Bush, Republicans destroyed economy

cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Bush, Republicans destroyed economy

I am 71 years old, and have voted Republican more times than Democrat. But I believe the Bush administration is responsible for destroying our economy by getting our nation into a war with Iraq and giving tax cuts we could not afford to the rich. It took the Republican administration eight years to destroy our economy and neither President Obama nor any other president can get us out of this mess in 21 months. I believe Obama's policies are working, but it will take time. I also believe if the Republicans take control of Congress in November, it will be just a matter of time before we seniors see Social Security privatized or our benefits cut. Medicare would be next.

~ T.R. Hilleren

 

http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20100912/OPINION03/9120309

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
cygo wrote:I am 71 years

cygo wrote:

I am 71 years old, and have voted Republican more times than Democrat. But I believe the Bush administration is responsible for destroying our economy by getting our nation into a war with Iraq and giving tax cuts we could not afford to the rich.  

Poverty and war is how humans do population control since time immortal. When has there ever been a period of peace and prosperity that didn't eventually lead to Malthusian catastrophe?

 

cygo wrote:

 it will be just a matter of time before we seniors see Social Security privatized or our benefits cut. Medicare would be next.

All pyramid scams eventually collapse.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:cygo wrote:I am 71

EXC wrote:

cygo wrote:

I am 71 years old, and have voted Republican more times than Democrat. But I believe the Bush administration is responsible for destroying our economy by getting our nation into a war with Iraq and giving tax cuts we could not afford to the rich.  

Poverty and war is how humans do population control since time immortal. When has there ever been a period of peace and prosperity that didn't eventually lead to Malthusian catastrophe?

 

cygo wrote:

 it will be just a matter of time before we seniors see Social Security privatized or our benefits cut. Medicare would be next.

All pyramid scams eventually collapse.

Except for the one Libertarians set up?

Again, Rand Paul comes to mind - he of the "I don't want to get state certification to be an eye doctor. I'll create my own board and put me and my family in charge and people will have to pay dues to me if they want to join my board."

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
cygo wrote:I posted earlier

cygo wrote:

I posted earlier that we entered recovery on October '08.  But, according to this article Bush's recession ended June '09.  

 

Sorry all.

 

And we might have worms.

 

 

 

Looks much more like gigantic pieces of poo.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:EXC

jcgadfly wrote:

EXC wrote:

cygo wrote:

I am 71 years old, and have voted Republican more times than Democrat. But I believe the Bush administration is responsible for destroying our economy by getting our nation into a war with Iraq and giving tax cuts we could not afford to the rich.  

Poverty and war is how humans do population control since time immortal. When has there ever been a period of peace and prosperity that didn't eventually lead to Malthusian catastrophe?

 

cygo wrote:

 it will be just a matter of time before we seniors see Social Security privatized or our benefits cut. Medicare would be next.

All pyramid scams eventually collapse.

Except for the one Libertarians set up?

Again, Rand Paul comes to mind - he of the "I don't want to get state certification to be an eye doctor. I'll create my own board and put me and my family in charge and people will have to pay dues to me if they want to join my board."

Well there is nothing magical about about something being government run. Government workers and human with the same flaws and are given to corruption, incompetence and laziness same as everyone else. Private certification can work if they the agency is accountable to the consumers. I wouldn't trust this arrangement by Rand Paul because I can't get these people fired and sued them if they screw up. But that is how government works now, it is difficult to fire them when the screw up.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:EXC

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

EXC wrote:

cygo wrote:

I am 71 years old, and have voted Republican more times than Democrat. But I believe the Bush administration is responsible for destroying our economy by getting our nation into a war with Iraq and giving tax cuts we could not afford to the rich.  

Poverty and war is how humans do population control since time immortal. When has there ever been a period of peace and prosperity that didn't eventually lead to Malthusian catastrophe?

 

cygo wrote:

 it will be just a matter of time before we seniors see Social Security privatized or our benefits cut. Medicare would be next.

All pyramid scams eventually collapse.

Except for the one Libertarians set up?

Again, Rand Paul comes to mind - he of the "I don't want to get state certification to be an eye doctor. I'll create my own board and put me and my family in charge and people will have to pay dues to me if they want to join my board."

Well there is nothing magical about about something being government run. Government workers and human with the same flaws and are given to corruption, incompetence and laziness same as everyone else. Private certification can work if they the agency is accountable to the consumers. I wouldn't trust this arrangement by Rand Paul because I can't get these people fired and sued them if they screw up. But that is how government works now, it is difficult to fire them when the screw up.

Now you know why people (including Libertarians) run for office.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:EXC

jcgadfly wrote:

EXC wrote:

cygo wrote:

I am 71 years old, and have voted Republican more times than Democrat. But I believe the Bush administration is responsible for destroying our economy by getting our nation into a war with Iraq and giving tax cuts we could not afford to the rich.  

Poverty and war is how humans do population control since time immortal. When has there ever been a period of peace and prosperity that didn't eventually lead to Malthusian catastrophe?

 

cygo wrote:

 it will be just a matter of time before we seniors see Social Security privatized or our benefits cut. Medicare would be next.

All pyramid scams eventually collapse.

Except for the one Libertarians set up?

Again, Rand Paul comes to mind - he of the "I don't want to get state certification to be an eye doctor. I'll create my own board and put me and my family in charge and people will have to pay dues to me if they want to join my board."

 

you watch too much keith olbermann it seems

from an article on usatoday:

From 1995 through 2005, Paul was certified by an AMA-recognized certification board. Paul says he let his certification lapse over a dispute over who the American Board of Ophthalmology recertifies.

 

and from paul himself:

"I took the American Board of Ophthalmology (the largest governing body in ophthalmology) boards in 1995, passed them on my first attempt (as well as three times during residency), and was therefore board-certified under this organization for a decade.

In 1997, I, along with 200 other young ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology to protest the American Board of Ophthalmology's decision to grandfather in the older ophthalmologists and not require them to recertify.

I thought this was hypocritical and unjust for the older ophthalmologists to exempt themselves from the recertification exam.

In forming NBO, the younger ophthalmologists agreed to require recertification for all ophthalmologists....

ABO argues that they are the legitamate organization because they are recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). They fail to explain that ABO helped found ABMS and gets to vote on who is approved by ABMS. One can imagine why ABMS and ABO would not want to approve a competitor."

 

paul went to Duke Medical School and is liscensed to practice

so there you have it

 

 

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

EXC wrote:

cygo wrote:

I am 71 years old, and have voted Republican more times than Democrat. But I believe the Bush administration is responsible for destroying our economy by getting our nation into a war with Iraq and giving tax cuts we could not afford to the rich.  

Poverty and war is how humans do population control since time immortal. When has there ever been a period of peace and prosperity that didn't eventually lead to Malthusian catastrophe?

 

cygo wrote:

 it will be just a matter of time before we seniors see Social Security privatized or our benefits cut. Medicare would be next.

All pyramid scams eventually collapse.

Except for the one Libertarians set up?

Again, Rand Paul comes to mind - he of the "I don't want to get state certification to be an eye doctor. I'll create my own board and put me and my family in charge and people will have to pay dues to me if they want to join my board."

 

you watch too much keith olbermann it seems

from an article on usatoday:

From 1995 through 2005, Paul was certified by an AMA-recognized certification board. Paul says he let his certification lapse over a dispute over who the American Board of Ophthalmology recertifies.

 

and from paul himself:

"I took the American Board of Ophthalmology (the largest governing body in ophthalmology) boards in 1995, passed them on my first attempt (as well as three times during residency), and was therefore board-certified under this organization for a decade.

In 1997, I, along with 200 other young ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology to protest the American Board of Ophthalmology's decision to grandfather in the older ophthalmologists and not require them to recertify.

I thought this was hypocritical and unjust for the older ophthalmologists to exempt themselves from the recertification exam.

In forming NBO, the younger ophthalmologists agreed to require recertification for all ophthalmologists....

ABO argues that they are the legitamate organization because they are recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). They fail to explain that ABO helped found ABMS and gets to vote on who is approved by ABMS. One can imagine why ABMS and ABO would not want to approve a competitor."

 

paul went to Duke Medical School and is liscensed to practice

so there you have it

 

 

 

I didn't say he wasn't licensed to practice. I said he wasn't certified except by his own board. Good job on nailing that straw man you set up though.

What that means is that he is exempt from any ethical standards except the ones his board set up. I'm pretty sure those are lax where the president of said board is concerned.

It's really easy to follow standards you adjust as needed. Kind of like his Medicare and term limit stances.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
did you even read what i

did you even read what i wrote/quoted?

he passed the boards in 1995 on his first try and 3 times during residency, so from 1995 to 2005, 10 years he was certified

he then left that board and started a new one with 200 other opthamologists after the older opthamologists exempted themselves from recertification standards

his board makes ALL opthamologists recertify

the ABO is recognized by the ABMS, because it helped found the ABMS and gets a vote on who is approved by ABMS

 

so you purposely left all ALL the important details to focus on a trivial one

 

thanks for playing

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Once the bad

Brian37 wrote:

 Once the bad times are over they both go back to the old playbook which for the past 30 years has done nothing but make the pay gap worse and the cost of living worse. 

When has there ever not been "bad times". When it gets easier to find a job, the price of housing, gas, commodities, etc... goes up, so the misery remains. So we still have the working poor that are struggling. This is how it was before the recession.

No one wants to address the fundamental problem of a competitive world creating lots of human misery. It's not a republican or democratic problem, but a human problem.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:did you

atomicdogg34 wrote:

did you even read what i wrote/quoted?

he passed the boards in 1995 on his first try and 3 times during residency, so from 1995 to 2005, 10 years he was certified

he then left that board and started a new one with 200 other opthamologists after the older opthamologists exempted themselves from recertification standards

his board makes ALL opthamologists recertify

the ABO is recognized by the ABMS, because it helped found the ABMS and gets a vote on who is approved by ABMS

 

so you purposely left all ALL the important details to focus on a trivial one

 

thanks for playing

He was certified. He didn't like the rules. He made up his own game where he could make the rules.

How many times has he recertified? have I covered the bases now?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

did you even read what i wrote/quoted?

he passed the boards in 1995 on his first try and 3 times during residency, so from 1995 to 2005, 10 years he was certified

he then left that board and started a new one with 200 other opthamologists after the older opthamologists exempted themselves from recertification standards

his board makes ALL opthamologists recertify

the ABO is recognized by the ABMS, because it helped found the ABMS and gets a vote on who is approved by ABMS

 

so you purposely left all ALL the important details to focus on a trivial one

 

thanks for playing

He was certified. He didn't like the rules. He made up his own game where he could make the rules.

How many times has he recertified? have I covered the bases now?

 

he was certified a total of 4 times, then left due to some ridiculous rule

you think people would appreciate such a move since his group (started with other opthamologists) makes ALL of their members recertify, unlike the other group that has the backwards idea that only the newer guys need to recertify and the older guys, who you might think might need it more, dont

that is exactly how things are supposed to work, competition, we shouldnt degrade it we should applaud it

and acting as if his group isnt legit because it isnt recognized by a group that the group he just left helped found and gets a vote on is pretty ridiculous

so lets not act like keith olberman here and only report that he isnt certified, implying hes some wackjob doctor, whilst leaving out every semblance of context (god i fucking hate keith olberman, lol)

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

did you even read what i wrote/quoted?

he passed the boards in 1995 on his first try and 3 times during residency, so from 1995 to 2005, 10 years he was certified

he then left that board and started a new one with 200 other opthamologists after the older opthamologists exempted themselves from recertification standards

his board makes ALL opthamologists recertify

the ABO is recognized by the ABMS, because it helped found the ABMS and gets a vote on who is approved by ABMS

 

so you purposely left all ALL the important details to focus on a trivial one

 

thanks for playing

He was certified. He didn't like the rules. He made up his own game where he could make the rules.

