Roger’s Rules

Email This to a Friend

June 21st, 2009 8:34 am

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, Division of Health Care Legerdemain

“Interesting, if true.” That’s the motto that the 19th-century British travel writer Alexander Kinglake wanted inscribed on the lintels of all the churches in England.

I wish I could impose something similar, if less polite, on the emetic mendacities regularly published by our former Paper of Record, The New York Times. Consider yesterday’s story proclaiming that “In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health.”

Really? Read on:

“The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.”

Amazing, what? The story also spoke of a “growing confidence in the government’s ability to manage health care.”

Gosh.

But wait. Who conducted this poll that returned such extraordinary results? Why CBS in conjunction with The New York Times. Pollsters employed by these two dispassionate entities called up 895 people and, lo! 72 percent said they would favor government administered health care similar to Medicare.

Do you believe that? Not the bit about 72 percent of the 895 carefully chosen people CBS & The New York Times contacted responding in a way that this unofficial division of the Obama Press Office favors. I mean, do you believe that 72 percent of the American people are really in favor of handing over the machinery of health care to the government? Of course you don’t. And the reason is suggested by another story that appeared in The New York Times yesterday: the story about how a Veterans Administration hospital–i.e., a government-run institution–”botched 92 of 116 cancer treatments over a span of more than six years.” (Thanks to Instapundit for highlighting this delicious conjunction.)

There are currently some 1300 insurance carriers providing health care coverage in the U.S. The Obama administration wants to reduce that to one: the government. Would it cut costs? Possibly. We really don’t know. What we do know is that it would sharply erode the quality of health care in the United States. Indeed, if it ObamaCare becomes a reality, I am planning on investing in the biggest manufacturer of hospital gurneys: that’s about the only piece of hospital equipment that there will be more of as, like Canada and the UK, patients line up for weeks or months or even years for treatment as the number of specialists dwindle and a state-run system of health-care rationing is phased in.

The New York Times can devise polls and surveys till the end of time. You can be sure that they will always demonstrate exactly what The New York Times wants. Extraordinary, isn’t it? And I, as Dorothy Parker put it in another context, am Marie of Roumania.

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

46 Comments

1. John Frary:

From time to time polls appear purporting to establish that a majority of voters are willing, if not eager, to see their taxes go up. Poor Fritz Mondale actually believed them, acted on them, and carried Minnesota. Most politicians share Roger’s skepticism (e.g., Barack Obama) and promise to reduce taxes.

Jun 21, 2009 - 10:13 am 2. Lollipop:

In principle, and in general terms, I am all for capitalism versus socialism. But that doesn’t mean that I’m blind to the faults of either system.

No doubt capitalism is the most productive of the two and has the greater capacity to raise standards of living for a greater proportion of the population

But that higher production and capacity often comes at a stiff price. Sometimes at too stiff a price. We can see this in the recent financial debacle of the last couple of years and in the broken medical system currently in place.

When you have not tens of thousands or not even hundreds of thousands, but tens of *millions* of unemployed and/or without basic medical insurance, something’s wrong.

I don’t care what the reasons or explanations for this state of affairs are; the fact that it exists is completely inexcusable.

I don’t know if “socialized medicine” is the answer. What I do know is that the system we have in place is not working.

Lemme repeat that because it’s my major point here: The….system….we…. have…. is…. not.….working. Not with tens of millions without even basic health coverage.

Detractors of “government health insurance” are quick to point out the faults and pitfalls of such a system. But it seems to me they are blind to the faults and pitfalls of the current system. They decry “government health insurance” but do little else.

If you think the current health insurance system is satisfactory, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind. I may think you’re somewhat delusional, but that’s neither here nor there. Your mind is made up.

If a moderately socialized health system is the wave of the future for the USA – and I think it is – don’t say you weren’t warned.

The system is broken – so fix it. If you don’t – and so far you haven’t shown the slightest interest it doing so – it will be done for you, however much you will end up kicking and screaming about it.

Jun 21, 2009 - 12:04 pm 3. David Thomson:

“What I do know is that the system we have in place is not working.”

Whose fault is that? The system is broken because of political interference. Insurance companies are highly regulated and cannot operate as purely free market enterprises. The politicians literally tell them, state by state, what procedures must be covered. We also have a private insurance system that is similar to an auto policy that covers one’s oil changes and regular maintenance. We have the silly wage and price controls during WWII to thank for this mess. Employers could not raise their workers pay, but they could provide them with “free” health insurance. This lack of choice subtly conned the employees into believing there was no real cost for their health care. They soon started to abuse the system—and the rest is history.

