3 of 5
3
Mississippi goes 180 from Cuomo’s soft drink ban
Posted: 03 April 2013 06:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
DarronS - 02 April 2013 07:55 PM

If you are going to redefine the word “incentive” to match your political and philosophical ideology then you’ll have a hard time communicating with me. Libertarians like to play semantics with words to avoid discussing the obvious: you are just as dependent upon redistribution of tax dollars as everyone else in our society.

Its a frustratingly deceptive use of the term incentive, since the rewards are produced from those who are being ‘incentivized’.

Further, none of those incentives fit into your ideological viewpoint of government criminalizing alternatives. Other government incentives include providing flood insurance to people and businesses who build in flood plains. This also does not fit into your box of government criminalizing alternatives.

Given that even providing flood insurance requires capital in the form of non voluntary tax payments, yes the alternative uses to those resources have been criminalized.

I find the use of non-voluntary ‘incentives’ an unusual use of the language.  Color me radical.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 06:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
Lois - 02 April 2013 11:54 PM

There is nothing immoral about a democratic government making laws to protect people from excesses.  They do it every day.  There are laws about speed limits and reckless driving.  Do you see that as “centralized state planning of personal choices”?

First of all democracy is not a moral system.  At best, its a decision making algorithm based on numbers, where the majority dictate to the minority.
In practice however, you cast a single vote for one party every few years, who then implement vast volumes of laws that you will never even have a physical chance to review.

As pointed above, governments have taken it upon themselves to enjoy a monopoly on roads, so they dictate terms of service.

How about FDA and department of agriculture laws. Do you see those as “centralized state planning of personal health choices” too?  LL

Of course… Because that is what they are?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 09:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Again we see folks ascribing anthropomorphic values on “govt”!  Shallow.
Obviously if government were completely run by carbon copies of these “critics”-then they would have no problem with govt.
But for now, govt is some entity that is hell bent on doing things exactly the opposite way that these critics would do it if they were at the control panel.
Control panel LOL .....ha ha ha.. get it?

A Tom Toles type after thought….
” Must be a pretty big control panel with 100s of millions of people running it!”  LOL

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 09:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
VYAZMA - 03 April 2013 09:04 AM

Again we see folks ascribing anthropomorphic values on “govt”!  Shallow.
Obviously if government were completely run by carbon copies of these “critics”-then they would have no problem with govt.
But for now, govt is some entity that is hell bent on doing things exactly the opposite way that these critics would do it if they were at the control panel.
Control panel LOL .....ha ha ha.. get it?

A Tom Toles type after thought….
” Must be a pretty big control panel with 100s of millions of people running it!”  LOL


The point is not to implement a control panel, not who should be in charge of it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 11:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
rbairos - 03 April 2013 09:29 AM
VYAZMA - 03 April 2013 09:04 AM

Again we see folks ascribing anthropomorphic values on “govt”!  Shallow.
Obviously if government were completely run by carbon copies of these “critics”-then they would have no problem with govt.
But for now, govt is some entity that is hell bent on doing things exactly the opposite way that these critics would do it if they were at the control panel.
Control panel LOL .....ha ha ha.. get it?

A Tom Toles type after thought….
” Must be a pretty big control panel with 100s of millions of people running it!”  LOL


The point is not to implement a control panel, not who should be in charge of it.

Yes.  That’s my whole point.  There is no control panel.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Assuming you at least lean slightly libertarian, let me ask you this:
Why do libertarians have no problem with individual liberties…but scoff at the completely natural liberty(albeit seemingly chaotic) of the collective.
The collective being society.  Of which there is absolutely no alternative to.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
rbairos - 03 April 2013 06:52 AM
Lois - 02 April 2013 11:54 PM

There is nothing immoral about a democratic government making laws to protect people from excesses.  They do it every day.  There are laws about speed limits and reckless driving.  Do you see that as “centralized state planning of personal choices”?

First of all democracy is not a moral system.  At best, its a decision making algorithm based on numbers, where the majority dictate to the minority.
In practice however, you cast a single vote for one party every few years, who then implement vast volumes of laws that you will never even have a physical chance to review.


Do you have a better option?

As Churchill said,

      
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
 Winston Churchill quotes (British Orator, Author and Prime Minister during World War II. 1874-1965)

So which form of government would you prefer?

As pointed above, governments have taken it upon themselves to enjoy a monopoly on roads, so they dictate terms of service.

How about FDA and department of agriculture laws. Do you see those as “centralized state planning of personal health choices” too?  LL

Of course… Because that is what they are?