How many times has he recertified? have I covered the bases now?

 

he was certified a total of 4 times, then left due to some ridiculous rule

you think people would appreciate such a move since his group (started with other opthamologists) makes ALL of their members recertify, unlike the other group that has the backwards idea that only the newer guys need to recertify and the older guys, who you might think might need it more, dont

that is exactly how things are supposed to work, competition, we shouldnt degrade it we should applaud it

and acting as if his group isnt legit because it isnt recognized by a group that the group he just left helped found and gets a vote on is pretty ridiculous

so lets not act like keith olberman here and only report that he isnt certified, implying hes some wackjob doctor, whilst leaving out every semblance of context (god i fucking hate keith olberman, lol)

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

did you even read what i wrote/quoted?

he passed the boards in 1995 on his first try and 3 times during residency, so from 1995 to 2005, 10 years he was certified

he then left that board and started a new one with 200 other opthamologists after the older opthamologists exempted themselves from recertification standards

his board makes ALL opthamologists recertify

the ABO is recognized by the ABMS, because it helped found the ABMS and gets a vote on who is approved by ABMS

 

so you purposely left all ALL the important details to focus on a trivial one

 

thanks for playing

He was certified. He didn't like the rules. He made up his own game where he could make the rules.

How many times has he recertified? have I covered the bases now?

 

he was certified a total of 4 times, then left due to some ridiculous rule

you think people would appreciate such a move since his group (started with other opthamologists) makes ALL of their members recertify, unlike the other group that has the backwards idea that only the newer guys need to recertify and the older guys, who you might think might need it more, dont

that is exactly how things are supposed to work, competition, we shouldnt degrade it we should applaud it

and acting as if his group isnt legit because it isnt recognized by a group that the group he just left helped found and gets a vote on is pretty ridiculous

so lets not act like keith olberman here and only report that he isnt certified, implying hes some wackjob doctor, whilst leaving out every semblance of context (god i fucking hate keith olberman, lol)

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

 

re-certified by his own board? no idea, though im sure i could look it up if i wished (or you for that matter)

im not even sure if id call it "his" board, makes it sound unseemly, he started it with 200 or so other opthamologists and he heads it, not sure about how they do cert/re-cert procedures or any of that

if the person in question ran his own board he would still have been found out for fraud and such and then would have disgraced his board and organization, thats how these type of groups work, on reputation, and theres always an incentive to do good by your customers as that boosts your rep and allows you to attract more

either way maybe ill take a gander, im sure the group dr. paul heads has a website

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Not the

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 Who certifies the people

 

Who certifies the people who certify the doctors? They are appointed by politicians. Who certifies the politicians? Voters.

We have a broken political system where people who contribute to campaigns get the special appointments. People that vote no little or nothing about the issues or candidates. So why can't I decide who is qualified rather than the morons that just mark an X for Democrat or Republican?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Who certifies

EXC wrote:

 

Who certifies the people who certify the doctors? They are appointed by politicians. Who certifies the politicians? Voters.

We have a broken political system where people who contribute to campaigns get the special appointments. People that vote no little or nothing about the issues or candidates. So why can't I decide who is qualified rather than the morons that just mark an X for Democrat or Republican?

No one says you shouldn't. We're just discussing the standards of qualification.

Hypocrisy shouldn't be a qualification (no matter your party).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
I know...

Riding Reagan everywhere is getting monotonous. 

Reagan had two recessions.   George H W Bush had a recession.    There was no recession during Clinton and we get a surplus that the Republicans threw out the window.  George W Bush had two recessions.

The GOP certainly needs help if they're going to remain on the top two list.

Maybe consulting insurance companies might help.

Yeah.  Stick it to the man.

---

 

Privatize the GOP.

 

 

 

 

 


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

 

well isnt that flashy, cant prove he wouldnt vote for these things therefore you win? that argument sounds familiar...

fact is people do vote that way however, rands father is a prime example

what do you mean scrap everything medicare normally covers? such as?

the democrats idea is what? let the incompetent govt run healthcare?  scared of competition? to say this is competition is non-sense, the govt isnt competing, it isnt winning consumers based on quality or anything like that, its saying "buy this product or we'll fine you"

to start with the govt is the problem in healthcare, between subsidies, various tax structures, the way its fucked up the usage of insurance, inflation, they create the problem, then blame it on the free market, then claim they need to do more to save it, total non-sense, and there are lots of great ideas by libertarians and real economists out there, apparently you havent bothered looking

well there ya go, you wouldnt mind a tax cut to keep more of your own money but other people... well we cant have that, i dont give a shit if they are rich or not, they have the same right to their own money as everyone else, im not into class warfare and im sick of people thinking they are entitled to something then have the govt use other peoples money to get it

spending causes deficits, you should have just ended there, instead of looking to bilk more money from the people how about just dont spend, especially when the programs are almost non-functional, in every other aspect of business the worse you do the less money you get until you go out of business, in the govt though the worse you do the more money you seem to get, thats the only answer govt ever comes up with, throw more money at the problem and see if anything sticks

you never did address the main issue of the money actually belonging to the people and not the govt, the fact that they worked for and earned it and have a right to keep it, unless you dont think they do, or only some people do

well im def no fan of big govt republicans either (lindsey graham for example) but the problem of spending the social sec fund for example wasnt just their doing, its been going on for ages, its not a rep or dem problem, its a govt problem, they have access to funds they are going to spend them, they just cant help themselves

of course there arent any miraculous fixes, but getting some people in there that understand economics, the constitution and put forth a path that would lead to a fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy would be a good start

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

 

well isnt that flashy, cant prove he wouldnt vote for these things therefore you win? that argument sounds familiar...

fact is people do vote that way however, rands father is a prime example

what do you mean scrap everything medicare normally covers? such as?

the democrats idea is what? let the incompetent govt run healthcare?  scared of competition? to say this is competition is non-sense, the govt isnt competing, it isnt winning consumers based on quality or anything like that, its saying "buy this product or we'll fine you"

to start with the govt is the problem in healthcare, between subsidies, various tax structures, the way its fucked up the usage of insurance, inflation, they create the problem, then blame it on the free market, then claim they need to do more to save it, total non-sense, and there are lots of great ideas by libertarians and real economists out there, apparently you havent bothered looking

well there ya go, you wouldnt mind a tax cut to keep more of your own money but other people... well we cant have that, i dont give a shit if they are rich or not, they have the same right to their own money as everyone else, im not into class warfare and im sick of people thinking they are entitled to something then have the govt use other peoples money to get it

spending causes deficits, you should have just ended there, instead of looking to bilk more money from the people how about just dont spend, especially when the programs are almost non-functional, in every other aspect of business the worse you do the less money you get until you go out of business, in the govt though the worse you do the more money you seem to get, thats the only answer govt ever comes up with, throw more money at the problem and see if anything sticks

you never did address the main issue of the money actually belonging to the people and not the govt, the fact that they worked for and earned it and have a right to keep it, unless you dont think they do, or only some people do

well im def no fan of big govt republicans either (lindsey graham for example) but the problem of spending the social sec fund for example wasnt just their doing, its been going on for ages, its not a rep or dem problem, its a govt problem, they have access to funds they are going to spend them, they just cant help themselves

of course there arent any miraculous fixes, but getting some people in there that understand economics, the constitution and put forth a path that would lead to a fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy would be a good start

As has been shown, Rand's not his dad.

Such as drugs, hospital stays - you know, medical stuff.

The government doesn't want to run healthcare - they want to be an insurance provider in competition with the others. why does free-market competition scare you so much?

No, I wouldn't mind a tax cut if I knew that the offsetting revenue was coming from someplace else - the defense budget come to mind. A tax cut without an offset - I wouldn't want it.

I would have ended there but I didn't want to be lying. You, I see, have no problem with that. I guess you haven't balanced a checkbook.

Why are you so adamant against taxing people who have more money than they know what to do with? Why are you for giving people's hard earned money to the uber wealthy?

Why are you forgetting that the people should pay for the services the government provides?

If the people you are advocating understand economics like you, I want them nowhere near power.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Magic Potions for Sale

The pro-business anti-government folks should learn about the days of potions and elixors.

 

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c109/ELiXoR/th_100_0344.jpg

 

The FDA, for example, blocks WalMart from selling stuff that kills us.

 

 


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

 

well isnt that flashy, cant prove he wouldnt vote for these things therefore you win? that argument sounds familiar...

fact is people do vote that way however, rands father is a prime example

what do you mean scrap everything medicare normally covers? such as?

the democrats idea is what? let the incompetent govt run healthcare?  scared of competition? to say this is competition is non-sense, the govt isnt competing, it isnt winning consumers based on quality or anything like that, its saying "buy this product or we'll fine you"

to start with the govt is the problem in healthcare, between subsidies, various tax structures, the way its fucked up the usage of insurance, inflation, they create the problem, then blame it on the free market, then claim they need to do more to save it, total non-sense, and there are lots of great ideas by libertarians and real economists out there, apparently you havent bothered looking

well there ya go, you wouldnt mind a tax cut to keep more of your own money but other people... well we cant have that, i dont give a shit if they are rich or not, they have the same right to their own money as everyone else, im not into class warfare and im sick of people thinking they are entitled to something then have the govt use other peoples money to get it

spending causes deficits, you should have just ended there, instead of looking to bilk more money from the people how about just dont spend, especially when the programs are almost non-functional, in every other aspect of business the worse you do the less money you get until you go out of business, in the govt though the worse you do the more money you seem to get, thats the only answer govt ever comes up with, throw more money at the problem and see if anything sticks

you never did address the main issue of the money actually belonging to the people and not the govt, the fact that they worked for and earned it and have a right to keep it, unless you dont think they do, or only some people do

well im def no fan of big govt republicans either (lindsey graham for example) but the problem of spending the social sec fund for example wasnt just their doing, its been going on for ages, its not a rep or dem problem, its a govt problem, they have access to funds they are going to spend them, they just cant help themselves

of course there arent any miraculous fixes, but getting some people in there that understand economics, the constitution and put forth a path that would lead to a fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy would be a good start

As has been shown, Rand's not his dad.

Such as drugs, hospital stays - you know, medical stuff.

The government doesn't want to run healthcare - they want to be an insurance provider in competition with the others. why does free-market competition scare you so much?

No, I wouldn't mind a tax cut if I knew that the offsetting revenue was coming from someplace else - the defense budget come to mind. A tax cut without an offset - I wouldn't want it.

I would have ended there but I didn't want to be lying. You, I see, have no problem with that. I guess you haven't balanced a checkbook.

Why are you so adamant against taxing people who have more money than they know what to do with? Why are you for giving people's hard earned money to the uber wealthy?

Why are you forgetting that the people should pay for the services the government provides?

If the people you are advocating understand economics like you, I want them nowhere near power.