Jun 21, 2009 - 1:54 pm 4. John Bonaccorsi:

“I don’t care what the reasons or explanations for this state of affairs are….”

That, Lollipop, I can believe.

Jun 21, 2009 - 2:13 pm 5. Peter the Australian:

Here in Oz we have a two tier system. If you don’t want to be insured privately you can gert healthcare from the government, but it will take longer and your choice is limited. Alternatively, you can insure privately and get private treatment which is much better. In both cases, unless you are a welfare recipient, you will pay some money.

Visits to the GP always cost something, the insurance only covers visits to specialists and hospital.

The system is OK, but many of the public hospitals are run down. As usual with any service provided by Government, things are not great. The Government would be better off subsidising the neediest patients and letting private enterprise operate the hospitals.

Jun 21, 2009 - 6:06 pm 6. Biblio44:

“But wait. Who conducted this poll that returned such extraordinary results? Why CBS in conjunction with The New York Times.”

But wait. Who’s impugning the integrity of CBS & the Times? Why fair and balanced Roger Kimball.

#1: “From time to time polls appear purporting to establish that a majority of voters are willing, if not eager, to see their taxes go up. Poor Fritz Mondale actually believed them, acted on them, and carried Minnesota.”

While Reagan just lied about the issue and raised taxes anyway.

Jun 21, 2009 - 6:18 pm 7. Instapundit » Blog Archive » ROGER KIMBALL ON THE NEW YORK TIMES HEALTH CARE POLL: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, Division o…:

[...] ROGER KIMBALL ON THE NEW YORK TIMES HEALTH CARE POLL: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, Division of Health Care Legerdemain. [...]

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:26 am 8. Letalis Maximus, Esq.:

Government run health care works great. Just look at the superb job the Veterans’ Administration and the Indian Health Service are doing.

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:41 am 9. The Ace:

The….system….we…. have…. is…. not.….working.

Hysterical.

Note that when the King of Jordan was dying of cancer he did not in fact go to France, Canada, Germany, or the UK. He came to the country with the world’s best medical treatment, that is health care, the United States.

Not with tens of millions without even basic health coverage.

What people like you can not grasp is that these “tens of millions” do not go without medical care.

Thanks for particpating.

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:58 am 10. The Ace:

We can see this in the recent financial debacle of the last couple of years

Yes, because Fannie Mae, a government sponsored enterprise, was not “regulated”!

Actual facts are an anathema to your beliefs.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:01 am 11. WJ:

How is 872 people a statistically valid sample for 300 million people? I wouldn’t trust that number as a sample for a town of 20,000.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:09 am 12. L. Riofrio:

This is about the same percentage that voted for Ahmadenijad.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:14 am 13. Jim B:

Actually the poll is very interesting in that it demonstrates what we should all most fear about entitlements: Essentially, 70% of those polled support a government program….but of those, it appears from the authors that only 40% could be persuaded to contribute as much as an additional $500 in taxes.

So yes! By all means let’s have a new entitlement because it feels good and its cruel to object to coverage for the poor and uninsured, just be sure someone else is going to pay for it.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:20 am 14. Michael Giles:

Yeah right, Biblio a pole with 66% Democrats to 34% Republicans should be accepted wholeheartedly. Just because that has no resemblance to the actual election and/or party identification figures, is no reason not to look askance (sarcasm).

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:29 am 15. Michael Giles:

Okay, make that “poll” and “no reason to look askance”.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:31 am 16. chiron:

Roger–
While I am skeptical of the Times’ results also, all you offer here is attitude and sneering–not at all the same thing as a counterargument.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:32 am 17. Aaronic:

Seems like they’re using the same methods for conducting polls that the Iranians are using for tabulating votes.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:36 am 18. Glen:

“When you have not tens of thousands or not even hundreds of thousands, but tens of *millions* of unemployed and/or without basic medical insurance, something’s wrong.” – Lollipop.

I’m ready my copy of the Constitution and evidently, I am overlooking it… where exactly does it say that every person has a right to have medical insurance? Could you point out the paragraph for me?

