

I repeat: I did not say nor do I think that "if you support something, there needs to a law for it." Try to keep better track of the full exchange, please. Thank you.

I'm not saying it's unnecessary. I'm saying we don't really need too many more broad reaching laws. Our quality of live can also be improved by repealing badly written laws. Or by lessening the impact of laws that should never have been put in place to start.

But I'm not appealing for all laws to be done away with. I'm also not saying all laws are bad.

If you support Ron Paul's positions you are appealing for the vast majority of laws to be done away with. If you believe the liberals are all about adding more and more regulations then you've bought the Republican lie.

For example?

There would be no law against someone selling you counterfeit antidepressants. A person could impersonate a physician and charge to treat your depression but not really be qualified to do so. That X-ray for your broken finger could be taken with a machine that was out of whack and given you a radiation burn. Buyer beware would be up to you to.

I never claimed everything the government does is unnecessary. I'm saying we are oversaturated with laws and a Paul presidency would mitigate that temporarily.

I'm saying over-saturation with regulation is a Republican campaign myth. There are some laws we don't need and a whole lot more we do need like banking and mortgage re-regulation.

Instead of making gay marriage legal, why not be legally indifferent about heterosexual marriage? By repealing an unfair law, you make things more fair for homosexuals.

Most people I know would take either option as long as it gave homosexual partners the same rights as heterosexual partners. You could either make gay marriage legal or make all legal unions equal civil unions with the government leaving the term "marriage" to the religious world. That's not what religious conservatives want. They want gay marriages to be legally inferior.

These laws tend to be abused. I made a website pointing out a scam, and the company running the scam used DMCA to silence me. What new laws would you propose?

Since that's a copyright law, it sounds like the problem was how your website pointed out the scam, not the law that was the problem. But without more details it's hard to comment.

No, I don't live in the South. What kind of legislation is going to solve discrimination against Muslims?

Define "solve". The laws are designed to protect people's rights, not "solve discrimination altogether.

This shows a complete misunderstanding on your part. I never claimed companies reimburse patients or implied anything of the sort.

Here you go again losing track of the discussion. It's tiring. After this post I'm no longer going to go back over the discussion with you. I am going to ignore your replies that lost track of the discussion.

This is the exchange:

No, but I do believe that mandatory health insurance results in doctors and hospitals charging more for services than they might be worth, because the patient is not accountable for the cost and the doctor's demand doesn't decrease if he sends the government a larger bill. Also, because the doctor gets paid regardless of the quality of service there may be less incentive to provide a good service. Then you end up with a situation where the price of healthcare is artificially high due to entitlement and inefficiencies.

You are poorly informed here. Currently insurance companies reimburse doctors, not patients so your argument is unsupportable. Currently those patients that do pay for health care subsidize the costs of the freeloaders.

This shows a complete misunderstanding on your part. I never claimed companies reimburse patients or implied anything of the sort.

Most patients do not pay the doctor for their care. Patients pay insurers who pay the doctors. Your argument that a third party paying the doctor would cause that doctor to provide unneeded care or over priced care isn't a valid argument against mandatory health coverage. It's an argument for regulation of health care.

Please elaborate.

Elaborate? It's straight forward. You go to the ED. They cannot turn you away because you don't have insurance. You never pay your bill. The hospital has to recoup its loss by increasing the amount it charges the patients that do pay. Instead of you or more evenly the tax payers, I as a health care consumer pay your freeloading bill.

Which freeloaders are these? It's not a rhetorical question. I'm not following you.

Every freeloader who could carry health insurance but chooses not to then needs health care, gets it and doesn't pay the bill.

I know charity will not pay for all of those in need, but how are unpaid medical bills included in paying customers' charges?

Didn't you ever ask yourself who the hell pays that unpaid cost? Do you think salaries of the ED staff take the hit? Stockholders? Drug companies write off unreimbursed drugs the ED dispenses? No, the bad debt as it is called is simply rolled into the paying customer's bill.

It's the same with anything stolen from shoplifted goods to credit card fraud. The costs are passed on to the paying customers.

I never made that claim. Please don't do that.

I asked you a question, I didn't say anything about you making a claim. My question was intended to make you look at the answer you gave and show you why your answer was short sighted. Your arguments trying to make a case against mandatory health insurance are short sighted. I gave an example of cases where your argument was short sighted.

If someone is really worried about dying at the steps of a hospital I'm sure they'll be more motivated to take care of themselves and avoid risky activities. The scenario you presented does leave us with a situation were an innocent person is a victim of crime or an accident. Here I think the government should step in and pay the bill. It's a small cost.

It sounds like you are saying all we needed to do for people who didn't carry health insurance would be to cover a few accidents because such an uninsured person would be motivated to take care of their health.

The premise is false. It's ludicrous to think people with health insurance didn't take care of themselves because they had medical care or that people without insurance would be motivated to do so.