 

yeah the govt running in competition is def part of the free market *rolls eyes*, yeah govt has to worry about consumer demands, has to worry about declining revenue, overhead, has all the problems a normal company has.... oh wait no they dont, if they do a shit job they just take more money, and on top of that they can legally fix prices, totally free and fair

seeings how the govt doesnt have to deal with any of the issues a real company would have to, and caused the problems in healthcare in the first place, i dont see how anyone could say something so ridiculous with a straight face

well unlike when balancing a checkbook, the govt can just decide to increase its revenues, you cannot, you HAVE to decrease spending, not even close to the same thing, and when the govt increases its revenues it does damage to the economy by sucking funds out of it and using them inefficiently and giving them to favored constituent groups

im adamant in the same way im against the govt directly taxing anyones income, i dont think im so smart that i can just decide when people have "enough" of their own money, thatd be arrogant

giving money to the uber wealthy? like bailouts? was against them, im against redistribution no matter what direction it goes, however what you advocate is exactly that, transfer of wealth to the wealthy because of monetary policy, where do you think all this newly printed money goes first? the wealthy: the bankers, those with govt contracts, the military, etc

in fact what all big govt people propose with the use of our monetary system hurts the middle class, through the inflation tax, the most regressive and insidious tax

im suggesting the govt shouldnt be providing alot of the services it does, because its unconstitutional, its immoral, its bad economics, and they cant do it with even a modicum of efficiency

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

 

well isnt that flashy, cant prove he wouldnt vote for these things therefore you win? that argument sounds familiar...

fact is people do vote that way however, rands father is a prime example

what do you mean scrap everything medicare normally covers? such as?

the democrats idea is what? let the incompetent govt run healthcare?  scared of competition? to say this is competition is non-sense, the govt isnt competing, it isnt winning consumers based on quality or anything like that, its saying "buy this product or we'll fine you"

to start with the govt is the problem in healthcare, between subsidies, various tax structures, the way its fucked up the usage of insurance, inflation, they create the problem, then blame it on the free market, then claim they need to do more to save it, total non-sense, and there are lots of great ideas by libertarians and real economists out there, apparently you havent bothered looking

well there ya go, you wouldnt mind a tax cut to keep more of your own money but other people... well we cant have that, i dont give a shit if they are rich or not, they have the same right to their own money as everyone else, im not into class warfare and im sick of people thinking they are entitled to something then have the govt use other peoples money to get it

spending causes deficits, you should have just ended there, instead of looking to bilk more money from the people how about just dont spend, especially when the programs are almost non-functional, in every other aspect of business the worse you do the less money you get until you go out of business, in the govt though the worse you do the more money you seem to get, thats the only answer govt ever comes up with, throw more money at the problem and see if anything sticks

you never did address the main issue of the money actually belonging to the people and not the govt, the fact that they worked for and earned it and have a right to keep it, unless you dont think they do, or only some people do

well im def no fan of big govt republicans either (lindsey graham for example) but the problem of spending the social sec fund for example wasnt just their doing, its been going on for ages, its not a rep or dem problem, its a govt problem, they have access to funds they are going to spend them, they just cant help themselves

of course there arent any miraculous fixes, but getting some people in there that understand economics, the constitution and put forth a path that would lead to a fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy would be a good start

As has been shown, Rand's not his dad.

Such as drugs, hospital stays - you know, medical stuff.

The government doesn't want to run healthcare - they want to be an insurance provider in competition with the others. why does free-market competition scare you so much?

No, I wouldn't mind a tax cut if I knew that the offsetting revenue was coming from someplace else - the defense budget come to mind. A tax cut without an offset - I wouldn't want it.

I would have ended there but I didn't want to be lying. You, I see, have no problem with that. I guess you haven't balanced a checkbook.

Why are you so adamant against taxing people who have more money than they know what to do with? Why are you for giving people's hard earned money to the uber wealthy?

Why are you forgetting that the people should pay for the services the government provides?

If the people you are advocating understand economics like you, I want them nowhere near power.

 

yeah the govt running in competition is def part of the free market *rolls eyes*, yeah govt has to worry about consumer demands, has to worry about declining revenue, overhead, has all the problems a normal company has.... oh wait no they dont, if they do a shit job they just take more money, and on top of that they can legally fix prices, totally free and fair

seeings how the govt doesnt have to deal with any of the issues a real company would have to, and caused the problems in healthcare in the first place, i dont see how anyone could say something so ridiculous with a straight face

well unlike when balancing a checkbook, the govt can just decide to increase its revenues, you cannot, you HAVE to decrease spending, not even close to the same thing, and when the govt increases its revenues it does damage to the economy by sucking funds out of it and using them inefficiently and giving them to favored constituent groups

im adamant in the same way im against the govt directly taxing anyones income, i dont think im so smart that i can just decide when people have "enough" of their own money, thatd be arrogant

giving money to the uber wealthy? like bailouts? was against them, im against redistribution no matter what direction it goes, however what you advocate is exactly that, transfer of wealth to the wealthy because of monetary policy, where do you think all this newly printed money goes first? the wealthy: the bankers, those with govt contracts, the military, etc

in fact what all big govt people propose with the use of our monetary system hurts the middle class, through the inflation tax, the most regressive and insidious tax

im suggesting the govt shouldnt be providing alot of the services it does, because its unconstitutional, its immoral, its bad economics, and they cant do it with even a modicum of efficiency

 

How could I write that with a straight face? The same way that you wrote about your belief that the insurance companies don't practice collusion to screw the people who need coverage.

Yes, the government can decide to increase it's revenue. Why are you content to let them increase it off of my back (and maybe yours also) while lightening the load of the richest 1%?

Yes, the bailouts were a stupid move. I doubt if the libertarian idea of letting them fail and replacing them with nothing would have been much better.

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

 

well isnt that flashy, cant prove he wouldnt vote for these things therefore you win? that argument sounds familiar...

fact is people do vote that way however, rands father is a prime example

what do you mean scrap everything medicare normally covers? such as?

the democrats idea is what? let the incompetent govt run healthcare?  scared of competition? to say this is competition is non-sense, the govt isnt competing, it isnt winning consumers based on quality or anything like that, its saying "buy this product or we'll fine you"

to start with the govt is the problem in healthcare, between subsidies, various tax structures, the way its fucked up the usage of insurance, inflation, they create the problem, then blame it on the free market, then claim they need to do more to save it, total non-sense, and there are lots of great ideas by libertarians and real economists out there, apparently you havent bothered looking

well there ya go, you wouldnt mind a tax cut to keep more of your own money but other people... well we cant have that, i dont give a shit if they are rich or not, they have the same right to their own money as everyone else, im not into class warfare and im sick of people thinking they are entitled to something then have the govt use other peoples money to get it

spending causes deficits, you should have just ended there, instead of looking to bilk more money from the people how about just dont spend, especially when the programs are almost non-functional, in every other aspect of business the worse you do the less money you get until you go out of business, in the govt though the worse you do the more money you seem to get, thats the only answer govt ever comes up with, throw more money at the problem and see if anything sticks

you never did address the main issue of the money actually belonging to the people and not the govt, the fact that they worked for and earned it and have a right to keep it, unless you dont think they do, or only some people do

well im def no fan of big govt republicans either (lindsey graham for example) but the problem of spending the social sec fund for example wasnt just their doing, its been going on for ages, its not a rep or dem problem, its a govt problem, they have access to funds they are going to spend them, they just cant help themselves

of course there arent any miraculous fixes, but getting some people in there that understand economics, the constitution and put forth a path that would lead to a fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy would be a good start

As has been shown, Rand's not his dad.

Such as drugs, hospital stays - you know, medical stuff.

The government doesn't want to run healthcare - they want to be an insurance provider in competition with the others. why does free-market competition scare you so much?

No, I wouldn't mind a tax cut if I knew that the offsetting revenue was coming from someplace else - the defense budget come to mind. A tax cut without an offset - I wouldn't want it.

I would have ended there but I didn't want to be lying. You, I see, have no problem with that. I guess you haven't balanced a checkbook.

Why are you so adamant against taxing people who have more money than they know what to do with? Why are you for giving people's hard earned money to the uber wealthy?

Why are you forgetting that the people should pay for the services the government provides?

If the people you are advocating understand economics like you, I want them nowhere near power.

 

yeah the govt running in competition is def part of the free market *rolls eyes*, yeah govt has to worry about consumer demands, has to worry about declining revenue, overhead, has all the problems a normal company has.... oh wait no they dont, if they do a shit job they just take more money, and on top of that they can legally fix prices, totally free and fair

seeings how the govt doesnt have to deal with any of the issues a real company would have to, and caused the problems in healthcare in the first place, i dont see how anyone could say something so ridiculous with a straight face

well unlike when balancing a checkbook, the govt can just decide to increase its revenues, you cannot, you HAVE to decrease spending, not even close to the same thing, and when the govt increases its revenues it does damage to the economy by sucking funds out of it and using them inefficiently and giving them to favored constituent groups

im adamant in the same way im against the govt directly taxing anyones income, i dont think im so smart that i can just decide when people have "enough" of their own money, thatd be arrogant

giving money to the uber wealthy? like bailouts? was against them, im against redistribution no matter what direction it goes, however what you advocate is exactly that, transfer of wealth to the wealthy because of monetary policy, where do you think all this newly printed money goes first? the wealthy: the bankers, those with govt contracts, the military, etc

in fact what all big govt people propose with the use of our monetary system hurts the middle class, through the inflation tax, the most regressive and insidious tax

im suggesting the govt shouldnt be providing alot of the services it does, because its unconstitutional, its immoral, its bad economics, and they cant do it with even a modicum of efficiency

 

How could I write that with a straight face? The same way that you wrote about your belief that the insurance companies don't practice collusion to screw the people who need coverage.

Yes, the government can decide to increase it's revenue. Why are you content to let them increase it off of my back (and maybe yours also) while lightening the load of the richest 1%?

Yes, the bailouts were a stupid move. I doubt if the libertarian idea of letting them fail and replacing them with nothing would have been much better.

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

 

 

America is too big and complex for conservatives.

 

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The

jcgadfly wrote:

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

For example?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
By the "These republicans

By the "These republicans had recessions and these democrats didnt" logic.... Had the economy under Bush 2 held on for a few more months and collapsed under Obama, would that mean that Bush had been a more economically responsible President than Obama?...

 

Surely it would be more acurate, let alone fair to assess the economic policy of any administration by how the economy performed as a whole under it's tenure....and moreover, what the long term effects of their policies were.... There is a distinct possibility that in doing this, the initial assertions may be accurate... But its like Science in that facts are not realized until we factor in cause and effect...

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

For example?

 

Mitch Daniels' games with the Indiana roads comes to mind.

http://www.alltolled.com/

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

For example?

 

Mitch Daniels' games with the Indiana roads comes to mind.

http://www.alltolled.com/

If you want to claim that government paying private companies can lead to corruption you won't find a debate here. Anytime the government is making any economic deal you have to watch very closely for corruption either through the government paying too much or charging way too low. For example, in the toll story did the government put it up on the market? Or did the governor simply write a deal for political friends. Maybe someone would have been willing to pay more.

Although you don't have any idea how the plan would have worked because it was never passed. And the I-80 toll road that goes through Ohio and Indiana that is private is a very well kept road. I know, I drive on it quite regularly (my family is in Minnesota and I am in Ohio) and apparently, it turns a nice profit http://www.alltolled.com/indianatollroad.htm  So the government eliminates the cost of maintaining the road and the private company manages to maintain it just as well if not better and still make a profit. The problem is? The idiots in the government probably didn't charge enough to sell it but that is simply another illustration of government corruption. I would hope that the 3 bil they charged at least covered the costs of building it.

 

So how did privatizing the I80 route lead to worsened services?