Let me see if I can re-phrase that so that it is a little more accurate: When you have not tens of thousands or not even hundreds of thousands, but tens of “millions” of liberal voters more than willing to take my hard-earned money away from me to pay for their pet causes, something’s wrong.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:44 am 19. Glen:

that should read “I’m READING my copy”, not “I’m ready my copy”.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:45 am 20. JorgXMcKie:

Guess I didn’t remember the Reagan tax cuts and all the whining by the Dems, then, huh? Lie much, Biblio44? And do you have the Times polls and internals, or do you just accept any crap they spoon out?
The Hastings Center has been polling on health care for decades. They always ask two questions (separated by many others to avoid contamination): 1) Do you believe every American should be entitled to the kind health care millionaires receive? [@75% yes], and; 2) Would you be willing to pay $1000 in taxes each year so every American could get such care? [@75% no]
It’s all in the question (and its phrasing) and the respondents selected. What do you want bet the NYT over-selected Dems?

And lollipop, absence of insurance doesn’t mean absence of health care. Should you care to read up on the subject and should you be inclined to be moved by facts, then I would expect your position to change radically.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:58 am 21. Gretchen:

On page 7 of the full poll results you can see respondents were 48% were Obama voters, 25% McCain voters. That pretty much closes discussion on the polling methodology.

Jun 22, 2009 - 7:05 am 22. Wingnut:

Lollipop… TRUE socialism is not the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme. True socialism is the abolishing/outlawing of economies (money, ownership, price tags). In true socialisms, like public schools, public libraries, and the USA military supply/survival system, everyone gets a full belly, decent healthcare, a roof’n'bedroll, and treated equally with all others, no matter the race, aptitude, person size/age or the amount of greenpapers in the pocket. Luxuries are put into repositories for all to share, no matter any “rank”. Not a single other living creature on the entire planet, uses economies. Why do capitalists?

Economies are a man-made invention, and you can easily tell by how disgusting they are. That pyramid scheme symbol on the back of the USA dollar is a Columbian Freemason symbol, and the USA gov is in a district of Columbia. Starting to awaken? There’s no such thing as “your hard-earned money” as every AmWay (American Way) certificate (currency bill) has “federal reserve note” written on it, and has no (en)title of ownership to it. The “fed” owns and runs the pyramid scheme called the free marketeers.

When we abolish economies, and take-on TRUE socialism, something once done successfully by Native American Indian tribes, Quakers, Amish, and possibly Menonites, THEN we will be on a more Christian-like path. As long as capitalism pyramid scheme rat-racing and enjoyment addictions are around… and as long as working FOR instead of WITH are the theme of the day… we’ll get nowhere. Rat-racing/cookieplate-chasing leads to pyramiding, and all pyramids fall, just like the ones we failed-at in the playgrounds as children. Upper 1/3 are “heads in the clouds” while the kids on the bottom get crushed. That’s servitude, a form of slavery… and quite disgusting.

Larry “Wingnut” Wendlandt
MaStars – Mothers Against Stuff That Ain’t Right
(anti-capitalism-ists)
Bessemer MI USA

Jun 22, 2009 - 7:12 am 23. Al Reasin:

Well Medicare is effectly the only healthcare for those at and over 65, except for suplemental insurance. And it has 36 TRILLION in unfunded obligations. So does this answer any question on whether universal healthcare will cut costs; not unless the government rations care, stops the use of inovation and new procedures and places other draconian controls on the program. Yea and Howard Dean on CNBC said Americans want a choice between private and public healthcare. R.i.i.i.i.ight.

Jun 22, 2009 - 8:01 am 24. Self-hating Boomer:

What I do know is that the system we have in place is not working.

Harry Browne explains why:

Government is good at only one thing. It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, ‘See if it weren’t for the government, you couldn’t walk.

Jun 22, 2009 - 8:07 am 25. JIMV:

I love polls that sample an overwhelming number of one party or another and then touted as being the opinion of one and all. All this poll demonstrated is that Democrats and Obama voters like the programs of…Obama. It is like spending money to find that men like pretty women and rich folk live better than poor folk.

