Government folly


Off-Topic Discussions

1,401 to 1,450 of 2,076 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Down with the War on Terror and the War on Drugs!

Group hug for the Government Folly crowd, except maybe Citizen Spalding. Okay, him too!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
So, my understanding is that a bunch of the leading neocons were New York state school kids who'd been Trotskyists in the 30s and/or 40s. Anyone, off the top of their heads, have any idea what I'm talking about?

Comrade, when you (if you) go back and read the too-long-didn't-read you'll see the discussion took place on "CATO Unbound," a web-site hosted by the Cato Institute.

-- Andy


Andrew Tuttle wrote:

Comrade, when you (if you) go back and read the too-long-didn't-read you'll see the discussion took place on "CATO Unbound," a web-site hosted by the Cato Institute.

-- Andy

Why are you telling me this? Am I missing something in your link that answers my question?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
It's the government's fault that...

Quote was too far down to get it in the box.

Anyway, I am, of course, for socialist medicine (as in free!! not socialized, like Canada) including all safe forms of birth control, but I don't foresee this conversation going anywhere it hasn't before, so...

What's the story about how it's the government's fault that people grew dependent on employer-provided health insurance? I don't know that one.

Basically the practice of employers offering health insurance and other benefits was a reaction to FDR's capping wages during WW2. He was worried about inflation that might come from growing wages from the man power shortage so he ignored the constitution as usual and restricted worker pay to protect war profits. In an effort to compete for workers and bypass the restrictions they started offering other benefits like health care. Later these benefits became even more entrenched as congress incentivized work health insurance through the tax code by providing tax breaks to employers for providing health care, but not individuals. This gave employers more power over their workers, and people came to accept this largely because folks tended to spend a lot of time with employers.

When the US began its systematic policy of eliminating manufacturing here and people had to change jobs with much greater frequency the system of employer controlled health care became much more problematic.

The tax code is still structured to disincentivize private health insurance and reward employer controlled health insurance.


Kelsey,

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Yes, because the founding fathers vision was completely perfect. I don't care what the framers thought.

This confused me.

I don't think any human is perfect, much less the folks that fired up the US (and they included a hella' bunch of women, I cringe a bit when I see "Founding Fathers" typed ... but then I cringe a great deal from time-to-time).

And I care a great deal about what the framers of the US Constitution thought. Not only did they produce an amazing structure for a constitutional republic, they immediately amended it ten times to improve it.

-- Andy


Andrew Tuttle wrote:

Kelsey,

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Yes, because the founding fathers vision was completely perfect. I don't care what the framers thought.

This confused me.

I don't think any human is perfect, much less the folks that fired up the US (and they included a hella' bunch of women, I cringe a bit when I see "Founding Fathers" typed ... but then I cringe a great deal from time-to-time).

And I care a great deal about what the framers of the US Constitution thought. Not only did they produce an amazing structure for a constitutional republic, they immediately amended it ten times to improve it.

-- Andy

I didn't mean it in a sexist manner. That said, the framers aren't alive right now, and circumstances were different in their days. As such, whatever they thought is completely irrelevant and I pay it no heed. That, and they weren't the wonderful freedom lovers they get made out to be. I love America dearly, but I could say more than a few unkind things about the circumstances surrounding the decision to revolt from Britain. It had much more to do with money than freedom.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:

Neoconservatism Unmasked

Response Essays

TL;DNR yet.

So, my understanding is that a bunch of the leading neocons were New York state school kids who'd been Trotskyists in the 30s and/or 40s. Anyone, off the top of their heads, have any idea what I'm talking about?

I think neocon thought is influenced by Trotsky, but the first essay doesn't go into depth.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew Tuttle wrote:

Comrade, when you (if you) go back and read the too-long-didn't-read you'll see the discussion took place on "CATO Unbound," a web-site hosted by the Cato Institute.

-- Andy

Why are you telling me this? Am I missing something in your link that answers my question?

I thought you might be typing about Sydney Hook, et al of the top of my head.

It seems I was mistaken.

Regards,

-- Andy


See, now, as a Trotskyist, I want to understand what is meant by that sentence, because I, of course, take it as an insult.

From what I can gather, there's supposed to be some similarity between Trostky's idea of "permanent revolution" (or, as a I like to say, "international proletarian socialist revolution now!!") and the neocons invading Iraq, but I don't get it.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.

Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to a corrupt and incompetent state?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to a corrupt and incompetent state?

Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to corporations solely out to make money?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

See, now, as a Trotskyist, I want to understand what is meant by that sentence, because I, of course, take it as an insult.

From what I can gather, there's supposed to be some similarity between Trostky's idea of "permanent revolution" (or, as a I like to say, "international proletarian socialist revolution now!!") and the neocons invading Iraq, but I don't get it.

It may be a comparison of the neocon doctrine of perpetual war with permanent revolution, but I'm not sure.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to a corrupt and incompetent state?
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to corporations solely out to make money?

Because without the government getting in the way the doctor or insurance company works for me. If I don't like the job they are doing I fire them and get another one.

The current government controlled system has virtually nothing to do with free markets or competition.


Andrew Tuttle wrote:


It seems I was mistaken.

Regards,

-- Andy

You're not mistaken. I hope my above post didn't seem rude, but when I click on the Cato Institute link I don't see anything about Hook (whose name I do recognize, will read up) or anything else. Is maybe the link broken? Or where should I be looking?


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to a corrupt and incompetent state?
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to corporations solely out to make money?
Because without the government getting in the way the doctor or insurance company works for me. If I don't like the job they are doing I fire them and get another one.

That's only an option if you are rich. Most people aren't.

Quote:
The current government controlled system has virtually nothing to do with free markets or competition.

Yea, there are some things I don't trust the free market with at all. This is one of them. I do NOT trust corporations with my life.


Not to mention that most countries that do have socialized healthcare provide are able to provide better care at less taxpayer cost. The government has it's problems, but it doesn't exist solely to make money, and corporations do. Medical corporations can and very often do screw over sick people to make a buck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to a corrupt and incompetent state?
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to corporations solely out to make money?

Because without the government getting in the way the doctor or insurance company works for me. If I don't like the job they are doing I fire them and get another one.

The current government controlled system has virtually nothing to do with free markets or competition.

Free markets are not a virtue. I would remind you of somethign very important that I learned from some very conservative people: TINSTAAFL (There is no such thing as a free lunch).

The market isn't free -- it's a lie -- if someone is trying to give you something "free" or claim something is "free" do not accept it.

I know and understand the costs of a government run system -- I accept those costs after all it's good enough for all those Congressmen/women and everyone else in the government.

The one industry I would love to see collapse is the insurance industry -- people complain about the Fed? The insurance companies are far worse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to a corrupt and incompetent state?
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to corporations solely out to make money?
Because without the government getting in the way the doctor or insurance company works for me. If I don't like the job they are doing I fire them and get another one.

And if you can't afford to pay, you die. Probably spending every last penny you have in the process and leaving your family destitute.

That, in a nutshell, is why we need government involved in healthcare.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Unless you consider that one of the reasons it costs 2k for a check up is government involvement in the first place.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Unless you consider that one of the reasons it costs 2k for a check up is government involvement in the first place.

Take the government out of healthcare. You will NOT enjoy the result. Remember. Medical corporations do not exist to protect your health, they exist to make money. They already screw people over for a profit all the time. Pull out the government, and things will be much, much worse.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Unless you consider that one of the reasons it costs 2k for a check up is government involvement in the first place.

There was a time when the government wasn't involved with healthcare choices.

At that time Lysol was sold as a female intimate cleaning product and cocaine was an over the counter drink.

It wasn't that long ago (less than a century) and there is very good reason we and the rest of the world moved away from that model.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Unless you consider that one of the reasons it costs 2k for a check up is government involvement in the first place.

Take the government out of healthcare. You will NOT enjoy the result. Remember. Medical corporations do not exist to protect your health, they exist to make money. They already screw people over for a profit all the time. Pull out the government, and things will be much, much worse.

The government has already made things much worse, but it can certainly make things even more horrible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Tuttle wrote:
Unfortunately, most US Presidents for a long time have also had to be "politicians," but the point is the framers didn't want the military to have a free hand in how war was waged by the United States.
"Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I don't care what the framers thought.

