Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (51648)	3/4/2008 4:18:38 PM
From: Suma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542155

I quote Rarebird here: The government should value the life of all its law abiding citizens regardless of whether that citizen is rich, poor, or in between the two. Someone who is poor or middle income deserves the same amount of respect for their life (as a rich person) if they need an operation or medication to survive. Universal Healthcare is not a privilege but a value that affirms human life as its highest principle. It's just that I believe as he does. This is not necessary reasoning it is probably pure FEEL... emotion. I am one of those bleeding heart liberals... You know that.

To: Lane3 who wrote (51648)	3/4/2008 4:22:33 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 542155

Huckobama Admit it, Secular America. If Mike Huckabee had said something like this on the campaign trail you’d be locking and loading faster than you could hum John Lennon’s lyric “Imagine all the people, Living life in peace”: And during the course of that sermon, I was introduced to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, He could set me on the path to eternal life. And you’d probably be thinking again of applying for Canadian citizenship -- just ‘fess up: you were scouting properties in northern Manitoba back around Thanksgiving 2004 -- if the former governor of Arkansas declaimed: And whenever I hear stories about Americans who feel like no one’s looking out for them, like they’ve been left behind, I’m reminded that God has a plan for his people. . . . But it’s a plan He’s left to us to fulfill. But these are not Huck's words. They were, in fact, pronounced by Sen. Barack Obama. He delivered these remarks this past Friday to about 150 Latino Evangelical and Catholic clerics at the University of Texas at Brownsville. These pious musings have not aroused as much as a peep of protest from nonbelievers and Church-State separatists. (Compare this to the former governor of Arkansas who enraged Secular America when he suggested that we amend the Constitution to God’s standards). This absence of outrage goes a long way in demonstrating how thoroughly secularism in this country is entwined with, and supportive of, political liberalism. For years, the received (albeit flawed) wisdom held that a secularist was a liberal and vice versa. But as the 2008 campaign has shown, Democrats with presidential aspirations are strenuously trying to decouple that association. Take, for example, Obama’s speech on Friday. Do these sound like the words of a politician who is trying to mollycoddle secularists?: I’d like to begin with a prayer. It comes to us from Jeremiah 29, when the prophet sent out a letter to those exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon. It was a time of uncertainty, and a time of despair. But the prophet Jeremiah told them to banish their fear – that though they were scattered, and though they felt lost, God had not left them. “For I know the plans I have for you,” the Lord revealed to Jeremiah, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” God had a plan for His people. That was the truth that Jeremiah grasped – the creed that brought comfort to the exiles – that faith is not just a pathway to personal redemption, but a force that can bind us together and lift us up as a community. True, Obama did give a fleeting nod to the godless in his address. He urged Americans to “come together as Protestants, Catholics and Jews, believers and non-believers alike.” But anyone familiar with his rhetoric knows that Obama is perennially resolving seemingly insoluble American dialectical tensions (Red States/Blue States, Pro-Choice/Pro-Life, Yankees/Red Sox, whatever). Obama’s speech—it wasn’t his best and much of it was rehashed—was filled with a variety of theological ideas (and ambiguities) that we will be discussing for months if he wins big tonight. One is that God has a plan—a plan that is apparently centered on America (but what about Canada?). Another is that the divine plan only comes to fruition if all citizens pitch in and do their part (but what about nonbelievers who won’t get with the program?). Should he seal the deal in Texas and Ohio, the one claim from this speech that we will be scrutinizing most concerns his insistence that “our values should be expressed not just through our families, our communities, and our churches, but through our government.” That’s the new Faith-and-Values friendly liberalism of the 2008 Democratic Party in 2008. And that’s something that may make it hard for secularists to live their lives in peace. newsweek.washingtonpost.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (51648)	3/4/2008 7:51:54 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542155

What exactly it about health care that makes it different from every other key service or commodity? What makes it different is that we do not consume health care like we do other goods and services. By far most people do not volunteer to get sick, to go to the doctor, or to spend any more time in hospitals than they absolutely have to – one could say that excess consumption in this sector is not much of a factor. (Not to say that there isn't excess consumption in what we've got right now but that's another ball of wax). There are just very few people on the planet consuming health care goods and services for the heck of it or because they happen to be easily and readily available. The underlying assumption about health care in the US, one that is strongly held, is that it is a market commodity. But in health care, consumption is largely involuntary so the notion of a market is problematic. As long as it's viewed as a commodity like any other, health care will be rationed on the basis of the ability to pay as opposed to being targeted to medical need. Every other industrialized country on the planet recognizes this and gives primacy to the latter. In such situations health care ceases to be a commodity and becomes a social service, like education. How scary is that!