 

Your problem seems more aimed at bumbling corrupt politicians, so why do you support those same politicians being in control of more government?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

For example?

 

Mitch Daniels' games with the Indiana roads comes to mind.

http://www.alltolled.com/

If you want to claim that government paying private companies can lead to corruption you won't find a debate here. Anytime the government is making any economic deal you have to watch very closely for corruption either through the government paying too much or charging way too low. For example, in the toll story did the government put it up on the market? Or did the governor simply write a deal for political friends. Maybe someone would have been willing to pay more.

Although you don't have any idea how the plan would have worked because it was never passed. And the I-80 toll road that goes through Ohio and Indiana that is private is a very well kept road. I know, I drive on it quite regularly (my family is in Minnesota and I am in Ohio) and apparently, it turns a nice profit http://www.alltolled.com/indianatollroad.htm  So the government eliminates the cost of maintaining the road and the private company manages to maintain it just as well if not better and still make a profit. The problem is? The idiots in the government probably didn't charge enough to sell it but that is simply another illustration of government corruption. I would hope that the 3 bil they charged at least covered the costs of building it.

 

So how did privatizing the I80 route lead to worsened services?

 

Your problem seems more aimed at bumbling corrupt politicians, so why do you support those same politicians being in control of more government?

 

It's not an issue of corruption. Daniels wanted a short term gain and traded toll collection rights to the foreign company for the next 71 years. Sacrificing the state to make a quick buck is not a good move (or shouldn't be.

Perhaps it's well kept because the traffic that would normally make profits for the state aren't using it? I call that worsened services.

It's bad enough we're the "Crossroads of America" because we can't keep qualified people and businesses here. Now Mitch wants to call us "Drive around us, please. We don't need your money."

Do I support Bush's Bitch Mitch? short answer no. Long answer, hell no. He's too "low cost at any cost" libertarian for me

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Perhaps it's

jcgadfly wrote:

Perhaps it's well kept because the traffic that would normally make profits for the state aren't using it? I call that worsened services.

It gets a lot of use every time I drive it. I'm sure if you looked it up it is one of the most used freeways in the midwest. It connects Chicago to Philadelphia and New York. (and is toll from Chicago to Youngstown Ohio) So do you only call it "worsened service" because you actually have to pay for it yourself instead of stealing money from someone else? Instead of the government losing money every month on it the government got a lump sum of cash. How is the government worse off? It has more money and one less obligation. In Indiana you have a quality freeway. But (gasp) you have to pay to use it! Oh no, heaven forbid you should have to pay to use something. If you decide not to pay for it you are welcome to drive on US-30 which is a public road with a lower speed limit, more stoplights and more potholes but will get you to the same place eventually.

Now I am interested in whether or not Indiana cut gas taxes since part of the roadway was privatized. My guess is they didn't because gas is always more expensive in Indiana than Ohio (but not as bad as Illinois). But thats the government for you.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

 

well isnt that flashy, cant prove he wouldnt vote for these things therefore you win? that argument sounds familiar...

fact is people do vote that way however, rands father is a prime example

what do you mean scrap everything medicare normally covers? such as?

the democrats idea is what? let the incompetent govt run healthcare?  scared of competition? to say this is competition is non-sense, the govt isnt competing, it isnt winning consumers based on quality or anything like that, its saying "buy this product or we'll fine you"

to start with the govt is the problem in healthcare, between subsidies, various tax structures, the way its fucked up the usage of insurance, inflation, they create the problem, then blame it on the free market, then claim they need to do more to save it, total non-sense, and there are lots of great ideas by libertarians and real economists out there, apparently you havent bothered looking

well there ya go, you wouldnt mind a tax cut to keep more of your own money but other people... well we cant have that, i dont give a shit if they are rich or not, they have the same right to their own money as everyone else, im not into class warfare and im sick of people thinking they are entitled to something then have the govt use other peoples money to get it

spending causes deficits, you should have just ended there, instead of looking to bilk more money from the people how about just dont spend, especially when the programs are almost non-functional, in every other aspect of business the worse you do the less money you get until you go out of business, in the govt though the worse you do the more money you seem to get, thats the only answer govt ever comes up with, throw more money at the problem and see if anything sticks

you never did address the main issue of the money actually belonging to the people and not the govt, the fact that they worked for and earned it and have a right to keep it, unless you dont think they do, or only some people do

well im def no fan of big govt republicans either (lindsey graham for example) but the problem of spending the social sec fund for example wasnt just their doing, its been going on for ages, its not a rep or dem problem, its a govt problem, they have access to funds they are going to spend them, they just cant help themselves

of course there arent any miraculous fixes, but getting some people in there that understand economics, the constitution and put forth a path that would lead to a fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy would be a good start

As has been shown, Rand's not his dad.

Such as drugs, hospital stays - you know, medical stuff.

The government doesn't want to run healthcare - they want to be an insurance provider in competition with the others. why does free-market competition scare you so much?

No, I wouldn't mind a tax cut if I knew that the offsetting revenue was coming from someplace else - the defense budget come to mind. A tax cut without an offset - I wouldn't want it.

I would have ended there but I didn't want to be lying. You, I see, have no problem with that. I guess you haven't balanced a checkbook.

Why are you so adamant against taxing people who have more money than they know what to do with? Why are you for giving people's hard earned money to the uber wealthy?

Why are you forgetting that the people should pay for the services the government provides?

If the people you are advocating understand economics like you, I want them nowhere near power.

 

yeah the govt running in competition is def part of the free market *rolls eyes*, yeah govt has to worry about consumer demands, has to worry about declining revenue, overhead, has all the problems a normal company has.... oh wait no they dont, if they do a shit job they just take more money, and on top of that they can legally fix prices, totally free and fair

seeings how the govt doesnt have to deal with any of the issues a real company would have to, and caused the problems in healthcare in the first place, i dont see how anyone could say something so ridiculous with a straight face

well unlike when balancing a checkbook, the govt can just decide to increase its revenues, you cannot, you HAVE to decrease spending, not even close to the same thing, and when the govt increases its revenues it does damage to the economy by sucking funds out of it and using them inefficiently and giving them to favored constituent groups

im adamant in the same way im against the govt directly taxing anyones income, i dont think im so smart that i can just decide when people have "enough" of their own money, thatd be arrogant

giving money to the uber wealthy? like bailouts? was against them, im against redistribution no matter what direction it goes, however what you advocate is exactly that, transfer of wealth to the wealthy because of monetary policy, where do you think all this newly printed money goes first? the wealthy: the bankers, those with govt contracts, the military, etc

in fact what all big govt people propose with the use of our monetary system hurts the middle class, through the inflation tax, the most regressive and insidious tax

im suggesting the govt shouldnt be providing alot of the services it does, because its unconstitutional, its immoral, its bad economics, and they cant do it with even a modicum of efficiency

 

How could I write that with a straight face? The same way that you wrote about your belief that the insurance companies don't practice collusion to screw the people who need coverage.

Yes, the government can decide to increase it's revenue. Why are you content to let them increase it off of my back (and maybe yours also) while lightening the load of the richest 1%?

Yes, the bailouts were a stupid move. I doubt if the libertarian idea of letting them fail and replacing them with nothing would have been much better.

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

 

 

well i guess youll ignore the govt role in the health industry, no one seems to notice that the areas where the govt spends the most (healthcare and education for example) the cost always seems to go up while the quality always seems to go down, you want govt run healthcare? look at the healthcare the vets get, theres your govt healthcare

guess you missed the part where im against taxes on ANYONE, or the part about the inflation tax being the most regressive hurting the people the democrats love to talk about (the middle class, the poor, those on fixed incomes) the worst, whilst transferring wealth to the wealthy

as if banking would have just disappeared had we let them go bankrupt, wiped clean off the face of the planet, fact is any assets worth anything would have been bought up and other companies, new and those that already existed that were healthy, would have taken the bankrupt companies place, and that wouldnt have diverted resources and destroyed jobs in the process

shouldnt be, most of the crap they do is unconstitutional and immoral, thats enough for me, but besides that they dont do them worth a damn and in the process they screw up the economy

by privatization do you mean actual privatization or govt-private sector "partnerships", when govt teams up with the private sector thats just as bad as when they do it themselves

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

 

well isnt that flashy, cant prove he wouldnt vote for these things therefore you win? that argument sounds familiar...

fact is people do vote that way however, rands father is a prime example

what do you mean scrap everything medicare normally covers? such as?

the democrats idea is what? let the incompetent govt run healthcare?  scared of competition? to say this is competition is non-sense, the govt isnt competing, it isnt winning consumers based on quality or anything like that, its saying "buy this product or we'll fine you"

to start with the govt is the problem in healthcare, between subsidies, various tax structures, the way its fucked up the usage of insurance, inflation, they create the problem, then blame it on the free market, then claim they need to do more to save it, total non-sense, and there are lots of great ideas by libertarians and real economists out there, apparently you havent bothered looking

well there ya go, you wouldnt mind a tax cut to keep more of your own money but other people... well we cant have that, i dont give a shit if they are rich or not, they have the same right to their own money as everyone else, im not into class warfare and im sick of people thinking they are entitled to something then have the govt use other peoples money to get it

spending causes deficits, you should have just ended there, instead of looking to bilk more money from the people how about just dont spend, especially when the programs are almost non-functional, in every other aspect of business the worse you do the less money you get until you go out of business, in the govt though the worse you do the more money you seem to get, thats the only answer govt ever comes up with, throw more money at the problem and see if anything sticks

you never did address the main issue of the money actually belonging to the people and not the govt, the fact that they worked for and earned it and have a right to keep it, unless you dont think they do, or only some people do

well im def no fan of big govt republicans either (lindsey graham for example) but the problem of spending the social sec fund for example wasnt just their doing, its been going on for ages, its not a rep or dem problem, its a govt problem, they have access to funds they are going to spend them, they just cant help themselves

of course there arent any miraculous fixes, but getting some people in there that understand economics, the constitution and put forth a path that would lead to a fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy would be a good start

As has been shown, Rand's not his dad.

Such as drugs, hospital stays - you know, medical stuff.

The government doesn't want to run healthcare - they want to be an insurance provider in competition with the others. why does free-market competition scare you so much?

No, I wouldn't mind a tax cut if I knew that the offsetting revenue was coming from someplace else - the defense budget come to mind. A tax cut without an offset - I wouldn't want it.

I would have ended there but I didn't want to be lying. You, I see, have no problem with that. I guess you haven't balanced a checkbook.

Why are you so adamant against taxing people who have more money than they know what to do with? Why are you for giving people's hard earned money to the uber wealthy?

Why are you forgetting that the people should pay for the services the government provides?

If the people you are advocating understand economics like you, I want them nowhere near power.

 

yeah the govt running in competition is def part of the free market *rolls eyes*, yeah govt has to worry about consumer demands, has to worry about declining revenue, overhead, has all the problems a normal company has.... oh wait no they dont, if they do a shit job they just take more money, and on top of that they can legally fix prices, totally free and fair

seeings how the govt doesnt have to deal with any of the issues a real company would have to, and caused the problems in healthcare in the first place, i dont see how anyone could say something so ridiculous with a straight face

well unlike when balancing a checkbook, the govt can just decide to increase its revenues, you cannot, you HAVE to decrease spending, not even close to the same thing, and when the govt increases its revenues it does damage to the economy by sucking funds out of it and using them inefficiently and giving them to favored constituent groups

im adamant in the same way im against the govt directly taxing anyones income, i dont think im so smart that i can just decide when people have "enough" of their own money, thatd be arrogant

giving money to the uber wealthy? like bailouts? was against them, im against redistribution no matter what direction it goes, however what you advocate is exactly that, transfer of wealth to the wealthy because of monetary policy, where do you think all this newly printed money goes first? the wealthy: the bankers, those with govt contracts, the military, etc

in fact what all big govt people propose with the use of our monetary system hurts the middle class, through the inflation tax, the most regressive and insidious tax

im suggesting the govt shouldnt be providing alot of the services it does, because its unconstitutional, its immoral, its bad economics, and they cant do it with even a modicum of efficiency

 

How could I write that with a straight face? The same way that you wrote about your belief that the insurance companies don't practice collusion to screw the people who need coverage.