Any military officers on the boards please correct me if I err -- I'm repeating some of what I learned at West Point and elsewhere... but in the interest of full disclusure I never did receive a commission. That said, the logic is twofold:

1. Military officers are traditionally trained to achieve military objectives, not set up conditions for long-term governance (which is what they're currently being told to do in Afghainistan, and it is, strictly-speaking, outside of their purview as military). Sometimes, what will achieve a limited military objective will lead to broader-scope problems, but it's outside of the officers' training, mind-set, and career to assess that. Look at what Sherman did during the Civil War -- it served military objectives exceptionally well, but sure didn't help much when it came time for reconstruction. For a more recent (and more major) example, consider the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Joint Chiefs of Staff correctly told Kennedy there was an easy way to achieve his tactical objective: simply launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The disaster that would ensue -- possibly leading to WWIII and/or global nuclear holocaust, wasn't the point. The point was that he wanted no Russian missiles in Cuba, and they told him how to achieve that objective. Kennedy, as president, had to countermand that.

2. Look at the number of nations currently in existence that are military dictatorships in some form -- where the head of the military is the de facto (or actual) head of state. That's not a new thing -- the Founders, for all Kelsey's contempt for them, had plenty of historical and contemporary examples to look at. Putting the civilian president as Commander-in-Chief over the military was a very intentional way to try and prevent that from happening here. Local (state) militias, as opposed to a standing national military, was another goal that didn't work out in the long run. The Founders, with reason, feared the creation of an "officer class" that would, after winning a war against a foreign enemy, then go ahead and lock down the U.S. as well while they're at it.

If you don't accept my view (which can hardly be considered authoritative), then Eisenhower had a lot to say about the need for military power to be temporary, and also constrained by civilian authority. Check out what he had to say before you pooh-pooh the idea as foolish or outmoded.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Unless you consider that one of the reasons it costs 2k for a check up is government involvement in the first place.

There was a time when the government wasn't involved with healthcare choices.

At that time Lysol was sold as a female intimate cleaning product and cocaine was an over the counter drink.

It wasn't that long ago (less than a century) and there is very good reason we and the rest of the world moved away from that model.

and within my lifetime a trip to the doctor cost $5, and people developed a relationship with their health care providers because the doctor worked for me not an insurance corporation.

I've seen over and over what a corrupt and incompetent state does with the power to decide who gets life saving medical care. They abuse it.

The more power you give them the more they abuse it. Why give them more and more power?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew Tuttle wrote:
Unfortunately, most US Presidents for a long time have also had to be "politicians," but the point is the framers didn't want the military to have a free hand in how war was waged by the United States.
"Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I don't care what the framers thought.

Any military officers on the boards please correct me if I err -- I'm repeating some of what I learned at West Point and elsewhere... but in the interest of full disclusure I never did receive a commission. That said, the logic is twofold:

1. Military officers are traditionally trained to achieve military objectives, not set up conditions for long-term governance (which is what they're currently being told to do in Afghainistan, and it is, strictly-speaking, outside of their purview as military). Sometimes, what will achieve a limited military objective will lead to broader-scope problems, but it's outside of the officers' training, mind-set, and career to assess that. Look at what Sherman did during the Civil War -- it served military objectives exceptionally well, but sure didn't help much when it came time for reconstruction. For a more recent (and more major) example, consider the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Joint Chiefs of Staff correctly told Kennedy there was an easy way to achieve his tactical objective: simply launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The disaster that would ensue -- possibly leading to WWIII and/or global nuclear holocaust, wasn't the point. The point was that he wanted no Russian missiles in Cuba, and they told him how to achieve that objective. Kennedy, as president, had to countermand that.

2. Look at the number of nations currently in existence that are military dictatorships in some form -- where the head of the military is the de facto (or actual) head of state. That's not a new thing -- the Founders, for all Kelsey's contempt for them, had plenty of historical and contemporary examples to look at. Putting the civilian president as Commander-in-Chief over the military was...

Very well said.


I don't think that a civilian CIC was a bad idea. The constitution has many good ideas. I just don't buy into the idea that the founding fathers were primarily freedom fighters. They had a lot of economic interest in the revolution, and I don't consider what they thought relevant to modern issues.

