FreedomBeforeDemocracy's Comments (192)

“Franklin D. Roosevelt also thought it was OK to imprison American citizens of Japanese decent. His only knowledge of liberty was based on what he took from individuals. His only knowledge of fascism is what he employed in his own policy making.”

“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.”

“So no public option, no EFCA, an end to employer subsidized insurance, and the party in power losing that power. Sounds like an early Christmas at my house.”

“O'Donnell is the blowhard. He wasn't stopping garbage, he was spewing it (without regard to the correct assertion that SS and medicare are socialist).

Like I said, I don't even like politicians, Republican and Democrat alike. So it didn't have anything to do with one of my own. Maybe you believe it's ok to scream questions at someone without letting them answer because you believed the screamer was representing your position. I think progressives have always been more of "the ends justifies the means" types. It must come from their heightened sense of self-righteousness.”

“Need more commentators that ask questions, refuse to let their guests answer, and then go off into incoherent rants? Well, I guess if you want to support that, but it is as good at getting information across as shouting things out at town hall meetings.

He is correct that SS and medicare are socialist programs, but do you think he could get any politician (even a Democrat) to sit there and say "I believe in socialism", just so they won't any hypocracy with their stand on these issues? Maybe Bernie Sanders.

SS and medicare are failures even if you don't consider their fiscal insolvency. SS gets an average 2.5% return (with no contractual guarantee to benefits) and has required a 6-fold increase since inception. While claiming a 1% administrative take (total non-sense by the way), they have estimates upwards of 30% for mispayment/over payment (fraudulent or otherwise). Maybe if they did a little more administration, they could get rid of the fraud.”

“No. He asked the guy what he would do to restore the constitution. And the guy actually said something intelligent (he'd change the way the federal government takes money from the states and then asks them to beg for it, i.e. federal grants). But since that wasn't what O'Donnell wanted to hear, he short circuited. Continuing to ask a question, but not let the guy answer.”

“That was the most useless segment I've seen on Hardball in all the years I've been watching. It didn't really matter what guest was on. O'Donnell basically asked a question, didn't get the answer he wanted, and went on a rant about Social Security and Medicare being socialist (which of course they are). I felt bad for the congressman (and I really don't like politicians) because he was just so rude. Get him to answer the question (which he was), but don't shout him down when you don't like the answer.

I always knew O'Donnell was arrogant and delusional about his own intellect, but that display was truly amazing. He's so sure about his own righteousness, he could be the progressive poster child.”

“I didn't say anything about Canada. You're government doesn't have to sell drugs to foreign citizens. Not only do you want to control the freedom of people in your own country, you want to control the freedom of people in other countries. You must be a "super progressive".”

“When did they change it? Is it just Canada (or part of NAFTA)?”

“If the left is so enamored with single payer, why don't they try to get it implemented at the state level first? I've heard that's how Canada came into its "superior" system.

It seems to be working with mandated health insurance. They got it passed in MA, and even though its failing (not living up to its promises, and in some cases, doing exactly the opposite (costs)), many in congress are ready to try it at the federal level. It doesn't even take success.

The CA legislature has already passed it twice (vetoed). It won't be long.”

“Would most progressives be open to a much smaller bill that did something simple? Something that I think the far left and far right can agree on. Allow Americans to purchase drugs from any country they wish. This law, as least as far as I can tell, does nothing but allow pharmaceutical companies an unfair advantage over consumers. They make a small investment in our corrupt politicians to increase their profitability. Can both extremes (and I'm on the right) agree this wrong? If so, why does the law still exist?

Second on the list (and first for my preferences) would be getting rid of the tax advantage for employer provided benefits. To satisfy the right, we can make it revenue neutral. To satisfy the left, we can achieve neutrality by lowering the 10% income tax bracket (making our system even more progressive).

Would either of these proposals be a move in the right, I mean, correct direction?”

“While dropping the public option will only be a small victory for freedom, I'll take it. Yeah!”

“"For the same reason people try to get insurance today when they are not sick. " Wrong. They buy insurance today before they're sick because they know that once they are sick that no one will cover them. Once that's removed, there will be no incentive to buy before an illness. Imagine if you could buy car insurance that would cover any accident you had a year before you bought the insurance. I know when I'd buy it.”

“9. Politicians treat the CBO like they treat the Constitution: It's only used when it serves their purpose. Didn't Charles Rangel just state that CBO isn't on the same page with the congress and president when they reported that the plan would raise costs (and they're not exactly known for overestimating costs)? I could see the president, but congress? Aren't they the Congressional Budget Office? By definition, on the same page with congress?

10. Congress? Doesn't decrease they're influence at all. In fact, it increases it.”

“5. True. But even in this country it varies greatly. Infant mortality varies in the US from 12.2 deaths/1000 live births (in DC) to 4.8 in Minnesota. Is that because of Minnesota's single payer system? Is it not a little scary that the worst place is one area of the country the federal government is solely responsible for (the same government you want to control all of our healthcare)?

6. Medicare's administrative cost is way under estimated, but even in the studies I've seen that try to estimate it accurately, it is still lower. Of course, medicare fraud seems to make up for it, but I've yet to find anything that estimates private insurance fraud, so it's harder to compare.

7. Our government has finally realized that the way they compensate for medicare/medicaid gives no incentive to prevent people from needing services. It only took them 40 years.

8. If 70% want a strong public plan, why hasn't any state passed one? At least a state with referendums should have a pretty good shot. Right?”

“1. This is based on a WHO ranking that weights 1/3 of a country's score on how socialist its healthcare system already is.

2. Yes. We are expensive. Of course, the federal income tax distortion and prohibition against interstate insurance competion helps drive up the prices. Not to mention that as a country we have a lot of disposable income. This also contributes to our 37th ranking in the WHO study.

3. Our life expectency isn't the best that's for sure. However, this number (usually taken from the same WHO study 37 comes from) if adjusted for car crashes and homicides, does put us back on top. Life expectency is a poor measure. Proponents of free market healthcare usually use cancer survival (I know I do). Proponents of government run say that's cherry picking and usually go back to life expectency. I'm sure there are other statistics that are better measures of healthcare that help the cause of pro government people, but I've yet to be presented them.

4. This kind of goes to point 3. What numbers are you pointing to that make us less healthy?”

“So what do you think makes the more benevolent amongst us not enter the health insurance business? Are they all in politics?”

“If insurance companies have to take people with pre-existing conditions, why would anyone buy insurance if their not sick? At that point, your not insuraning against something, you're asking someone else to just pay for your sickness.”

“Nothing is currently prohibiting states from having a single payer system (as far as the US Constitution is concerned). California's legislature has passed a bill twice that would make California single payer, but the governor vetoed it.

California and other states have also tried to become single payer via referendum, but up to this point, the voters have rejected it.

I also question the 75% support for a public option. If it really is that high, it seems like some state would create their own option by putting an initiative on the ballot.”

“The insurance companies do want a mandate so you'll be forced to buy their product. Politicians want a public option, so they can use your money to buy more votes. We'll probably get both. That way they'll both win. We'll be the only losers.”

“What makes you believe that states are prohibited from passing single payer right now? California's legislature has passed a single payer bill twice (vetoed). According to Wikipedia, three state referendums have been attempted in the last 15 years. All failed.

That's why I find the "75% favor a public option" poll hard to believe. If the percentage is that high, why hasn't any state at least put its own public option on the ballot as an initiative (and it seems politicians would be all over something 75% of the people desire).”