Ok, I see where you stand. You’re an anarchist. Good luck.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 12:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Lois don’t give him those kind of compliments.  Anarchist is too good a word.
I’m guessing he is a parrot.  Squawking and bleeting like the other parrots he hears.
Darron above pointed out that he is just as dependent on the stuff he rails about.  But he didn’t reply to that.
No…he’s another misguided citizen.  Like most of us.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 12:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
VYAZMA - 03 April 2013 11:48 AM

Assuming you at least lean slightly libertarian, let me ask you this:
Why do libertarians have no problem with individual liberties…but scoff at the completely natural liberty(albeit seemingly chaotic) of the collective.
The collective being society.  Of which there is absolutely no alternative to.

Sorry, I don’t understand what a collective is, in terms of natural rights?  A collective has a natural right to enforce its members to drink less sugary soda for example?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1778
Joined  2007-10-22

BTWm Cuomo doesn’t have the soft drink ban, mayor of NYC does.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
VYAZMA - 03 April 2013 12:29 PM

Lois don’t give him those kind of compliments.  Anarchist is too good a word.
I’m guessing he is a parrot.  Squawking and bleeting like the other parrots he hears.
Darron above pointed out that he is just as dependent on the stuff he rails about.  But he didn’t reply to that.
No…he’s another misguided citizen.  Like most of us.

I completely forgot to reply to that. But I would love to, as its such a completely irrational argument.

If in the 16th century, a slave was dependent on his or her owner for morning gruel, would that be an argument against their emancipation?
If someone is currently dependent on oil products is that an argument against replacing them with renewables?
If a vegetarian’s belt is made of leather is that an argument against animal welfare?

No, no and of course no.  The fact that we live in a society where alternatives to specific goods and services have been limited (by law) to a specific source,
in no way shape or form validates that source.  Its just the only currently allowable choice.

It’s self-evident how bad the original argument is no?

And for the record, if you have a point or counter point related to the original discussion make it. 
Your colorful ad-hominems are an annoying distraction.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
Lois - 03 April 2013 12:18 PM

Do you have a better option?..So which form of government would you prefer?

Would you be in favour of a democracy picking your outfit every morning?  Of deciding your career?  What if you were allowed to vote on the best of two popular campaigns?
I think your answer is self-evident, if suppressed by today’s thinking.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 01:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2239
Joined  2007-04-26
rbairos - 03 April 2013 06:37 AM
macgyver - 02 April 2013 06:36 PM

Sorry. I am having an extremely difficult time trying to finding any coherency in you responses. This is one of the best. “why not compare the number of prates to global warming” Seriously? Are you really having a hard time following the logic here. The U.S. spends TWICE as much as Canada on health care and ranks seven places below it.
I could rip the entirety of your post point by point but its getting too tiring. All I will get in return is a bunch of vague comments that dont respond to my actual points.
I think its clear we are not going to agree on this. We have dramatically different views of economics, freedom and social responsibility and since you don’t seem to be able to adhere to any sort of logical point/counterpoint I’ll cut my losses here.

Bull.  Ive carefully highlighted the major holes in your facile conclusion that private medical service is inherently more costly than medicare options by pointing out how you’ve failed to address the increasing regulatory burden placed on insurance companies, that restricts small players from offering market driven choices resulting in increasing costs.

Ive also pointed out how your boast that medicare costs have risen more slowly than private insurance is irrelevant since the former is in a state of major financial crisis.

Your dismissal of its ‘incoherent and im too tired to reply’ rhetoric is plainly disingenuous.

Its not disingenuous at all. It truly is exhausting trying to have a conversation with someone who ignores the points being made. Just because your responses are tacked to each one of my arguments doesn’t mean you are actually addressing them. All you have done is gone on a rant and pasted my remarks in here and there. I’ll give this one more shot but if you can’t directly respond to my points then we’re done. Please do show me where you have done anything to counter my argument that private medical insurance is more costly? You’ve done nothing but pose questions that demonstrate your assumptions but do nothing to counter my arguments. As I stated above twice already the US spends twice as much as Canada on health care and is ranked lower in the quality of its health care system.  Your only argument is a bunch of personal stories and then give a list of questions that dont address my argument at all such as..


Care to explain why administrative costs are so high in the ‘private’ insurance industry?
I made a statement of fact. “Why” is a separate issue entirely but the fact of the matter is that insurance companies are not in the business of making you well or paying claims. Insurance companies also hire expensive CEO’s and spend a small fortune on advertising and promotion. Medicare does none of these things and can spend more of its revenues on actual care. In addition there is an economy of scales that a large plan like medicare has which can not be matched by insurance companies unless they have a huge monopoly, but again the why isnt nearly as important here as the fact that the disparity exists

Care to explain why Medicare financial model is spiralling into insolvency?
It has nothing to do with how much is spent on management. Medicare takes care of the oldest and sickest members of society. That demographic is increasing as a percentage of the total population. If you have more people using a service and less paying for it you need to raise revenue somewhere. Thanks largely to people from your philosophical background our politicians don’t have the guts to do what they should and raise revenues.