My issue is with not letting the military do what it needs to do after a war begins. By all means, make civilians start the wars and not the military, and only start wars when it is absolutely, positively necessary. The Cuban Missile Crisis was NOT a war, and therefore the fact that the military did not handle it in the end was a good thing. I'm all for not starting a fight in the first place, and letting civilians keep an eye on what the military is doing. Once a fight does start, however, the military should be allowed to do what it feels necessary to win without having to ask congress, short of deploying WMDs or invading neutral entities. War isn't pretty, and instead of trying to make it pretty we should be trying to not start wars in the first place.


thejeff wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to a corrupt and incompetent state?
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to corporations solely out to make money?
Because without the government getting in the way the doctor or insurance company works for me. If I don't like the job they are doing I fire them and get another one.

And if you can't afford to pay, you die. Probably spending every last penny you have in the process and leaving your family destitute.

That, in a nutshell, is why we need government involved in healthcare.

False.

Many medical providers provided free health care to those in need without state coercion. Some still do.

The assumption that every needy person will die if the government doesn't constantly keep a gun to all of our heads is simply horse crap.

Charity at gun point by a corrupt and incompetent state is not morally superior.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Unless you consider that one of the reasons it costs 2k for a check up is government involvement in the first place.

There was a time when the government wasn't involved with healthcare choices.

At that time Lysol was sold as a female intimate cleaning product and cocaine was an over the counter drink.

It wasn't that long ago (less than a century) and there is very good reason we and the rest of the world moved away from that model.

and within my lifetime a trip to the doctor cost $5, and people developed a relationship with their health care providers because the doctor worked for me not an insurance corporation.

I've seen over and over what a corrupt and incompetent state does with the power to decide who gets life saving medical care. They abuse it.

The more power you give them the more they abuse it. Why give them more and more power?

Because the government is more trustworthy that an insurance company, and those are the only two options. Plus, Western Europe and Canada have proven that government CAN be brought to heel and decorrupted, and can provide a worthwhile healthcare system. They pulled it off, and so can we. Not only is their healthcare not that bad, they also don't have America's levels of corporate control over government policy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That isn't always the case and I would have to say that in order to really push that would require completely ignoring the many good and proper things the government has and continues to do.

If we are going to go with "why give them power when they just abuse it" I would have to point out that corporations and businesses are just as bad if not worse -- after all business has been around much longer, and done much worse things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bitter Thorn wrote:

False.

Many medical providers provided free health care to those in need without state coercion. Some still do.

The assumption that every needy person will die if the government doesn't constantly keep a gun to all of our heads is simply horse crap.

Charity at gun point by a corrupt and incompetent state is not morally superior.

Hard to prove since our socialist system requires them to give care, and again the care isn't free. Technically they are robbing from everyone else to pay for that 'free' care.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to a corrupt and incompetent state?
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to corporations solely out to make money?
Because without the government getting in the way the doctor or insurance company works for me. If I don't like the job they are doing I fire them and get another one.

And if you can't afford to pay, you die. Probably spending every last penny you have in the process and leaving your family destitute.

That, in a nutshell, is why we need government involved in healthcare.

False.

Many medical providers provided free health care to those in need without state coercion. Some still do.

I call b!&$%#&#.

Quote:
The assumption that every needy person will die if the government doesn't constantly keep a gun to all of our heads is simply horse crap.

Yes, we're so much better off with a corporate axe.

Quote:
Charity at gun point by a corrupt and incompetent state is not morally superior.

We can fix our government's corruption and incompetence. We can't fix corporate greed.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Once a fight does start, however, the military should be allowed to do what it feels necessary to win without having to ask congress, short of deploying WMDs or invading neutral entities.

See, you're already handcuffing them. Look at Afghanistan again. On 9/11, the fight against Al Qaida and the Taliban (as their allies) started. My immediate reaction, trying to think from a military officer mind-set, was to give the Taliban a deadline to deliver Bin Laden, then level the entire country if they failed -- depopulate Kabul, and leave the entire former nation of Afghanistan a collection of local tribes and warlords without any central government or intact infrastructure. Then we would have come home, immediately and completely (and not gone into Iraq). That would have sent an unmistakably clear message -- this is what happens when a nation abets terrorist attacks on U.S. soil -- it ceases to be a nation. It also would have branded us permanently as world villains, but to misquote Machiavelli, sometimes it's better to be feared than loved.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

I don't think that a civilian CIC was a bad idea. The constitution has many good ideas. I just don't buy into the idea that the founding fathers were primarily freedom fighters. They had a lot of economic interest in the revolution, and I don't consider what they thought relevant to modern issues.