Yes, the government can decide to increase it's revenue. Why are you content to let them increase it off of my back (and maybe yours also) while lightening the load of the richest 1%?

Yes, the bailouts were a stupid move. I doubt if the libertarian idea of letting them fail and replacing them with nothing would have been much better.

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

 

 

well i guess youll ignore the govt role in the health industry, no one seems to notice that the areas where the govt spends the most (healthcare and education for example) the cost always seems to go up while the quality always seems to go down, you want govt run healthcare? look at the healthcare the vets get, theres your govt healthcare

guess you missed the part where im against taxes on ANYONE, or the part about the inflation tax being the most regressive hurting the people the democrats love to talk about (the middle class, the poor, those on fixed incomes) the worst, whilst transferring wealth to the wealthy

as if banking would have just disappeared had we let them go bankrupt, wiped clean off the face of the planet, fact is any assets worth anything would have been bought up and other companies, new and those that already existed that were healthy, would have taken the bankrupt companies place, and that wouldnt have diverted resources and destroyed jobs in the process

shouldnt be, most of the crap they do is unconstitutional and immoral, thats enough for me, but besides that they dont do them worth a damn and in the process they screw up the economy

by privatization do you mean actual privatization or govt-private sector "partnerships", when govt teams up with the private sector thats just as bad as when they do it themselves

 

 

If we privatize the GOP, they could merge with WalMart and sell Chinese cookies.

 

 

 

 

 


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
cygo wrote:atomicdogg34

cygo wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

 

well isnt that flashy, cant prove he wouldnt vote for these things therefore you win? that argument sounds familiar...

fact is people do vote that way however, rands father is a prime example

what do you mean scrap everything medicare normally covers? such as?

the democrats idea is what? let the incompetent govt run healthcare?  scared of competition? to say this is competition is non-sense, the govt isnt competing, it isnt winning consumers based on quality or anything like that, its saying "buy this product or we'll fine you"

to start with the govt is the problem in healthcare, between subsidies, various tax structures, the way its fucked up the usage of insurance, inflation, they create the problem, then blame it on the free market, then claim they need to do more to save it, total non-sense, and there are lots of great ideas by libertarians and real economists out there, apparently you havent bothered looking

well there ya go, you wouldnt mind a tax cut to keep more of your own money but other people... well we cant have that, i dont give a shit if they are rich or not, they have the same right to their own money as everyone else, im not into class warfare and im sick of people thinking they are entitled to something then have the govt use other peoples money to get it

spending causes deficits, you should have just ended there, instead of looking to bilk more money from the people how about just dont spend, especially when the programs are almost non-functional, in every other aspect of business the worse you do the less money you get until you go out of business, in the govt though the worse you do the more money you seem to get, thats the only answer govt ever comes up with, throw more money at the problem and see if anything sticks

you never did address the main issue of the money actually belonging to the people and not the govt, the fact that they worked for and earned it and have a right to keep it, unless you dont think they do, or only some people do

well im def no fan of big govt republicans either (lindsey graham for example) but the problem of spending the social sec fund for example wasnt just their doing, its been going on for ages, its not a rep or dem problem, its a govt problem, they have access to funds they are going to spend them, they just cant help themselves

of course there arent any miraculous fixes, but getting some people in there that understand economics, the constitution and put forth a path that would lead to a fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy would be a good start

As has been shown, Rand's not his dad.

Such as drugs, hospital stays - you know, medical stuff.

The government doesn't want to run healthcare - they want to be an insurance provider in competition with the others. why does free-market competition scare you so much?

No, I wouldn't mind a tax cut if I knew that the offsetting revenue was coming from someplace else - the defense budget come to mind. A tax cut without an offset - I wouldn't want it.

I would have ended there but I didn't want to be lying. You, I see, have no problem with that. I guess you haven't balanced a checkbook.

Why are you so adamant against taxing people who have more money than they know what to do with? Why are you for giving people's hard earned money to the uber wealthy?

Why are you forgetting that the people should pay for the services the government provides?

If the people you are advocating understand economics like you, I want them nowhere near power.

 

yeah the govt running in competition is def part of the free market *rolls eyes*, yeah govt has to worry about consumer demands, has to worry about declining revenue, overhead, has all the problems a normal company has.... oh wait no they dont, if they do a shit job they just take more money, and on top of that they can legally fix prices, totally free and fair

seeings how the govt doesnt have to deal with any of the issues a real company would have to, and caused the problems in healthcare in the first place, i dont see how anyone could say something so ridiculous with a straight face

well unlike when balancing a checkbook, the govt can just decide to increase its revenues, you cannot, you HAVE to decrease spending, not even close to the same thing, and when the govt increases its revenues it does damage to the economy by sucking funds out of it and using them inefficiently and giving them to favored constituent groups

im adamant in the same way im against the govt directly taxing anyones income, i dont think im so smart that i can just decide when people have "enough" of their own money, thatd be arrogant

giving money to the uber wealthy? like bailouts? was against them, im against redistribution no matter what direction it goes, however what you advocate is exactly that, transfer of wealth to the wealthy because of monetary policy, where do you think all this newly printed money goes first? the wealthy: the bankers, those with govt contracts, the military, etc

in fact what all big govt people propose with the use of our monetary system hurts the middle class, through the inflation tax, the most regressive and insidious tax

im suggesting the govt shouldnt be providing alot of the services it does, because its unconstitutional, its immoral, its bad economics, and they cant do it with even a modicum of efficiency

 

How could I write that with a straight face? The same way that you wrote about your belief that the insurance companies don't practice collusion to screw the people who need coverage.

Yes, the government can decide to increase it's revenue. Why are you content to let them increase it off of my back (and maybe yours also) while lightening the load of the richest 1%?

Yes, the bailouts were a stupid move. I doubt if the libertarian idea of letting them fail and replacing them with nothing would have been much better.

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

 

 

well i guess youll ignore the govt role in the health industry, no one seems to notice that the areas where the govt spends the most (healthcare and education for example) the cost always seems to go up while the quality always seems to go down, you want govt run healthcare? look at the healthcare the vets get, theres your govt healthcare

guess you missed the part where im against taxes on ANYONE, or the part about the inflation tax being the most regressive hurting the people the democrats love to talk about (the middle class, the poor, those on fixed incomes) the worst, whilst transferring wealth to the wealthy

as if banking would have just disappeared had we let them go bankrupt, wiped clean off the face of the planet, fact is any assets worth anything would have been bought up and other companies, new and those that already existed that were healthy, would have taken the bankrupt companies place, and that wouldnt have diverted resources and destroyed jobs in the process

shouldnt be, most of the crap they do is unconstitutional and immoral, thats enough for me, but besides that they dont do them worth a damn and in the process they screw up the economy

by privatization do you mean actual privatization or govt-private sector "partnerships", when govt teams up with the private sector thats just as bad as when they do it themselves

 

 

If we privatize the GOP, they could merge with WalMart and sell Chinese cookies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

cygo away with your idiocy

thanks

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote: cygo

atomicdogg34 wrote:

cygo wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

 

well isnt that flashy, cant prove he wouldnt vote for these things therefore you win? that argument sounds familiar...

fact is people do vote that way however, rands father is a prime example

what do you mean scrap everything medicare normally covers? such as?

the democrats idea is what? let the incompetent govt run healthcare?  scared of competition? to say this is competition is non-sense, the govt isnt competing, it isnt winning consumers based on quality or anything like that, its saying "buy this product or we'll fine you"

to start with the govt is the problem in healthcare, between subsidies, various tax structures, the way its fucked up the usage of insurance, inflation, they create the problem, then blame it on the free market, then claim they need to do more to save it, total non-sense, and there are lots of great ideas by libertarians and real economists out there, apparently you havent bothered looking

well there ya go, you wouldnt mind a tax cut to keep more of your own money but other people... well we cant have that, i dont give a shit if they are rich or not, they have the same right to their own money as everyone else, im not into class warfare and im sick of people thinking they are entitled to something then have the govt use other peoples money to get it

spending causes deficits, you should have just ended there, instead of looking to bilk more money from the people how about just dont spend, especially when the programs are almost non-functional, in every other aspect of business the worse you do the less money you get until you go out of business, in the govt though the worse you do the more money you seem to get, thats the only answer govt ever comes up with, throw more money at the problem and see if anything sticks

you never did address the main issue of the money actually belonging to the people and not the govt, the fact that they worked for and earned it and have a right to keep it, unless you dont think they do, or only some people do

well im def no fan of big govt republicans either (lindsey graham for example) but the problem of spending the social sec fund for example wasnt just their doing, its been going on for ages, its not a rep or dem problem, its a govt problem, they have access to funds they are going to spend them, they just cant help themselves

of course there arent any miraculous fixes, but getting some people in there that understand economics, the constitution and put forth a path that would lead to a fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy would be a good start

As has been shown, Rand's not his dad.

Such as drugs, hospital stays - you know, medical stuff.

The government doesn't want to run healthcare - they want to be an insurance provider in competition with the others. why does free-market competition scare you so much?

No, I wouldn't mind a tax cut if I knew that the offsetting revenue was coming from someplace else - the defense budget come to mind. A tax cut without an offset - I wouldn't want it.

I would have ended there but I didn't want to be lying. You, I see, have no problem with that. I guess you haven't balanced a checkbook.

Why are you so adamant against taxing people who have more money than they know what to do with? Why are you for giving people's hard earned money to the uber wealthy?

Why are you forgetting that the people should pay for the services the government provides?

If the people you are advocating understand economics like you, I want them nowhere near power.

 

yeah the govt running in competition is def part of the free market *rolls eyes*, yeah govt has to worry about consumer demands, has to worry about declining revenue, overhead, has all the problems a normal company has.... oh wait no they dont, if they do a shit job they just take more money, and on top of that they can legally fix prices, totally free and fair

seeings how the govt doesnt have to deal with any of the issues a real company would have to, and caused the problems in healthcare in the first place, i dont see how anyone could say something so ridiculous with a straight face

well unlike when balancing a checkbook, the govt can just decide to increase its revenues, you cannot, you HAVE to decrease spending, not even close to the same thing, and when the govt increases its revenues it does damage to the economy by sucking funds out of it and using them inefficiently and giving them to favored constituent groups

im adamant in the same way im against the govt directly taxing anyones income, i dont think im so smart that i can just decide when people have "enough" of their own money, thatd be arrogant

giving money to the uber wealthy? like bailouts? was against them, im against redistribution no matter what direction it goes, however what you advocate is exactly that, transfer of wealth to the wealthy because of monetary policy, where do you think all this newly printed money goes first? the wealthy: the bankers, those with govt contracts, the military, etc

in fact what all big govt people propose with the use of our monetary system hurts the middle class, through the inflation tax, the most regressive and insidious tax

im suggesting the govt shouldnt be providing alot of the services it does, because its unconstitutional, its immoral, its bad economics, and they cant do it with even a modicum of efficiency

 

How could I write that with a straight face? The same way that you wrote about your belief that the insurance companies don't practice collusion to screw the people who need coverage.

