FreedomBeforeDemocracy's Comments (727)

“You might define anarchy as causing allowing the use of "economic power to create coercive transactions with the less powerful." I think that's the issue with anarchy. I, of course, define progressivism as allowing the use of political power to create coercive transactions with the less powerful. I just happen to think both are wrong. That's why the freedom I refer to has to with the elimination of all coercive transactions.”

“No, I'm just willing to critically look at the data we are using to determine how good or bad our healthcare system is. I definitely don't want the "reform" most here want. If one defines reform as improvement, I don't believe what Washington is proposing is reform.

Understanding, and quibbling over, the stats that are being presented is actually quite intelligent. I wish more people would try to understand. But I understand the wishes of those who think the stats as presented help their case not wanted to delve any deeper, I just think it's intellectually dishonest.

Were you able to find an online explanation of those parameters? I found some, but couldn't find exactly where "on level of health" is?”

“"by correcting the most obvious myths i take it you mean death panels and euthansia and camps for republicans" No. Those are the myths that don't help your argument. Of course you'll counter those. The sign of integrity comes from countering myths even though they make what you are selling sound better.

More generally, freedom without government means anarchy, i.e. lack of rulers, not necessarily chaos. I don't think we are ready for no rulers yet, that's why I advocate freedom before democracy. Remember, coercion with democracy is still coercion.

I'd wager you'd fare better under anarchy than me. Progressives are already used to forcing people to do as they wish. The only difference is anarchy doesn't allow you to use my resources to do the forcing.”

“Exactly. Overall performance, just like I said. It's the same number in the table I mentioned.”

“Here, http://www.reason.com/news/show/135603.html, is some reasoning on infant mortality (not to mention the vast disparity between infant mortality between the states. Non of which have socialized medicine). Be aware. It's based more on logic than emotion. I don't think 15 is a good thing (which is why I dispute it in my post.”

“Correct. These are some numbers from the table I linked to. Of course, you left out health level, 24, and replaced it with "on level of health" (which has something to do with performance, but I yet unable to find a satisfactory explanation).”

“We should be ranked higher. Let's get more efficient. We could start by getting rid of the massive federal income tax distortion created by employer provided health insurance tax deduction. Not only would this lower the cost by removing a tax distortion, it would move more people towards owning their own insurance (which would lower costs). They could continue by allowing interstate purchase of insurance.

If they wanted to try to lower some costs by their own wise spending decisions, they could start with the 50% of healthcare spending they are do.

What are the odds that every country was wrong when we were the only constitutional republic? The natural tendency for governments to consolidate power doesn't making there actions correct (for the people that is).

By the way, not one of the 30 countries offering universal healthcare has even 1/4 of our population and I don't hear anyone in Europe calling for a single system administered by the EU.”

“Are you responding to my post? I'll assume you made a mistake, since you address nothing I said. I certainly didn't mention Germany or any god.”

“24 states have ballot initiatives and not one of them have a public option (not to mention single payer). If the public is so supportive of the public option, why is this the case?”

“"People like you and many others need it now." Yes, but what about the people that don't need it, but still get it. Ross Perot can collect. "I'm not going broke paying my share of SS." Maybe so, but some people are based on the jobs they'll never have because there is a 15% tax (including medicare) attached to the wages they could be earning.

It's great that you can afford SS and want to help those in need. I think you should be allowed to perform this act of charity. But you should really think about those that can't afford it, but are forced to pay for people far wealthier than they are themselves.”

“The US is not 37th in health care outcomes according to the WHO’s 2000 report. We are actually 15th. France is 6th.

“We spend $7,290 per person and end up in 37th place. They spend only $3,601 and they are number one. That's just not right.”

We aren’t 37th in spite of spending, we are 37th because of it. The WHO ranking is on efficiency of Health Care expenditures, not healthcare outcomes. Check out the first excel table here, http://www.who.int/whr/2000/annex/en/index.html. It has all the categories and rankings.

15th comes from taking our rating in overall health (24th because it mainly driven by life expectancy and infant mortality. Two non healthcare measures, although they contain healthcare as a component), responsiveness (where we are ranked as number 1), and “fairness in financial contribution” (or in other words “How socialized is your system”). Mixing that 15th with our number one cost puts us at 37th.

Do any progressives that have read this post have the intellectual honesty (or at least the smallest amount of integrity) to correct this falsehood? It doesn’t mean you have to abandon the hope of a single payer system or the delusion that moving from private to public healthcare will be better overall. But at least if you (progressives that is) correct the most obvious myths being perpetuated, they’ll be some hope that people might start believing what you are trying to sell.”

“Do you understand that people who lose their jobs because the minimum wage is too high can afford even less?”

“That's easy. You don't have to give one dime to insurance companies (unless you live in MA). Don't you wish you could say the same about the government?”