My issue is with not letting the military do what it needs to do after a war begins. By all means, make civilians start the wars and not the military, and only start wars when it is absolutely, positively necessary. The Cuban Missile Crisis was NOT a war, and therefore the fact that the military did not handle it in the end was a good thing. I'm all for not starting a fight in the first place, and letting civilians keep an eye on what the military is doing. Once a fight does start, however, the military should be allowed to do what it feels necessary to win without having to ask congress, short of deploying WMDs or invading neutral entities. War isn't pretty, and instead of trying to make it pretty we should be trying to not start wars in the first place.

I firmly believe the military must always be accountable to the civilian government. It is unwise for corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats to try to micro manage wars. LBJ, Stalin and Hitler did a fine job of demonstrating that, but a strong standing army can easily become the tyrant's sword.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Stuffs on the military/civilian divide

Got to agree with this over all. Given framework to live in and a mission to achieve is when the military is at its best. Remove that framework or a mission to achieve and it generally doesn't do very well. It needs specific goals and clear cut lines -- ironically its these limits that drives it to such excellence.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Once a fight does start, however, the military should be allowed to do what it feels necessary to win without having to ask congress, short of deploying WMDs or invading neutral entities.
See, you're already handcuffing them. Look at Afghanistan again. On 9/11, the fight against Al Qaida and the Taliban (as their allies) started. My immediate reaction, from a military officer mind-set, was to give the Taliban a deadline to deliver Bin Laden, then level the entire country if they failed -- depopulate Kabul, and leave the entire former nation of Afghanistan a collection of local tribes and warlords without any central government or intact infrastructure. Then we would have come home, immediately and completely (and not gone into Iraq). That would have sent an unmistakably clear message -- this is what happens when a nation abets terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. It also would have branded us permanently as world villains, but to misquote Machiavelli, sometimes it's better to be feared than loved.

We pretty much did just that, and what did it accomplish? It made them hate us even more than they already did without doing much to deter violence against us, costing even more lives and creating an experienced militant Islamic force that'll be a severe threat for decades to come. We'd have been better off limiting operations to SOCOM.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

I don't think that a civilian CIC was a bad idea. The constitution has many good ideas. I just don't buy into the idea that the founding fathers were primarily freedom fighters. They had a lot of economic interest in the revolution, and I don't consider what they thought relevant to modern issues.

My issue is with not letting the military do what it needs to do after a war begins. By all means, make civilians start the wars and not the military, and only start wars when it is absolutely, positively necessary. The Cuban Missile Crisis was NOT a war, and therefore the fact that the military did not handle it in the end was a good thing. I'm all for not starting a fight in the first place, and letting civilians keep an eye on what the military is doing. Once a fight does start, however, the military should be allowed to do what it feels necessary to win without having to ask congress, short of deploying WMDs or invading neutral entities. War isn't pretty, and instead of trying to make it pretty we should be trying to not start wars in the first place.

I firmly believe the military must always be accountable to the civilian government. It is unwise for corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats to try to micro manage wars. LBJ, Stalin and Hitler did a fine job of demonstrating that, but a strong standing army can easily become the tyrant's sword.

That's pretty much what I said. Congress should NOT be micromanaging military operations, but it should be deciding whether to commit troops in the first place.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Stuffs on the military/civilian divide
Got to agree with this over all. Given framework to live in and a mission to achieve is when the military is at its best. Remove that framework or a mission to achieve and it generally doesn't do very well. It needs specific goals and clear cut lines -- ironically its these limits that drives it to such excellence.

The problem is when the lines are drawn too narrowly. That cost us Vietnam.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Once a fight does start, however, the military should be allowed to do what it feels necessary to win without having to ask congress, short of deploying WMDs or invading neutral entities.
See, you're already handcuffing them. Look at Afghanistan again. On 9/11, the fight against Al Qaida and the Taliban (as their allies) started. My immediate reaction, trying to think from a military officer mind-set, was to give the Taliban a deadline to deliver Bin Laden, then level the entire country if they failed -- depopulate Kabul, and leave the entire former nation of Afghanistan a collection of local tribes and warlords without any central government or intact infrastructure. Then we would have come home, immediately and completely (and not gone into Iraq). That would have sent an unmistakably clear message -- this is what happens when a nation abets terrorist attacks on U.S. soil -- it ceases to be a nation. It also would have branded us permanently as world villains, but to misquote Machiavelli, sometimes it's better to be feared than loved.