Jun 22, 2009 - 8:13 am 26. Anna Keppa:

Wingnut, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Jun 22, 2009 - 8:50 am 27. Say What?!?:

Wingnut:
Have you ever heard of non-zero sum games? It is what makes economies such an incredibly beneficial invention. With economies we get far more wealth creation which in fact enriches all of our lives. Envy of other people’s success is what socialists like you thrive on; it attempts to destroy the motivation of those that do the most to invent and improve our collective material existence.
Socialism forces a zero sum game on us. It seeks to eliminate all motivation to do anything but take from other people. It serves only those who are at the top and protects them from competition.
Funny isn’t it, that people who support socialism alway ignore its history of lack of beneficial results? Pay attention!

Jun 22, 2009 - 9:09 am 28. cubanbob:

“5. Peter the Australian:
Here in Oz we have a two tier system. If you don’t want to be insured privately you can gert healthcare from the government, but it will take longer and your choice is limited. Alternatively, you can insure privately and get private treatment which is much better. In both cases, unless you are a welfare recipient, you will pay some money.

Visits to the GP always cost something, the insurance only covers visits to specialists and hospital.

Great having to pay twice for health care. We will be lucky here in the US if we are left with that option.

Jun 21, 2009 – 6:06 pm”
22. Wingnut:
Lollipop… TRUE socialism is not the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme. True socialism is the abolishing/outlawing of economies (money, ownership, price tags). In true socialisms, like public schools, public libraries, and the USA military supply/survival system, everyone gets a full belly, decent healthcare, a roof’n’bedroll, and treated equally with all others, no matter the race, aptitude, person size/age or the amount of greenpapers in the pocket. Luxuries are put into repositories for all to share, no matter any “rank”. Not a single other living creature on the entire planet, uses economies. Why do capitalists?

Larry “Wingnut” Wendlandt
MaStars – Mothers Against Stuff That Ain’t Right
(anti-capitalism-ists)
Bessemer MI USA

Jun 22, 2009 – 7:12 am”

Do the world a favor and die. Seriously. My back hurts from subsidizing clowns like you. Why don ‘t you provide for me for a change. You exemplify why Michigan is so economically depressed. Pull your own weight and stop mooching of others.

Jun 22, 2009 - 10:25 am 29. luagha:

Anyone who’s ever been to an Amish farmer’s market or dickered with an Amish salesgranny for a handmade sheepskin rug will quickly learn just how capitalistic they are.

Jun 22, 2009 - 10:29 am 30. Ann NY:

All one has to do is look at the VA hospitals to see how the government would run health care. And as far as keeping costs down? Look at what a bang up job the UK does with that.

Jun 22, 2009 - 10:37 am 31. LOLLIPOP - 2:

Canon Fodder
—————–

Lemme start from the bottom up:

(PS- I like the non-word “Lemme” because it reminds me of the word “Lemmings”, i.e. your typical commentators on blogs):

#24 Self-Hating Bloomer:

Harry Browne, the Ur-Gold Bug, is dead – and he died a pauper. So much for his advice. (PS: Having seen a few of your “comments”, Self-Hating Bloomer, I think your moniker is most apt).

#22 Wingnut:

Are you sure you don’t want to change your moniker to “Blast of Hot Air”?

#18 & 19 Glen:

“I’m reading my copy of the Constitution and evidently, I am overlooking it…”

You’ve probably “overlooked” everything you’ve ever read.

I don’t know about the “Constitution” (check with Robert H. Bork), but the Declaration of Independence specifically says: “….Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”

In this day and age, without basic medical insurance, there’s no way you can attain any of those “inalienable rights”.

The phrase, by the way, and more importantly, the spirit of those words, come from John Locke who expressed that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” NOTICE he said “health”.

#9 The Ace:

Upon reading your profound commentary, immediately I thought of a more apt
moniker for you: it’s actually very similar to yours: it has three letters and it also begins with the letter “A”. It even kinda sounds like your current one.

#3 David Thomson:

My objection to “capitalistic medical care” is that I have a real hard time accepting that the medical care available to a nation should be based on the PROFIT MOTIVE.

I agree (believe it or not) that there is no legal “RIGHT” to medical care.

But it’s not a question of a “right”: this is not a LEGAL matter.

What it is is a NECESSITY in the same way that “drinking water” is a necessity.

Nowhere in the “Constitution” does it say that having potable water for your population is a “right”……..that doesn’t make it less important.

There’s a huge difference between RIGHTS and VITAL NECESSITIES. This is where the argument so often raised by “capitalistic medical care” falls flat on its face. They mistake one for the other and come out sounding like bleating sheep. Their arguments are based on totally fallacious premises.