To: Lane3 who wrote (51648)	3/4/2008 11:20:59 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542155

>>What exactly it about health care that makes it different from every other key service or commodity?<< Karen - The first answer that occurs to me is that a lack of access to healthcare can lead directly to an early, painful death, and that makes it different. - Allen

To: Lane3 who wrote (51648)	3/5/2008 6:32:33 AM
From: wonk	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 542155

You realize, don't you, how un-helpful that is to someone who doesn't get it and who expects rationales? And previously…. What exactly it about health care that makes it different from every other key service or commodity? Let’s start with first principles. …We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Police, fire response, mandatory public education, all these things, for example, are key services or commodities which could be provided by the private sector. They ARE typically provided by the Government because they promote the general welfare. Time and experience has shown they are most efficiently provided by the Government (if the government is run efficiently, i.e., not corrupt). Putting aside the efficiency argument we could go to a pure laissez-faire economic model where only those who could afford to pay would receive these services, but then the general welfare wouldn’t be promoted – only the welfare of those who could afford to pay. That gets you the French or Russian Revolution. So essentially we have a public policy argument. My public policy argument – my rationale – is the same as that for fire or other public goods. The general welfare is enhanced when citizens are not at risk for catastrophes or force majeure occurrences. (acts of god). I don’t fear terrorists. I don’t fear “islamofacists.” I fear the loss of my employment which would immediately put me in the position of choosing - without income – between paying the mortgage, and buying food, or writing an annual $16,000 check for health insurance to care for a family of five – assuming for the sake of argument the “private” insurance market will even cover me and my family. So if my daughter, who has only had a drivers license for a year gets into a horrific accident, maybe the system will care for her, maybe not. Assuming they do, I still face the situation where here I am, a middle aged, relatively successful middle class parent, hopefully deemed by my peers as a good citizen, who has probably paid more in taxes than 90% of the population, and my entire life’s work could be wiped out by circumstances beyond my control (loss of job, loss of income) and no affordable private market mechanisms exist to cover that risk environment. Why? Profit. Run the math. On a personal level, 6 months worth of unemployment can easily wipe out 3 years of sacrifice and saving. That’s the Country we’ve become, prostrated on the altar of free market capitalism. And it’s always the individual citizen’s “fault.” (But in every - REPEAT - every single business contract - you'll find force majeure clauses. Businesses cover themselves - but citizens have to "suck it up".) But that’s on a personal level. Think of it on a macroeconomic basis. Lets say – oh – 3% of the population is hit with events and choices such as this annually. That means that in 10 years time, you’ve wiped out the savings and wealth of 34% of the US households. (Simply – 1.03^10 or 1 plus 3% raised to the power of 10.) You have created the perfect conditions for permanent poverty of the lower class and destruction over time of the middle class. If we want to be South America, all we need to do is stay on this same road. We’re already half way there. The “terrorists” killed 3,000 people. (… and I was there). How many of our fellow citizen’s economic lives are destroyed annually by lack of affordable health care. Even if its only 1% that is 3,000,000 people. We have an orders of magnitude problem. While I’d probably agree that wellness care and/or discretionary care are different, catastrophic care is a must. Again, what does “promote the general welfare” mean? ww

To: Lane3 who wrote (51648)	3/5/2008 9:06:12 AM
From: CapitalistHogg™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542155

Not all things in life are logical or easily defined. Logic without emotion is an empty vessel. Emotion without logic is a rudderless ship. It takes both logic and emotion to successfully navigate our way through our shared human experience. What exactly it about health care that makes it different from every other key service or commodity? Due to my own intellectual limitations I can only answer your question with more questions..... What exactly is it about capitalism that always makes it superior to socialism? Why not privatize everything and let market forces rule? efficiency? expediency? technological advancement? Why not privatize our security (read police) for example? Through no fault of your own, have you ever sustained a life altering permanent injury and/or were born with a chronic (but treatable) disease that limits your functioning as compared to other average adults? Do you believe that ALL people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Are Twinkies food because you can eat them? Do the most vulnerable people in our society deserve a safety net or should Darwinian principles win out for sake of efficiency? Have you ever been in love? Can you prove it? If you are old and getting some wrinkles on your forehead and you use Botox to smooth them out; is that health care? If you are horribly disfigured in an accident and you need plastic surgery to return some normalcy to your face; is that electable surgery? Should health care providers show empathy or compassion for their patients if there is no money in it?