“No, I am not the government. Don't let anyone convince you that YOU are the government. The equating of the citizen and government is only done to justify anything the government does. Why? They can just say, YOU did it. YOU are the government.

The government is a group of elected representives with (supposedly) limited powers. My civic duty (and yours) only goes as far as contributing resources needed to fund the legimate powers of the goverment (for the federal government that is outlined by the US Constitution). Allocation of resources is best left to those that earned the resources.”

“If the government informs you that they are going to confiscate even more of your resources and allocate them as they see fit, it doesn't make you any freer.”

“Earth. You should visit. It's really close to Massachusetts.”

“"in no way, shape or form will he sign legislation that does not guarantee every American healthcare coverage." A mandate does not do this. Ask Massachusetts. They definitely forced more people to sign up, but in no way is everyone "guaranteed" healthcare any more with the plan than without. They did however manage to increase the cost much more than the national average.

"President Obama needs to paint a vivid, emotive picture of the need for healthcare reform. " In other words, demagogue.

"Democrats tried to fight fire with statistics." But there "statistics" are stale and easily disputed. They're more like "facts taken out of context". If Democrats presented intellectually honest statistics, maybe they could seem credible in the debate, but this is what I hear, "Life expectancy, infant mortality, and 35th. Case closes! We must have a government take over, no more stats need be discussed!" But if anyone with the slightest bit of curiosity, as opposed to just moving forward based on blind idealism, looks at the numbers, it is clear that none of those are actual healthcare measures. Yes, they all include healthcare as a component, but they aren't healthcare measures. It's like determining that water is poisonous because Draino is poisonous and it contains 90% water.”

“If the insurance industry is denying contractually acquired services, what institution is responsible for ensuring they deliver those services? The government. If you don't think they are doing a good job at the responsibilities they have been allocated, why do you want to allocate more? Who are you going to turn to when the government denies you your services?

Don't worry. I think government spending is going to get us 10% employment again. I guess it already has in some places.”

“This link, http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/the-obama-stimulus-predictions-vs-reality/ , does an excellent job of illustrating how the stimulus did not work. At least when you base it on what the administration said would happen if the stimulus didn't pass. According to the author of this post, the administration predicted 8.7% unemployment without the stimulus and 7.9% with. The actual was 9.4% with the stimulus, i.e. 1.7 percentage points worse than predicted without the stimulus. If the administration claims success this way, what was their criteria for failure? That they'd get the blame, maybe?

I guess it's not too surprising from an administration that claims overwhelming success for a program, "cash-for-clunkers", because the recipients of the benefit that bear little of the cost think it's a good program. Sounds a lot like medicare.”

“My earlier post did eventually appear. Although I swear, there were only about 30 when I originally posted and after there were hundreds and my profile area said it wasn't posted. Maybe it was a backlog problem.”

“It's just an example (but a huge one, since progressives love to throw around the life expectancy ranking and accuse one of cherry picking if any further analysis is done). I'm not claiming a victor in the debate about what bill really means. She's a politician that "interprets" based on political motive. He is a comedian that doesn't understand how car crashes and homicides are poor measures of a nation's healthcare system.

If you look at some of my earlier posts, I have the link (apparently progressives have a hard time with google. It may explain some of their conclusions), but if you'd request I'll repost it (it's bookmarked on a different machine).”

“Ironically, after calling for open, honest debate, Stewart dismisses her point that the US is number one in life expectancy when adjusted for car crashes and homicides (as a rebuttal to his point that we are number 46). I guess honesty is good, as long as you don't scrutinize to the point of not supporting your world view.”

“I thought my post was pretty tame, as well. Maybe that have some systemic error that is throwing posts. I think it's time to get the government involved.”

“It's funny how Stewart asks for an honest debate and talks like it's really important to get all the facts out, but then is confronted with the fact that our life expectancy is number one when homicides and car crashes are taken out (in response to his own we're number 46 fact) and acts like that's irrelevant information. I guess he doesn't want to hear anything that's contradicts his position.”

“"With almost 50 million falling through the cracks" That's part of the problem. There aren't 50M falling through the cracks, or even almost 50M. One third (although I've elsewhere it might be as low as one quarter) of the approx. 45M qualify for Medicaid, SCHIP, or some other government program. They just haven't needed it yet, so they are counted as not having health insurance (even though they fall under the current safety net). 1/6 of the number make more than 75K and another 1/6 make more than 50K.

We can argue about 50K being enough, but the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are between 8M and 14M (8M being uninsured for two or more years) Americans (meaning American citizen). I've heard estimates of about 6M legal aliens and 4M illegal don't have insurance.

It doesn't mean there isn't a problem. It just means progressives (once again) has over-exaggerated the issue. It's hard to find the correct solution to a problem people can't be honest about.”