I think that's exactly how we should have handled Afghanistan.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
We pretty much did just that.

Not even close. There is a wide gap between what we did, and totally annihilating the capital (Kabul -> depopulated parking lot), destroying all of the infrastructure, and walking out. What I'm talking about, there wouldn't be any "them" to hate us -- just smoking rubble.

Your other constraint was with "neutral entities." Under a military-objective scenario, Bin Laden crosses the border into Pakistan, we level them, too. But Pakistan has nuclear weapons. That means a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the entire country, massive enough to destroy their ability to retaliate. 200,000,000 people dead or displaced. You want to be responsible for that? It would certainly achieve the military objective.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Stuffs on the military/civilian divide
Got to agree with this over all. Given framework to live in and a mission to achieve is when the military is at its best. Remove that framework or a mission to achieve and it generally doesn't do very well. It needs specific goals and clear cut lines -- ironically its these limits that drives it to such excellence.

+1


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Targeted Killing and the Rule of Law
I agree with you on most things, BT, but not this. An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.

If you're not willing to hold to your principles because they're hard then its not really a principle.

If you're willing to give up your constitutional rights because someone is trying to kill you then you will NEVER have constitutional rights because there is ALWAYS either a real or manufactured threat against the lives of people in the US. They've been using that pathetic excuse since the alien and sedition acts.


And the insurance companies don't? Remember, sick people are bad for profits.

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Unless you consider that one of the reasons it costs 2k for a check up is government involvement in the first place.

There was a time when the government wasn't involved with healthcare choices.

At that time Lysol was sold as a female intimate cleaning product and cocaine was an over the counter drink.

It wasn't that long ago (less than a century) and there is very good reason we and the rest of the world moved away from that model.

and within my lifetime a trip to the doctor cost $5, and people developed a relationship with their health care providers because the doctor worked for me not an insurance corporation.

I've seen over and over what a corrupt and incompetent state does with the power to decide who gets life saving medical care. They abuse it.

The more power you give them the more they abuse it. Why give them more and more power?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Unless you consider that one of the reasons it costs 2k for a check up is government involvement in the first place.

Take the government out of healthcare. You will NOT enjoy the result. Remember. Medical corporations do not exist to protect your health, they exist to make money. They already screw people over for a profit all the time. Pull out the government, and things will be much, much worse.

What a viscious cycle.

Gov't got involved, and doctors had to join up and become part of the 'medical corporations' to be able to afford the certs and insurance in order to even pratice any longer. How many mom n pop doctor offices do you know of anymore? You think they're gone because of the free market? (and no Abe, I don't mean free as in 'no cost', I mean free as in 'without restriction').
Now, the very thing gov't intervention caused, is the bad guy.


You're going to have to hit me up with some serious evidence here. Many and some aren't going to cut it when 0% can be quoted as a figure in a negotiation.

Bitter Thorn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to a corrupt and incompetent state?
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to corporations solely out to make money?
Because without the government getting in the way the doctor or insurance company works for me. If I don't like the job they are doing I fire them and get another one.

And if you can't afford to pay, you die. Probably spending every last penny you have in the process and leaving your family destitute.

That, in a nutshell, is why we need government involved in healthcare.

False.

Many medical providers provided free health care to those in need without state coercion. Some still do.

The assumption that every needy person will die if the government doesn't constantly keep a gun to all of our heads is simply horse crap.

Charity at gun point by a corrupt and incompetent state is not morally superior.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Targeted Killing and the Rule of Law
I agree with you on most things, BT, but not this. An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.

If you're not willing to hold to your principles because they're hard then its not really a principle.

If you're willing to give up your constitutional rights because someone is trying to kill you then you will NEVER have constitutional rights because there is ALWAYS either a real or manufactured threat against the lives of people in the US. They've been using that pathetic excuse since the alien and sedition acts.

Just one problem with that. An entity in a declared war HAS no constitutional rights. Should we have worried about respecting Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany's rights? No. The only thing respecting your enemy's rights does is get you killed.

Also, I do NOT agree with the war on terror. It's not working. My opinions on the constitution and warfare don't apply to the war on terror, because I don't agree with that conflict in the first place.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to a corrupt and incompetent state?
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to corporations solely out to make money?
Because without the government getting in the way the doctor or insurance company works for me. If I don't like the job they are doing I fire them and get another one.