Yes, the government can decide to increase it's revenue. Why are you content to let them increase it off of my back (and maybe yours also) while lightening the load of the richest 1%?

Yes, the bailouts were a stupid move. I doubt if the libertarian idea of letting them fail and replacing them with nothing would have been much better.

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

 

 

well i guess youll ignore the govt role in the health industry, no one seems to notice that the areas where the govt spends the most (healthcare and education for example) the cost always seems to go up while the quality always seems to go down, you want govt run healthcare? look at the healthcare the vets get, theres your govt healthcare

guess you missed the part where im against taxes on ANYONE, or the part about the inflation tax being the most regressive hurting the people the democrats love to talk about (the middle class, the poor, those on fixed incomes) the worst, whilst transferring wealth to the wealthy

as if banking would have just disappeared had we let them go bankrupt, wiped clean off the face of the planet, fact is any assets worth anything would have been bought up and other companies, new and those that already existed that were healthy, would have taken the bankrupt companies place, and that wouldnt have diverted resources and destroyed jobs in the process

shouldnt be, most of the crap they do is unconstitutional and immoral, thats enough for me, but besides that they dont do them worth a damn and in the process they screw up the economy

by privatization do you mean actual privatization or govt-private sector "partnerships", when govt teams up with the private sector thats just as bad as when they do it themselves

 

 

If we privatize the GOP, they could merge with WalMart and sell Chinese cookies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

cygo away with your idiocy

thanks

 

 

In January 2010, five Republicans on the Supreme Court
gave foreign co
rporations a Constitutional right to
buy Congress and our next President.

 

 

Stop the Foreign Takeover

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

 

well isnt that flashy, cant prove he wouldnt vote for these things therefore you win? that argument sounds familiar...

fact is people do vote that way however, rands father is a prime example

what do you mean scrap everything medicare normally covers? such as?

the democrats idea is what? let the incompetent govt run healthcare?  scared of competition? to say this is competition is non-sense, the govt isnt competing, it isnt winning consumers based on quality or anything like that, its saying "buy this product or we'll fine you"

to start with the govt is the problem in healthcare, between subsidies, various tax structures, the way its fucked up the usage of insurance, inflation, they create the problem, then blame it on the free market, then claim they need to do more to save it, total non-sense, and there are lots of great ideas by libertarians and real economists out there, apparently you havent bothered looking

well there ya go, you wouldnt mind a tax cut to keep more of your own money but other people... well we cant have that, i dont give a shit if they are rich or not, they have the same right to their own money as everyone else, im not into class warfare and im sick of people thinking they are entitled to something then have the govt use other peoples money to get it

spending causes deficits, you should have just ended there, instead of looking to bilk more money from the people how about just dont spend, especially when the programs are almost non-functional, in every other aspect of business the worse you do the less money you get until you go out of business, in the govt though the worse you do the more money you seem to get, thats the only answer govt ever comes up with, throw more money at the problem and see if anything sticks

you never did address the main issue of the money actually belonging to the people and not the govt, the fact that they worked for and earned it and have a right to keep it, unless you dont think they do, or only some people do

well im def no fan of big govt republicans either (lindsey graham for example) but the problem of spending the social sec fund for example wasnt just their doing, its been going on for ages, its not a rep or dem problem, its a govt problem, they have access to funds they are going to spend them, they just cant help themselves

of course there arent any miraculous fixes, but getting some people in there that understand economics, the constitution and put forth a path that would lead to a fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy would be a good start

As has been shown, Rand's not his dad.

Such as drugs, hospital stays - you know, medical stuff.

The government doesn't want to run healthcare - they want to be an insurance provider in competition with the others. why does free-market competition scare you so much?

No, I wouldn't mind a tax cut if I knew that the offsetting revenue was coming from someplace else - the defense budget come to mind. A tax cut without an offset - I wouldn't want it.

I would have ended there but I didn't want to be lying. You, I see, have no problem with that. I guess you haven't balanced a checkbook.

Why are you so adamant against taxing people who have more money than they know what to do with? Why are you for giving people's hard earned money to the uber wealthy?

Why are you forgetting that the people should pay for the services the government provides?

If the people you are advocating understand economics like you, I want them nowhere near power.

 

yeah the govt running in competition is def part of the free market *rolls eyes*, yeah govt has to worry about consumer demands, has to worry about declining revenue, overhead, has all the problems a normal company has.... oh wait no they dont, if they do a shit job they just take more money, and on top of that they can legally fix prices, totally free and fair

seeings how the govt doesnt have to deal with any of the issues a real company would have to, and caused the problems in healthcare in the first place, i dont see how anyone could say something so ridiculous with a straight face

well unlike when balancing a checkbook, the govt can just decide to increase its revenues, you cannot, you HAVE to decrease spending, not even close to the same thing, and when the govt increases its revenues it does damage to the economy by sucking funds out of it and using them inefficiently and giving them to favored constituent groups

im adamant in the same way im against the govt directly taxing anyones income, i dont think im so smart that i can just decide when people have "enough" of their own money, thatd be arrogant

giving money to the uber wealthy? like bailouts? was against them, im against redistribution no matter what direction it goes, however what you advocate is exactly that, transfer of wealth to the wealthy because of monetary policy, where do you think all this newly printed money goes first? the wealthy: the bankers, those with govt contracts, the military, etc

in fact what all big govt people propose with the use of our monetary system hurts the middle class, through the inflation tax, the most regressive and insidious tax

im suggesting the govt shouldnt be providing alot of the services it does, because its unconstitutional, its immoral, its bad economics, and they cant do it with even a modicum of efficiency

 

How could I write that with a straight face? The same way that you wrote about your belief that the insurance companies don't practice collusion to screw the people who need coverage.

Yes, the government can decide to increase it's revenue. Why are you content to let them increase it off of my back (and maybe yours also) while lightening the load of the richest 1%?

Yes, the bailouts were a stupid move. I doubt if the libertarian idea of letting them fail and replacing them with nothing would have been much better.

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

 

 

well i guess youll ignore the govt role in the health industry, no one seems to notice that the areas where the govt spends the most (healthcare and education for example) the cost always seems to go up while the quality always seems to go down, you want govt run healthcare? look at the healthcare the vets get, theres your govt healthcare

guess you missed the part where im against taxes on ANYONE, or the part about the inflation tax being the most regressive hurting the people the democrats love to talk about (the middle class, the poor, those on fixed incomes) the worst, whilst transferring wealth to the wealthy

as if banking would have just disappeared had we let them go bankrupt, wiped clean off the face of the planet, fact is any assets worth anything would have been bought up and other companies, new and those that already existed that were healthy, would have taken the bankrupt companies place, and that wouldnt have diverted resources and destroyed jobs in the process

shouldnt be, most of the crap they do is unconstitutional and immoral, thats enough for me, but besides that they dont do them worth a damn and in the process they screw up the economy

by privatization do you mean actual privatization or govt-private sector "partnerships", when govt teams up with the private sector thats just as bad as when they do it themselves

 

You know, the health care in the VA wasn't so bad until Bush and Cheney got it into their heads that they needed to have more wounded and disabled veterans (patriots, war heroes, whatever they 're called now). If it's not equipped to handle an abnormal demand, any service will fail.

No, I got the idea that you're against taxes - you want top of the line services but you're not willing to pay for it. That means I have to pay more to cover your stubborn ass.

Perhaps I missed the part on the inflation tax because you never said anything about it till now?.

Wasn't talking about just the banks, I was also thinking about the auto industry and the rest of the manufacturing base we no longer have. Then again, Bush conservatives consider McDonald's a part of the manufacturing base - maybe libertarians like that idea as well.

No, I meant full on privatization as in a state leasing out a toll road for a small amount of money and lets the foreign company collect the tolls for 70 years without that state getting a dime.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You know, the

jcgadfly wrote:

You know, the health care in the VA wasn't so bad until Bush and Cheney got it into their heads that they needed to have more wounded and disabled veterans (patriots, war heroes, whatever they 're called now). If it's not equipped to handle an abnormal demand, any service will fail.

Obviously you have never been treated by the VA. As someone who is a survivor- well lets just say the only reason I'm alive is because I left the VA and paid through the nose for care at the Mayo.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Wasn't talking about just the banks, I was also thinking about the auto industry and the rest of the manufacturing base we no longer have. Then again, Bush conservatives consider McDonald's a part of the manufacturing base - maybe libertarians like that idea as well.

They can make many things a lot cheaper overseas. What economic reason is there not to let them? 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

No, I meant full on privatization as in a state leasing out a toll road for a small amount of money and lets the foreign company collect the tolls for 70 years without that state getting a dime.

It isn't really full on privatization unless the government allows private companies to build their own roads. For example, the Indiana Tollway specifically forbids another four lane highway being built. Basically creating a government created monopoly. True privatization would allow other companies to build roads to compete. And also involve selling the road outright rather than simply leasing it. They did get 3 billion dollars, which is a lot of dimes. I know the way government pisses through money nowadays that doesn't sound like a lot but it is a shitload of money. You can do a lot with 3 billion unless of course you are a politician. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You know, the health care in the VA wasn't so bad until Bush and Cheney got it into their heads that they needed to have more wounded and disabled veterans (patriots, war heroes, whatever they 're called now). If it's not equipped to handle an abnormal demand, any service will fail.

Obviously you have never been treated by the VA. As someone who is a survivor- well lets just say the only reason I'm alive is because I left the VA and paid through the nose for care at the Mayo.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Wasn't talking about just the banks, I was also thinking about the auto industry and the rest of the manufacturing base we no longer have. Then again, Bush conservatives consider McDonald's a part of the manufacturing base - maybe libertarians like that idea as well.

They can make many things a lot cheaper overseas. What economic reason is there not to let them? 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

No, I meant full on privatization as in a state leasing out a toll road for a small amount of money and lets the foreign company collect the tolls for 70 years without that state getting a dime.

It isn't really full on privatization unless the government allows private companies to build their own roads. For example, the Indiana Tollway specifically forbids another four lane highway being built. Basically creating a government created monopoly. True privatization would allow other companies to build roads to compete. And also involve selling the road outright rather than simply leasing it. They did get 3 billion dollars, which is a lot of dimes. I know the way government pisses through money nowadays that doesn't sound like a lot but it is a shitload of money. You can do a lot with 3 billion unless of course you are a politician. 

1. I have not but relatives have - they've had no complaints. does it vary from agency to agency?

2. If they're are going to go someplace to make then cheaply, then they don't need to ship them back here and try to sell them like they actuallyput money in them. I'm not against their making a profit but I am against them making an exhorbitant profit.

3. That forbidding was at the behest of the company, if I recall. Makes you wonder who owns the government. Also, 3 billion vs. the 120 billion they would have gotten from tolls is a pittance.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You know, the health care in the VA wasn't so bad until Bush and Cheney got it into their heads that they needed to have more wounded and disabled veterans (patriots, war heroes, whatever they 're called now). If it's not equipped to handle an abnormal demand, any service will fail.

Obviously you have never been treated by the VA. As someone who is a survivor- well lets just say the only reason I'm alive is because I left the VA and paid through the nose for care at the Mayo.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Wasn't talking about just the banks, I was also thinking about the auto industry and the rest of the manufacturing base we no longer have. Then again, Bush conservatives consider McDonald's a part of the manufacturing base - maybe libertarians like that idea as well.