But even if such a person did take care of their health they'd still be at risk for major health problems that could still bring them to come to the ED for care. You do know that ED's see more than just trauma patients don't you? Heart attack, stroke, infection,.. hello.

That's because it's probably not my position. You seem intent in twisting my words.

I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are driving without insurance why should the government pay for your medical bill if you caused an accident?

So you have no recollection whatsoever of what you posted a day ago!!!!! I'm not going back over this one. Do it yourself.

Yes. At a minimal level - addressing issues that are in the best interest of society. That is not inconsistent with my position.

You seem to be missing the point, or indulging in straw man arguments.

Then I'm at fault. Right? Why should you pay for my mistake?

Why shouldn't it be my choice whether I want to pay $7000 a year for medical insurance, or pay a one time fee of 300 dollars for x-rays and associated medical care?

It's clear you believe that people without health insurance only hurt themselves. But that is not what happens. They end up getting health care the rest of us pay for. It's a lie they don't seek care. Unless you also make it legal for the ED to turn patients away and let them OR THEIR KIDS die on the hospital steps people without health insurance cost the rest of us when we are charged to make up the hospital's bad debt.

... and ...

These types of comments are directly in response to the Republican view that "Obama wants America to lose". I understand why he made them. I just think that this level of discourse is retarded at best.

I don't interpret Obama's words they way you have. I hear him simply complimenting the American people and saying we don't have to accept all the manufacturing jobs leaving the country.

 

[Travis]

I see we've run into someone else who doesn't seem to understand there are people that try desperately to get health insurance but can't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see we've run into someone else who doesn't seem to understand there are people that try desperately to get health insurance but can't.

Or that some choices which appear to be purely individual rights actually do impact on the rights of others.

 

[Beth]

I'm not saying there should be no prescription drug regulations. I'm saying the regulations are excessive. I would be happy if Congress were unable to pass new laws for a few years.

Also, why should I have to pay $100+ for a 15 minute visit to see my doctor to request refills? if I already have been taking this medication for so long? In the end it's an undue burden on me.

I agree with you for the most part. I think there are some drugs that we are all better off if they are regulated. OTOH, I don't know that all the current drugs under prescription regulations really need to be so regulated that competent adults cannot be allowed to purchase moderate amounts without prescriptions being required.

I'm not saying it's unnecessary. I'm saying we don't really need too many more broad reaching laws. Our quality of live can also be improved by repealing badly written laws. Or by lessening the impact of laws that should never have been put in place to start.

Again, I agree with this. It doesn't mean I want a completed unregulated market, but we have seriously complicated regulations that compete with the tax code for being hard to comply with and often, in addition to the cost, they aren't effective at the purpose they were created.

I never claimed everything the government does is unnecessary. I'm saying we are oversaturated with laws and a Paul presidency would mitigate that temporarily.

I'm giving Paul serious consideration. Obama signing the defense authorization bill after promising to veto it was the last straw for us. My husband has decided he is sitting this election out as a form of protest against the whole system. I'm considering voting for Paul as a form of protest against the two major parties.

Why shouldn't it be my choice whether I want to pay $7000 a year for medical insurance, or pay a one time fee of 300 dollars for x-rays and associated medical care?

Because if you're in a car accident and require $500,000 worth of care before being released from the hospital, you'll get it whether you can pay or not and whether you had insurance or not.

I'm not a fan of the individual mandate though. I think there are serious constitutional problems with it. I'd rather see a single-payer socialized medicine program implemented like in most democratic industrialized countries. From what I've seen, they pay less and get better care than we U.S. Americans manage to provide to our citizens.

If you support Ron Paul's positions you are appealing for the vast majority of laws to be done away with. If you believe the liberals are all about adding more and more regulations then you've bought the Republican lie.

Actually, it seems to me like politicians, once elected, cannot seem to refrain from publishing more and more laws, often so complicated that it will require another governmental bureaucracy to administer it. Liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, they all want to legislate.

While I'm generally in favor of regulation regarding the things we consider necessary to modern life (food, health care, speed limits, emission controls, etc.), I'm not so convinced that our current legislative approach is very effective at making things better. I think we need a better system.

Further, while I generally like Obama and support most of his positions, he's just another politician in terms of being able to believe what he says. I'd like a better way to elect our leaders because I think our current system is very corrupt. I no longer have much faith in it.

I see we've run into someone else who doesn't seem to understand there are people that try desperately to get health insurance but can't.

I think the Republican candidates are all deliberately ignorant of that fact. They remind me of Ronald Reagan in that respect. Obamacare at least has a fix for that problem scheduled.

 

[DavidJames]

My husband has decided he is sitting this election out as a form of protest against the whole system. I'm considering voting for Paul as a form of protest against the two major parties....

I read this a lot here. A classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The only time not to actively support changes to the system you're not happy with is when it's time to vote. It's to late then. If you really...

...generally like Obama and support most of his positions...

your protest may result in Gingrich or Romney getting elected. If that's okay with you, so be it. But don't pretend your sending any noble message, other then you'd prefer to cop out.