Jun 22, 2009 - 11:00 am 32. Portia:

Appropriately named wingnut

Pie in the sky, by and by? “Pure socialism” is a fantasy because we’re not in the garden of Eden (if we ever were) and food and goods you wish for don’t magically appear. That computer you type on depends on labor. Someone worked for it and needs to be paid. If you think people work to keep their hands warm, you need meds.

“Pure socialism” is the new poison being sold to kiddies who are too stupid to know better.

If you’re over ten years old and thing that economies are a man made invention I hope you’re on anti-psychotics. Money is an invention to facilitate the economy, not the economy. Nature operates an economy. Plants earn their living from the sun and the soil, then herbivores take 1that energy, then carnivores get it. Poor things don’t have money, though, so… you know… it’s all eat and get eaten. Biologists actually tell us how a creature “earns a living” if you’ve ever read any biology.

This is a true pyramid scheme. Man invented the tit-for-tat of capitalism, in which both sides win. It’s only a pyramid scheme if you think there is no wealth created and if you think that, then we must be still redistributing the same wealth of our pre-caveman ancestors. Right?

Read PJ O’Rourke’s Eat The Rich. Call me in the morning. Or better yet, consider Cubanbob’s suggestion.

Jun 22, 2009 - 11:03 am 33. Wingnut:

Hi again. Thanks Anna, I’m honored by your comment! Just search the web for “abolish economies” or “outlaw economies” to see other posts from me/my group. I hang at dissidentvoice, bestcyrano, thomaspainescorner, countercurrents, places that aren’t infested with “yay America” cock’n'bull. If a solid amount of open-mindedness, and a lack of personal bashing… is seen around here, I’ll visit here often, too.

A rather good debate happened once at…

http://www.chancelitton.com/?p=131

It ended with a threat of controlism/censoring, unfortunately. I don’t profess to be a designer of communes. The military supply system does supply/wellbeing distribution quite well, so I’d follow that system, at least somewhat. VERY RARELY is a military team member, in fear for survival supplies.

I mostly fight for the stopping of pyramiding (getting a leg up). The USA military supply system has an excellent system for deciding what is luxury and what is necessity, so I’d use that system as far as stopping enjoyment addictions/junkies, too.

“Say What” – which wealth do you mean? Economic wealth, or the myriad of other “wealth” like love, reusability, repairability, friendliness, efficiency, equality, fairness, or any other criteria used to measure the “value” of things? Monetary value is only one type of wealth, and, unfortunately, monetary discrimination is rampant, when doing pyramid schemes like capitalism. There are many types of wealth. As for your history comment, has there ever been an attempt at economy-less, hierarchy-less, socialism/communalism? When did Adam and Eve start using greenstamps and ownership (squatting)? Never?

Cubanbob – apparently you can’t stick to the issues/subject and instead go with slandering. Nice stuff. Real classy. I’ll be ignoring you from this point on.

Luagha – I don’t know a heck of a lot about the Amish, but its a shame they need money. As I mentioned above, I don’t necessarily design communes, I just bust pyramiding. Capitalist invoicers/billers (demanders) must be leaning on the Amish. How anti-Christian.

Best Regards!
Wingy

Jun 22, 2009 - 11:28 am 34. Michael O'Sullivan:

Wow, I’m really impressed and a little irritated, although not much, who cares, that the bastion of unfair and inaccurate along with CBS no less, finds that a majority of Americans favor the government to run anything!!

These guys think we are as dumb as their buddies in Washington think we are….

Jun 22, 2009 - 11:50 am 35. PD Quig:

Having looked beneath the headline of the Times/CBS poll, even this skewed and questionable 72% number headline retreats with its tail between its legs. When those same people were asked about high taxes to fund ObamaCare, their excitement plummeted. When they were asked how they would feel if they had to trade their private insurance for government insurance, their excitement plummeted.

This just goes to show that any moron can construct a poll to manufacture a desired result. Mission accomplished, morons.

Jun 22, 2009 - 12:44 pm 36. jonathan:

In Canada, in a government run Health Care system with no real private alternative, the costs over 10 years went from $90 billion to $160 billion with no noticiable improvements in wait times for access to care so be careful what you wish for.
Much better to take some personal responsibility, stop smoking, exercise, and keep away from doctors.

Jun 22, 2009 - 12:50 pm 37. The Ace:

In this day and age, without basic medical insurance, there’s no way you can attain any of those “inalienable rights”.