They can make many things a lot cheaper overseas. What economic reason is there not to let them? 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

No, I meant full on privatization as in a state leasing out a toll road for a small amount of money and lets the foreign company collect the tolls for 70 years without that state getting a dime.

It isn't really full on privatization unless the government allows private companies to build their own roads. For example, the Indiana Tollway specifically forbids another four lane highway being built. Basically creating a government created monopoly. True privatization would allow other companies to build roads to compete. And also involve selling the road outright rather than simply leasing it. They did get 3 billion dollars, which is a lot of dimes. I know the way government pisses through money nowadays that doesn't sound like a lot but it is a shitload of money. You can do a lot with 3 billion unless of course you are a politician. 

1. I have not but relatives have - they've had no complaints. does it vary from agency to agency?

2. If they're are going to go someplace to make then cheaply, then they don't need to ship them back here and try to sell them like they actuallyput money in them. I'm not against their making a profit but I am against them making an exhorbitant profit.

3. That forbidding was at the behest of the company, if I recall. Makes you wonder who owns the government. Also, 3 billion vs. the 120 billion they would have gotten from tolls is a pittance.

2. exhorbitant profits?  what exactly are those?  who determines them?  i dont get this irrational fear of profits, i guess people dont understand the importance of the profit motive in the economy, profits encourage investment in an industry, allows that industry to expand, employ more people, and create products at lower and lower costs, you act as if profits in certain sectors were normal rather than extraordinary, and theres a massive distinction between companies that make profits by providing products or services consumers want and need, and a corporation that makes profits by using the govt to gain benefit through taxes and regulations that cripple competitors

 

3.  and this was the point i made in my last section, a company using the GOVT to gain an advantage, the govt shouldnt allow it, its a govt problem, they do things like this and the market gets the blame

 

i mentioned the inflation tax a few posts ago, i think you even quoted one but didnt bother to address it, thats why i brought it up again

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You know, the health care in the VA wasn't so bad until Bush and Cheney got it into their heads that they needed to have more wounded and disabled veterans (patriots, war heroes, whatever they 're called now). If it's not equipped to handle an abnormal demand, any service will fail.

Obviously you have never been treated by the VA. As someone who is a survivor- well lets just say the only reason I'm alive is because I left the VA and paid through the nose for care at the Mayo.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Wasn't talking about just the banks, I was also thinking about the auto industry and the rest of the manufacturing base we no longer have. Then again, Bush conservatives consider McDonald's a part of the manufacturing base - maybe libertarians like that idea as well.

They can make many things a lot cheaper overseas. What economic reason is there not to let them? 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

No, I meant full on privatization as in a state leasing out a toll road for a small amount of money and lets the foreign company collect the tolls for 70 years without that state getting a dime.

It isn't really full on privatization unless the government allows private companies to build their own roads. For example, the Indiana Tollway specifically forbids another four lane highway being built. Basically creating a government created monopoly. True privatization would allow other companies to build roads to compete. And also involve selling the road outright rather than simply leasing it. They did get 3 billion dollars, which is a lot of dimes. I know the way government pisses through money nowadays that doesn't sound like a lot but it is a shitload of money. You can do a lot with 3 billion unless of course you are a politician. 

1. I have not but relatives have - they've had no complaints. does it vary from agency to agency?

2. If they're are going to go someplace to make then cheaply, then they don't need to ship them back here and try to sell them like they actuallyput money in them. I'm not against their making a profit but I am against them making an exhorbitant profit.

3. That forbidding was at the behest of the company, if I recall. Makes you wonder who owns the government. Also, 3 billion vs. the 120 billion they would have gotten from tolls is a pittance.

2. exhorbitant profits?  what exactly are those?  who determines them?  i dont get this irrational fear of profits, i guess people dont understand the importance of the profit motive in the economy, profits encourage investment in an industry, allows that industry to expand, employ more people, and create products at lower and lower costs, you act as if profits in certain sectors were normal rather than extraordinary, and theres a massive distinction between companies that make profits by providing products or services consumers want and need, and a corporation that makes profits by using the govt to gain benefit through taxes and regulations that cripple competitors

 

3.  and this was the point i made in my last section, a company using the GOVT to gain an advantage, the govt shouldnt allow it, its a govt problem, they do things like this and the market gets the blame

 

i mentioned the inflation tax a few posts ago, i think you even quoted one but didnt bother to address it, thats why i brought it up again

3. I don't remember saying anything about the inflation tax - then again, I am frickin' old. I'll backtrack. The government shouldn't allow it true - however, abolishing the government isn't a solution. Neither is letting the corporations be the government. That's fascism - I'm not interested.

2. For example, if it cost me 20 cents to make something and I charge $20 for it, that's exhorbitant. Whatever happened to passing the savings on to the consumer? I'm not afraid of profits,. I occasionally make them myself. I don't try to make them by fucking over other people. Why are you in favor of that?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You know, the health care in the VA wasn't so bad until Bush and Cheney got it into their heads that they needed to have more wounded and disabled veterans (patriots, war heroes, whatever they 're called now). If it's not equipped to handle an abnormal demand, any service will fail.

Obviously you have never been treated by the VA. As someone who is a survivor- well lets just say the only reason I'm alive is because I left the VA and paid through the nose for care at the Mayo.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Wasn't talking about just the banks, I was also thinking about the auto industry and the rest of the manufacturing base we no longer have. Then again, Bush conservatives consider McDonald's a part of the manufacturing base - maybe libertarians like that idea as well.

They can make many things a lot cheaper overseas. What economic reason is there not to let them? 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

No, I meant full on privatization as in a state leasing out a toll road for a small amount of money and lets the foreign company collect the tolls for 70 years without that state getting a dime.

It isn't really full on privatization unless the government allows private companies to build their own roads. For example, the Indiana Tollway specifically forbids another four lane highway being built. Basically creating a government created monopoly. True privatization would allow other companies to build roads to compete. And also involve selling the road outright rather than simply leasing it. They did get 3 billion dollars, which is a lot of dimes. I know the way government pisses through money nowadays that doesn't sound like a lot but it is a shitload of money. You can do a lot with 3 billion unless of course you are a politician. 

1. I have not but relatives have - they've had no complaints. does it vary from agency to agency?

2. If they're are going to go someplace to make then cheaply, then they don't need to ship them back here and try to sell them like they actuallyput money in them. I'm not against their making a profit but I am against them making an exhorbitant profit.

3. That forbidding was at the behest of the company, if I recall. Makes you wonder who owns the government. Also, 3 billion vs. the 120 billion they would have gotten from tolls is a pittance.

2. exhorbitant profits?  what exactly are those?  who determines them?  i dont get this irrational fear of profits, i guess people dont understand the importance of the profit motive in the economy, profits encourage investment in an industry, allows that industry to expand, employ more people, and create products at lower and lower costs, you act as if profits in certain sectors were normal rather than extraordinary, and theres a massive distinction between companies that make profits by providing products or services consumers want and need, and a corporation that makes profits by using the govt to gain benefit through taxes and regulations that cripple competitors

 

3.  and this was the point i made in my last section, a company using the GOVT to gain an advantage, the govt shouldnt allow it, its a govt problem, they do things like this and the market gets the blame

 

i mentioned the inflation tax a few posts ago, i think you even quoted one but didnt bother to address it, thats why i brought it up again

3. I don't remember saying anything about the inflation tax - then again, I am frickin' old. I'll backtrack. The government shouldn't allow it true - however, abolishing the government isn't a solution. Neither is letting the corporations be the government. That's fascism - I'm not interested.

2. For example, if it cost me 20 cents to make something and I charge $20 for it, that's exhorbitant. Whatever happened to passing the savings on to the consumer? I'm not afraid of profits,. I occasionally make them myself. I don't try to make them by fucking over other people. Why are you in favor of that?

never said abolish the govt, i do say abolish the fed and restore the govt to constitutional principles

i dont think the govt should partner with companies either

well im not sure your example is a realistic one but you do have a choice, dont buy the product, prices only work if people are willing and able to pay them for a particular good/service, if people want to buy the product for that much then why not?  plus a huge profit margin like that will encourage expansion in that industry, more employment, more productivity, lower costs, and higher real wages

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
1. Perhaps, I don't know. I

1. Perhaps, I don't know. I can only speak of my own personal experience. I prefer highly paid doctors that own four fancy cars and a multi-million dollar mansion. You can go to whatever doctor you want. 

 

2. If you think someone is charging too much don't buy their product. I think the price of bottled water is absurd, so I don't buy it or if I am in an area with no drinking water I buy the cheap stuff. If no one buys their product because it is overpriced they will lower their prices. If people are buying it at the higher price, then obviously it is worth it to someone. Generally speaking there are two ways to make money in business, high quantity at low profit or hyping up the quality and selling low quantity at high profit. I will never spend $100 on a pair of jeans but I know people who do. I get my $15 Walmart jeans and am perfectly happy with them. But I will pay $100 for a good bottle of wine, even though I could purchase something pretty decent for $20. Who cares? I know it doesn't cost them anywhere near $100 to make that bottle of wine. But to me it is worth every penny. The consumer isn't being forced to buy anything and with the Internet is possible to purchase pretty much anything at wholesale costs if you are willing to shop for it and wait for shipping. Although I would be interested in learning what product has a cost of .20 and sells for $20 sounds like a good investment. Most business ventures I have been involved with have a much lower profit margin. 

 

3. And it sounds like we are all in agreement with government making deals with corporations. It caused the housing bubble and the whole collapse we are in now. All government subsidies and special deals for companies should cease immediately. In related news, 30 companies including Mcdonalds have received exemption from certain Bamacare regulations do you think all the small businesses facing similar problems are going to get exemptions? Of course not. Only those who pay for lobbyists to schmooze with the right government goons will get the deal. We have been on the road to becoming a country controlled by bureaucracy that politicians use their influence with to coerce money from companies for the last 100 years. Those that play the game get rewarded, those who don't will quickly find themselves in so much red tape they can't do anything. All in the name of helping "the little guy". Yeah right. They don't give a shit about the little guy. The sad part is so many people still believe it.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
cygo wrote:atomicdogg34

cygo wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

cygo wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not the question I asked but thanks for your answer.

How many times has he been re-certified by HIS board? Or does he pencil-whip certs for himself, family and friends?

I'm sorry about getting worked up about this but we've had a doctor in my area indicted by the Feds for health care fraud and unlawful drug distribution. The state board doesn't want to pull his license. How much safer would he be if he ran his own board?

Probably quite a bit safer. A private certification board only maintains its relevance as long as people continue to believe that the certification means something. So if the board does a crappy job and certifies doctors who do crappy work the board will have no credibility and its certification worth the paper it is written on. So a private board has built in incentive to make sure the doctors it certifies are not whack jobs. Government, on the other hand, exists regardless of whether or not it certifies whack jobs. Government bureaucrats are nearly impossible to fire and can be easily corrupted. They have no invested interest in whether or not government certification is credible. And if you trust a doctor simply because he/she has government certification your an idiot. If my doctor has a degree from Johns Hopkins that tells me something, if the doctor works for the Mayo Clinic that tells me something, if the doctor has a certification from the state that tells me nothing. 

 

So you bitch about Rand Paul because he created a board that required EVERYONE to recertify? And he probably has recertified because if his board was found passing out certifications as favors it would lose all credibility and be pointless. I understand you don't like his politics but you can at least rise above making random, unsupported accusations.  