Care to explain why the rate of Danes, Swedes, Brits etc switching to private insurance is growing dramatically?
First show me evidence of that? Secondly even if you do its proof of nothing except that people want another option. People spend money on things for al sorts of reasons and not all of them are sensible. Your friend in Canada who had to wait a week or two for hernia surgery is a good example. People often claim that wait times in countries with universal health care are longer but there is no evidence to back that up and studies looking at this have often come to the opposite conclusion. Even if it were so, there is no evidence that wait times have had any effect on outcomes since by most measures countries with universal healthcare have better outcomes. Your friend with the hernia is a good example of why some people might foolishly spend money for private insurance in societies with universal healthcare. Hernias are generally not a medical emergency. In most cases even here in the US people wait several weeks or months or even years to have their hernia operated on. If timing does not affect the outcome then what we are talking about here is paying more to get something done sooner just because you want it sooner not because it makes any difference. Some of the added costs of Americas health care are do to just that. We have excess capacity and while it might diminish wait times for some things it adds to the cost because you have a lot of down time and unused capacity. its a very wasteful system especially when it does not lead to better outcomes.

Care to explain why there is a growing medical tourism industry, even in places with universal health care such as where I live?
What evidence do you have that its “growing”? There is medical tourism all over the world and there are plenty of Americans traveling abroad because they couldn’t get the care they needed here. If you want to use anecdotal evidence I had a patient just yesterday who has a hernia but he has no insurance so he is traveling back to his home country of Serbia where he can have it done for a fraction of the cost. That’s a US citizen traveling to Europe because he cant get the care he needs here. Your friend might have to wait but this fellow couldn’t get the care he needs at all in our system. I can go toe to toe with you all day if you want to waste everyones time with anecdotes. I am not aware of any surveys or studies comparing medical tourism in the US to that in countries with universal healthcare but regardless, I have worked with the public long enough to know you can never make everyone happy. Even in a perfect healthcare system there will be people who want a second opinion or want their gallbladder in a “spa like” environment as some of these medical tourism companies are now offering. the existence of medical tourism does nothing to establish the merits of a free market system over universal healthcare or visa versa. Medical tourism from countries with Universal healthcare is about want not need. As a physician I am not in the least concerned about what people want. My job is to give them what they need.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2013 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2239
Joined  2007-04-26
rbairos - 03 April 2013 01:03 PM
Lois - 03 April 2013 12:18 PM

Do you have a better option?..So which form of government would you prefer?

Would you be in favour of a democracy picking your outfit every morning?  Of deciding your career?  What if you were allowed to vote on the best of two popular campaigns?
I think your answer is self-evident, if suppressed by today’s thinking.

And once again you give a response that doesnt answer the question presented to you. Proving again why any discussion with you is a waste of time

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2013 08:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
rbairos - 03 April 2013 12:46 PM
VYAZMA - 03 April 2013 11:48 AM

Assuming you at least lean slightly libertarian, let me ask you this:
Why do libertarians have no problem with individual liberties…but scoff at the completely natural liberty(albeit seemingly chaotic) of the collective.
The collective being society.  Of which there is absolutely no alternative to.

Sorry, I don’t understand what a collective is, in terms of natural rights?  A collective has a natural right to enforce its members to drink less sugary soda for example?

That’s exactly what I meant.  Nobody likes all of the natural societal laws or mores or rules that come from a social species but they are there nonetheless.
That’s what I meant by seemingly chaotic.  People’s and individual’s desires or reactions to change the laws are constant-but again there will never be a perfect balance.
A libertarian for example sees their personal freedoms being infringed upon.  But that is a subjective viewpoint.  Never in the past in any nation have people been completely free from the mechanics of a society. 
So, yes a collective or society(let’s use society-collective carries too many connotations.) has a natural right to enforce laws concerning the general welfare of the population.  It is a natural right. It’s a natural process or law of our behavior.  Like I said, it doesn’t suit everyone everytime but, that’s the way it is.
If a group of people were completely contented with the way their personal liberties were being handled, I can guarantee you that another group would feel their liberties were being infringed upon.  That’s why the natural order seems chaotic- because there are many different interpretations of liberty. Not everyone feels they should rely on their own personal rugged individualism. And why should they?  We are a social species.  It can’t be helped. If we have evolved to form complex social extensions like governments and complex economies then many people will look to the application of this on a social level.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3