Laugh out loud funny.

So nobody, not one person, without “medical insurance” (note, not actual medical care) has no liberty? No life? They are not happy?

You, not too bright Internet commenter know this, how?

Um, and then what?
Note you can’t refute the fact that when very wealthy foreigners become very ill they always travel to America for medical treatment.

There is a reason for that.
One you simply can’t admit. Nor address.

Jun 22, 2009 - 1:15 pm 38. The Ace:

“no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” NOTICE he said “health”.

Seriously, you must be a parody.

Nobody is this stupid.

I hope.

Jun 22, 2009 - 1:16 pm 39. The Ace:

What it is is a NECESSITY in the same way that “drinking water” is a necessity.

Actually, by no standard measure is medical insurance a necessity (I love how you put it in CAPS as if that makes you correct), and in fact the history of America demonstrates this to be true.

Unless of course you actually can’t understand that many, many people lived and died (some of them into their 80’s & 90’s) in this country prior to “medical insurance” and you incoherently deeming it a necessity.

Jun 22, 2009 - 1:22 pm 40. Strawman:

Harry Browne, the Ur-Gold Bug, is dead

What a brilliant refutation. Why didn’t I think of that? ♫If I only had a brain…♫

Jun 22, 2009 - 1:24 pm 41. mrsizer:

Lollipop: The current system is certainly not perfect, but that’s no reason to throw it away: 100s of millions of people are perfectly happy with it.

Why can’t we just start small with an accounting change: Employer-paid health insurance is no longer tax deductible – only individual-paid is. Employers are not allowed to change existing policies for two years while moving the cost of the insurance to an individual pre-tax deduction (much like 401(k), FICA, Medicare, etc… deductions).

Then we will finally know how much we are paying now.

If we want to go to a single-payer govt system, we will also know how much we’ll be paying in taxes and how much of of a raise we should get to pay those taxes.

Right now, we’re firing blind. It’s stupid.

Jun 22, 2009 - 3:09 pm 42. Peter the Australian:

Cubanbob

No, we don’t pay twice for the same care. It’s all done on a system of rebates. If you are not a welfare recipient or unemployed, you get billed by your GP, specialist, pathologist or hospital. You then go to the Government and/or your private insurer and get a rebate to help pay the bill. You end up paying a gap amount.

If you are a welfare recipient you get free treatment, but use the Government hospital system, which is slower and gives much less choice of doctor.

We all pay a 1.25% tax levy top pay for the Government’s part in the system. Of course this is no where near enough and the Gpovernment has to provide more money from consolidated revenue.

Our system is halfway between Private enterprise and socialist. It therefore doesn’t really work as well as it would do if the Government were to exit and leave it to the professionals.

I would argue that the example of other countries should show that the US should avoid Government interference in the health market like the plague.

If the US Government is so concerned with poor people not being insured, then it should just pay their insurance premiums for them and butt out.

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:12 pm 43. Dana H.:

“The system is broken – so fix it.”

I agree to some extent, though our system is much less broken than most anywhere else. But before you propose a fix, you need to understand the cause of the problem, which is the gradual government takeover of medicine that has been in progress for over 50 years.

The argument that health care is a vital necessity so therefore it should not be left to the profit motive is a non-sequitur. Food is also a vital necessity, and it is precisely *because* it has been left to the profit motive that we have such an incredible abundance and variety of food in this country. Get government out of health care (and I mean completely out), and we would see an analogous variety of options in medicine.

For more on the argument for freedom in medicine, see the AFCM site (http://www.afcm.org/).

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:51 am 44. David Perry:

“Anyone who’s ever been to an Amish farmer’s market or dickered with an Amish salesgranny for a handmade sheepskin rug will quickly learn just how capitalistic they are.”

To expand, whether any of the groups named were socialist amongst *themselves* (which is a debatable proposition), they certainly engaged frequently in capitalistic behavior when dealing with other people, even Native Americans, who carried on trade frequently with other tribes and with Europeans.

“As for your history comment, has there ever been an attempt at economy-less, hierarchy-less, socialism/communalism?”

Actually yes, quite a few. In America alone, look up New Harmony, Brook Farm, Fourierist phalanxes, etc. Pretty much all of them have failed, and most of them have failed quite quickly and spectacularly.