No I'm bitching about a board that might require everyone but him to re-certify. He's got quite a few "everybody but me" positions that concern me. Term limits and Medicare come to mind.

 

not sure what you mean by medicare

but on term limits itd be ridiculous for people who are for term limits to term limit themselves, thus leaving only the people who arent for term limits in office, thats exactly what any power hungry statist would want

So Paul is a power hungry statist? Thanks for admitting it.

Medicare - Paul wants to scrap it except for physician payments.

 

what are you talking about?

paul wants term limits, but doesnt want to term limit himself (unless a law is passed, which he is advocating for) for the reason given, what you are saying make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

makes some sense, already alot of doctors dont take medicare due to payment, cut that and i wonder how many more would opt out

but then again if that happened im sure those doctors would be labeled as haters of the poor and absolutely heartless

 

but if govt wasnt price fixing in healthcare, allowed real price competition and didnt create the moral hazard of consumers no longer caring about medical costs we wouldnt have had this problem in the 1st place

You misunderstand - the only part of Medicare Paul wants to keep is that part where physicians like himself get paid. Everything else he wants to get rid of.

As for term limits - what good will it do to claim to support a law that he will likely vote against (as will the others) when it comes up?

Term limits are pipe dreams.

 

 

so you can tell the future and know hes going to vote against it?

well he doesnt want to get rid of it, since that wouldnt make any sense, what would he be getting paid for if they got rid of everything?

you probably meant cut, and all i have to say to that is yeah so? either start doing something with the trillions in unfunded liabilities or the system eventually goes bankrupt and nobody gets anything

all the democrats do is bitch, piss, and moan, "oh you want to hurt the poor", but then dont come up with any ideas except bilk "the rich" to pay for this stuff, which, even if you took every single penny "the rich" owned wouldnt be nearly enough, or "cut out fraud and waste" which is another BS answer because if that could be done it would have been already, and even if they could still wouldnt cover the costs, and the fact is they cant because govt is completely incompetent when it comes to running almost everything

and fact is im sick and tired of hearing people ask, "how are you going to pay for the tax cuts", as if allowing people to keep more of their own money, money they worked for and earned, is the same thing as an expense, just goes to show how the govt looks at us and our property, they own it and graciously allow us to keep whatever proportion they deem "reasonable" and "fair"

im sick of that bullshit, tax cuts dont cause deficits and debt, SPENDING does

medicare doesnt work, social security is a ponzi scheme and total failure, hell the govt cant even deliver the goddamn mail without running billions in the red

If you had a job would you vote yourself out of it? I'll bet you believe he wouldn't vote himself a pay raise also, right?

No, I meant scrap as in abolish all the things that medicare normally covers except for physician payments.

Oh, the Democrats have an idea (it's not a great one but it's better than the Republicans' non-ideas and the Libertarians "let's replace it with nothing (except for what Rand gets)". Why are you brave free-market capitalist scared of a little competition in the health insurance industry?

I would have no problem with tax cuts if I was getting one. Unfortunately, I don't make mid six figures/year. If you do, I can understand your defensiveness.

Spending does cause deficits when it is not offset by revenue increases (aka taxes). When you cut revenue and spend money, it goes crazy faster. I take it you've never balanced a checkbook?

Medicare and Social Security would be fine if people would quit using it as an extra bank account for their other bullshit (you know your Republican friends dipping into it to bolster the defense budget?).

If government is incompetent in running almost everything, how is getting libertarians into the incompetent government going to help? There aren't going to be any miraculous fixes (especially if you believe they'll abide by term limits).

 

 

well isnt that flashy, cant prove he wouldnt vote for these things therefore you win? that argument sounds familiar...

fact is people do vote that way however, rands father is a prime example

what do you mean scrap everything medicare normally covers? such as?

the democrats idea is what? let the incompetent govt run healthcare?  scared of competition? to say this is competition is non-sense, the govt isnt competing, it isnt winning consumers based on quality or anything like that, its saying "buy this product or we'll fine you"

to start with the govt is the problem in healthcare, between subsidies, various tax structures, the way its fucked up the usage of insurance, inflation, they create the problem, then blame it on the free market, then claim they need to do more to save it, total non-sense, and there are lots of great ideas by libertarians and real economists out there, apparently you havent bothered looking

well there ya go, you wouldnt mind a tax cut to keep more of your own money but other people... well we cant have that, i dont give a shit if they are rich or not, they have the same right to their own money as everyone else, im not into class warfare and im sick of people thinking they are entitled to something then have the govt use other peoples money to get it

spending causes deficits, you should have just ended there, instead of looking to bilk more money from the people how about just dont spend, especially when the programs are almost non-functional, in every other aspect of business the worse you do the less money you get until you go out of business, in the govt though the worse you do the more money you seem to get, thats the only answer govt ever comes up with, throw more money at the problem and see if anything sticks

you never did address the main issue of the money actually belonging to the people and not the govt, the fact that they worked for and earned it and have a right to keep it, unless you dont think they do, or only some people do

well im def no fan of big govt republicans either (lindsey graham for example) but the problem of spending the social sec fund for example wasnt just their doing, its been going on for ages, its not a rep or dem problem, its a govt problem, they have access to funds they are going to spend them, they just cant help themselves

of course there arent any miraculous fixes, but getting some people in there that understand economics, the constitution and put forth a path that would lead to a fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy would be a good start

As has been shown, Rand's not his dad.

Such as drugs, hospital stays - you know, medical stuff.

The government doesn't want to run healthcare - they want to be an insurance provider in competition with the others. why does free-market competition scare you so much?

No, I wouldn't mind a tax cut if I knew that the offsetting revenue was coming from someplace else - the defense budget come to mind. A tax cut without an offset - I wouldn't want it.

I would have ended there but I didn't want to be lying. You, I see, have no problem with that. I guess you haven't balanced a checkbook.

Why are you so adamant against taxing people who have more money than they know what to do with? Why are you for giving people's hard earned money to the uber wealthy?

Why are you forgetting that the people should pay for the services the government provides?

If the people you are advocating understand economics like you, I want them nowhere near power.

 

yeah the govt running in competition is def part of the free market *rolls eyes*, yeah govt has to worry about consumer demands, has to worry about declining revenue, overhead, has all the problems a normal company has.... oh wait no they dont, if they do a shit job they just take more money, and on top of that they can legally fix prices, totally free and fair

seeings how the govt doesnt have to deal with any of the issues a real company would have to, and caused the problems in healthcare in the first place, i dont see how anyone could say something so ridiculous with a straight face

well unlike when balancing a checkbook, the govt can just decide to increase its revenues, you cannot, you HAVE to decrease spending, not even close to the same thing, and when the govt increases its revenues it does damage to the economy by sucking funds out of it and using them inefficiently and giving them to favored constituent groups

im adamant in the same way im against the govt directly taxing anyones income, i dont think im so smart that i can just decide when people have "enough" of their own money, thatd be arrogant

giving money to the uber wealthy? like bailouts? was against them, im against redistribution no matter what direction it goes, however what you advocate is exactly that, transfer of wealth to the wealthy because of monetary policy, where do you think all this newly printed money goes first? the wealthy: the bankers, those with govt contracts, the military, etc

in fact what all big govt people propose with the use of our monetary system hurts the middle class, through the inflation tax, the most regressive and insidious tax

im suggesting the govt shouldnt be providing alot of the services it does, because its unconstitutional, its immoral, its bad economics, and they cant do it with even a modicum of efficiency

 

How could I write that with a straight face? The same way that you wrote about your belief that the insurance companies don't practice collusion to screw the people who need coverage.

Yes, the government can decide to increase it's revenue. Why are you content to let them increase it off of my back (and maybe yours also) while lightening the load of the richest 1%?

Yes, the bailouts were a stupid move. I doubt if the libertarian idea of letting them fail and replacing them with nothing would have been much better.

The government shouldn't be providing the services or you just don't want to pay for them? I've already seen where privitization of some services has worsened them.

 

 

well i guess youll ignore the govt role in the health industry, no one seems to notice that the areas where the govt spends the most (healthcare and education for example) the cost always seems to go up while the quality always seems to go down, you want govt run healthcare? look at the healthcare the vets get, theres your govt healthcare

guess you missed the part where im against taxes on ANYONE, or the part about the inflation tax being the most regressive hurting the people the democrats love to talk about (the middle class, the poor, those on fixed incomes) the worst, whilst transferring wealth to the wealthy

as if banking would have just disappeared had we let them go bankrupt, wiped clean off the face of the planet, fact is any assets worth anything would have been bought up and other companies, new and those that already existed that were healthy, would have taken the bankrupt companies place, and that wouldnt have diverted resources and destroyed jobs in the process

shouldnt be, most of the crap they do is unconstitutional and immoral, thats enough for me, but besides that they dont do them worth a damn and in the process they screw up the economy

by privatization do you mean actual privatization or govt-private sector "partnerships", when govt teams up with the private sector thats just as bad as when they do it themselves

 

 

If we privatize the GOP, they could merge with WalMart and sell Chinese cookies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

cygo away with your idiocy

thanks

 

 

In January 2010, five Republicans on the Supreme Court
gave foreign co
rporations a Constitutional right to
buy Congress and our next President.

 

 

Stop the Foreign Takeover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is just flat out false

 

the ruling in the citizens united case excludes foreign nationals and foreign owned corporations

 

so either your an idiot, a liar, or you cant read, which is it?

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:never

atomicdogg34 wrote:

never said abolish the govt, i do say abolish the fed and restore the govt to constitutional principles

i dont think the govt should partner with companies either

well im not sure your example is a realistic one but you do have a choice, dont buy the product, prices only work if people are willing and able to pay them for a particular good/service, if people want to buy the product for that much then why not?  plus a huge profit margin like that will encourage expansion in that industry, more employment, more productivity, lower costs, and higher real wages

Ah abolish the government...............ok daydream over. 

Atomicdogg, you forgot the cardinal rule of liberal economics. Evil rich people never hire anyone with their profits, they collect all their gold and put it in a giant swimming pool and go around in circles counting it. They don't invest in new companies or fund new inventions. They don't build new stores to distribute their wares and they never donate any money to charity. (all those new Walmarts are a figment of your imagination) They don't build factories. Factories are built by the magic conveyor belt pixies. I'm still trying to figure out how rich people make more money. I've had a penny sitting on the floor for a week and it is still just a penny, I must not have the right magic. Maybe if I put a second penny next to it they will have babies. 

Everyone knows the only way to create jobs is for the government to spend money. That is why the trillion dollar stimulus has kept our unemployment rate below 5% and has saved exactly 6343675596824334513453.3 jobs. And obviously, if you don't have the money, just spend it anyway because spending money creates money. So if you are $20k in debt, spend $30k and you will be $10k richer. 

 

Well I think that is Keynesian economics in a nutshell. If anyone doubts me, read John Maynard Keynes.  My parody is frighteningly close to what Keynesians actually believe and the Keynesians have been controlling our economy for most of the last century.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:cygo

atomicdogg34 wrote:

cygo wrote:

 

In January 2010, five Republicans on the Supreme Court
gave foreign co
rporations a Constitutional right to
buy Congress and our next President.

 

 

Stop the Foreign Takeover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is just flat out false

 

the ruling in the citizens united case excludes foreign nationals and foreign owned corporations

 

so either your an idiot, a liar, or you cant read, which is it?

Or D. All of the above.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X