And if you can't afford to pay, you die. Probably spending every last penny you have in the process and leaving your family destitute.

That, in a nutshell, is why we need government involved in healthcare.

False.

Many medical providers provided free health care to those in need without state coercion. Some still do.

I call b!&%%$@~.

Quote:
The assumption that every needy person will die if the government doesn't constantly keep a gun to all of our heads is simply horse crap.

Yes, we're so much better off with a corporate axe.

Quote:
Charity at gun point by a corrupt and incompetent state is not morally superior.
We can fix our government's corruption and incompetence. We can't fix corporate greed.

You can call b%%%&$!$ all you want, but I have seen it over and over, and I used to see it a lot more.

There are still some charitable hospitals today that don't turn patients away if they can't pay, and it's not because of the federal emergency room mandate.

I can choose not to do business with a corporation if the government doesn't force me to buy their product.

I seriously doubt we can fix our government with out a violent revolution, but I can make greed work in my favor when the government doesn't create virtual monopolies and massive distortions of competitive markets.

If the government would stop corrupting the system market competition could benefit all of health acre the way it has for elective health care.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Gov't got involved, and doctors had to join up and become part of the 'medical corporations' to be able to afford the certs and insurance in order to even pratice any longer. How many mom n pop doctor offices do you know of anymore? You think they're gone because of the free market? (and no Abe, I don't mean free as in 'no cost', I mean free as in 'without restriction').

Now, the very thing gov't intervention caused, is the bad guy.

The same thing happens if one medical service provider goes national and starts out-competing the others in terms of price -- look at what Wal-Mart does to mom-and-pop hardware stores. It's a natural progression of the expansion allowed by modern transport and communication. It happens if the government gets involved, and if the government doesn't get involved.

Nixon's 1973 HMO act allowed for a good deal of deregulation of health care, not increased regulation -- it allowed the HMOs to sell directly to employers, instead of to the patients, which they'd been wanting to do all along to ensure larger sales volume. Democrats sponsored it because they thought it would lead to lower prices and therefore more people being covered. Look where that got us.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
My opinions on the constitution and warfare don't apply to the war on terror, because I don't agree with that conflict in the first place.

So, you're saying the president shouldn't be able to constrain military action, but you should?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
My opinions on the constitution and warfare don't apply to the war on terror, because I don't agree with that conflict in the first place.
So, you're saying the president shouldn't be able to constrain military action, but you should?

No, I'm saying how my beliefs on military action would effect the war on terror are irrelevant because I disagree with the war. I also never said that the president shouldn't be able to constrain the military. I specifically advocating leaving strategy to the Joint Chiefs, SECDEF. and CIC. The CIC is the PRESIDENT. My issue is with congress intervening. They should try to prevent wars from starting, not hamper the ability to fight once they have.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to a corrupt and incompetent state?
Why would anyone want to surrender this kind of power to corporations solely out to make money?
Because without the government getting in the way the doctor or insurance company works for me. If I don't like the job they are doing I fire them and get another one.

And if you can't afford to pay, you die. Probably spending every last penny you have in the process and leaving your family destitute.

That, in a nutshell, is why we need government involved in healthcare.

False.

Many medical providers provided free health care to those in need without state coercion. Some still do.

I call b!&%%$@~.

Quote:
The assumption that every needy person will die if the government doesn't constantly keep a gun to all of our heads is simply horse crap.

Yes, we're so much better off with a corporate axe.

Quote:
Charity at gun point by a corrupt and incompetent state is not morally superior.
We can fix our government's corruption and incompetence. We can't fix corporate greed.

You can call b&&+#$@* all you want, but I have seen it over and over, and I used to see it a lot more.

There are still some charitable hospitals today that don't turn patients away if they can't pay, and it's not because of the federal emergency room mandate.

I can choose not to do business with a corporation if the government doesn't force me to buy their product.

I seriously doubt we can fix our government with out a violent revolution, but I can make greed work in my favor when the government doesn't create virtual monopolies and massive distortions of competitive markets.

If the government would stop corrupting...

Read the post below. It was DEREGULATION that started all this s&&&, not regulation.

1,401 to 1,450 of 2,076 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Government folly All Messageboards