“The military supply system does supply/wellbeing distribution quite well, so I’d follow that system, at least somewhat.”

Not that I don’t have a great deal of respect for the military and most of the people who serve it it, but let’s get real: a.) the military supply system has plenty of corruption in it b.) it requires a level of control over people’s lives that most people rightly would not accept in normal life, and c.) it is ultimately dependent on money raised in taxation, which comes from people making money in–you guessed it–capitalist endeavor.

“Economic wealth, or the myriad of other “wealth” like love, reusability, repairability, friendliness, efficiency, equality, fairness, or any other criteria used to measure the “value” of things?”

Who says that you can’t have both? In fact, economic wealth rather tends to encourage many of the other things you list, in that it’s a lot easier to cultivate the moral virtues when society is wealthy and people have more time to devote to them. Not to mention, socialism is at least as materialistic as capitalism is, in that it
argues that if we all got our daily bread, we’d all be totally happy–an idea the Lord pretty emphatically says is an error, while we’re talking about Christianity.

“In this day and age, without basic medical insurance, there’s no way you can attain any of those “inalienable rights”.”

Funny, I was without medical insurance for almost ten years at one point. I managed to stay alive, I was free, and I experienced quite a bit of happiness during that time. I even got health care occasionally.

Which brings us to the mislabeling of the problem: the problem is not that people don’t have medical insurance, the problem is that people are unable to afford health care for long periods of time. Now for one thing, when you examine the “problem”, it turns out to be greatly overstated: many people who don’t have insurance either are without it for only a short time, or voluntarily choose not to get it in one way or another. But the other thing is, you could argue that medical insurance–at least the kind we usually have–is actually a large part of the problem. For instance, if we all just got catastrophic insurance, and paid for our regular doctor visits up front, it’s very likely that costs would go down, both from the elimination of bureaucracy and from forcing doctors to compete in price for once.

“The phrase, by the way, and more importantly, the spirit of those words, come from John Locke who expressed that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” NOTICE he said “health”.”

And here we come to the great fallacy that ersatz modern “liberals” always fall into when trying to interpret classical liberals. Locke was talking about “negative” rights: when he talked about not harming health, he meant that you shouldn’t be allowed to go out and beat somebody up. He was not talking about “positive” rights, i.e., the idea that we should all be entitled to health care, even if that means that other people have to pay for it. Which does some damage to their liberty and possessions, by the way.

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:15 pm 45. Wingnut:

W: Thanks for the friendly response, Jim S. More often, I get censored by the publisher or called a bunch of names.

J: First of all the District of Columbia is a part of the U.S. not a state, but still a part of the U.S. Framers didn’t want the national capital to be in a state fearing it would give that state extra power.

W: Why isn’t it called district of USA, then?

J: An economy is to serve the people,

W: Actually, its to start a rat-racing system, and to serve and protect the leaders. who these days, are the rich capitalists instead of Christian/moral folks. And as leaders, the USA people have a tendency to “look up” to them. Only with hierarchical structures (pyramids) is there an “up”. In a flat, equal, egalitarian system, we would look sideways to our leaders, for they would not be higher or lower than another, just doing a different role. But, I’ll go with your theory somewhat… as money COULD be used as exchange tokens, though they are rat-raced-for these days… as such things will obtain luxuries…. and that leads to enjoyment addictions and inequality.

J: as such an economy is not inherently evil; rather people within the economy are the ones whose greed, lust, sloth, and gluttony hurt people.

W: Yep. So if you outlaw the devices by which hierarchies, rat-racing, enjoyment addictions, etc… can happen, you eliminate the pyramiding.

J: You need some manner of exchanging services, for example an engineer does not have the time to grow food, but the farmer does not have the time to develop the irrigation system (dams, canals) nor the road system necessary to growing food. They depend on each other and as such some way of trading services is required.

W: If they were both providing for “Team World”, then they don’t depend upon each other. They depend upon Team World. This is how the USA military supply system works. Everyone works for “team” and never is trade needed. The only thing needed is keeping “team” inventory levels stocked properly. A huge debate with a military chap over at http://www.chancelitton.com/?p=131 and reading that might keep me from having to talk your ear-off here.

J: Money is the easiest, fairest, most unbiased,

W: Monetary discrimination is rampant, worldwide, actually.

J: and most efficient way of trading services, thousands of years of cultural development show this. Profiting is not evil. There are certain costs to doing anything so you need to cover those

W: You “cover” that with volunteer labor, not forced joining of a competer’s church like capitalism. Its not right to force 18 year olds to join or starve. That’s felony extortion and zero freedom of choice.

J: then you justly get more money, profit, in trade for your service. This is then used to go out and give to someone else for their services. Without profit the economy dies, jobs are lost, and then who can give their family their bodily needs?

W: In a proper commune, no need for profiting, no need for trade, no need for “jobs” as everyone is instead “set for life”, and “team” is where everyone obtains their needs. Things beyond necessities… are put into repositories and shared equally by all, just like the military’s “rec services”. There is no wages… all labor is voluntary… and one gets paid via Team World improving. That’s a true all for one and one for all system. Though they are being shoved-around by billers and invoicers (demanders), the Amish, Quakers, Native Indians, and maybe the Menonites… have/are tried/trying this better way. Its not utopia… its hard work… but more fair across all spectrums. No monetary discrimination. (yay!)

J: Money is not the root of all evil rather love of money is; greed is evil. Without money you have a much less just economy.

W: True, its not the money, its what people will do to get it. Eliminate it, and that factor is gone. Without money and ownership, you have NO economy, thus no pyramiding (getting a leg up on another) and no rat-racing, and no enjoyment/luxury addictions. This would be a GOOD thing, and far more Christian-like than the pyramiding done by capitalists. How about this? Allow ANYONE to print money that’s legal tender. That would be a fair thing, right? Christian money, Ed’s money, Sally’s money, all legal tender. That’s the fair way, right? No exclusives. If you did that, goodbye capitalism/pyramiding…. and then… you finally have fairness and a system where monetary discrimination is impossible.

J: So let me get this straight, I can own my own land,

W: Ownership is a man-made thing, and no other living thing on the planet… honors entitles of ownership, and especially not the Earth creator(s). Ownership is un-natural, and entitles of ownership are simply a side-affect of the great squatting festival that capitalists have been doing. No FOR SALE signs or titles of ownership… existed when mankind arrived on the planet. Its a “fake” thing…. backed by police guns. (Dial/hire-an-army to defend your nation-unto-self).

J: I can pick my own profession to develop, I can start my own business and yet I am in slavery?

W: As an 18 year old, were you forced to get a job or starve? In other words, were you extorted into joining the free marketeers pyramid scheme, or die? Most are. Where’s freedom of choice for the 18 year olds? By the way, about 5% of USA are born “set-for-life”, and will never know what a job is, never have to seek one, and never be under ANY monetary duress. Are you going to claim all men are created equal? Hardly. All men are created at the pyramid layer, and with the cronies, good name, and golden bloodlines… of their parents. Some are born set-for-life and some are born set-for-servitude. And some call pyramiding fair? hmmm. Seems a LOT discriminatory to me… and likely to the Earth creators as well.

J: The only slavery in regards to our economy is that of poor education and victomhood training. My free economics education in high school, flat out failure, but thankfully I have had enough working experiences to counteract that and I have sought to educate myself.

W: Are you going to try to be independent and self-reliant, or are you going to sign aboard a little pyramid (company) that already has a billing (hide gouging) department? Will you be working FOR another in subservience, instead of WITH others in equality and fairness? Will you be “punished” for that high school failure? Are “grades” and indicator of failure? Have you been “rated” and thus labeled for life?

W: These ARE good comments and concerns, Jim. And the original purpose of economies probably WERE the reasons you have stated. Unfortunately, it went pyramid instead of staying flat and fair. This is because of rat-racing and cookieplate chasing… or as you say, greed. But, greed is learned behavior, not human nature. (You didn’t state either way, its just an observance I’ve made over my 50+ years of researching people). Thanks for your friendly and intelligent comments, Jim. DO read that commercialism-free blog thread listed above, if you have the patience. I’ll be here to discuss more of this, if you like. I’ve enjoyed debating with you, so far. Thanks! Mr. Perry, thank you for your recent comments, as well. Best regards, gang.

Wingnut
Anti-cap (system fighter, not role-playing-people fighter)

Jun 24, 2009 - 7:19 am 46. Wingnut:

Crap, I just posted a response on the wrong blog. Multiple windows open, not to bright of me. Admin, please delete (or don’t publish) these two latest responses from me… and my apologies, one and all.

Jun 24, 2009 - 7:27 am