My objections to Zero's new Health care plan.

I suppose mas they quite rightly think that they cant do it. How could they possibly change the government. For a start they are split into states and have differing laws. An overwhelming task to say the least.

But I remind you of Margaret Thatchers Poll tax, this was done and dusted and was going to be so. This was an individual tax levied on each Uk resident replacing rates which was house owners only.

There was such an almighty uproar that she HAD to back off it.

In US? I don't know if that could be done, accusations of apathy by the apathetic.

Its just too big. Maybe Us should be fully governed by individual states, this would obviously bring a more personal attachment instead of a big White house on the hill surrounded by men in black that you cant get to withing 200 yds of to post a letter. Is there a phone number? E mail?

I used to have the password to G Bushes E mail account --it was funny.

 

True, but that was also an ancient tax in PNG in German times (pre WW1) - - did not pay the tax? then did not need your head (was called a "head tax" hehehe resulted in sword practice - head removed....

We have, as does NZ, the insidious GST (similar to VAT) designed to capture the self-employed tax avoider - who still avoids.... The OZ uproar was not quite loud enough here and suffer the consequences - no chance of repeal... Their position in USA is going to be FAR, FAR WORSE....

 

I would laugh if this comment did not display the hypocricy of the left. Your talking points are cut and pasted from almost all liberal sites. If you are worried about infant mortality, then quit allowing the abortion clinics to make millions as they are now doing, with the further expansion of funding in what was called stimulas for the country.

The healthcare debate is not about healthcare, only controlling the population in their every move each day. Fat tax, sugar tax, energy tax, gas gushler tax and the likes. What happened to the 95 percent of all citizens will get a break? But this is a comical comment when you actually read many parts of the bill. This is from Omedia's own buddies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_abortion

Parts of this new push will label abortions as just another medical procedure and further force mainstream America to accept the mandate in all medical facilities to provide services that only the well funded abortion clinics now provide, making millions. Yet we see doctors and hospitals being demeanized for their charges. Sick bunch thats running this country. Even O supports having his grandchildren aborted, burdens of the state as he states.

 

The male of our species should not even talk about abortion. What do we know of the emotion the pain of being ***** at 16 and HAVING to have a baby whilst at school thats possibly not even the same race.

Even a normal fetus of a loving marriage may have to be aborted for a thousand reasons but more importantly for the reason we as males cant even think of and are beyond our intellect and understanding.

 

Well.. abortion should be more or less free so nobody wouldn't make millions with it.. Don't see the point what's the connection to infant mortality, thou a great numbers of unwanted/health issues/etc might increase the mortality too.. much better still to provide proper education instead of phony moralism..

 

I did not create the red herring of abortion. Thats an issue owned by one party in this country and part of their fund raisers.

 

Get back on track about the bill or suffer exquisite pain for ever after... It is your country... You are at a do or die crossroad.... - gutless arseholes seem to deserve their fate of hell on earth.... in a place called USA... DO stop wineing and wingeing like a bunch of loosers... No guns needed, just co-operation across party lines, - - - - - - petitions and present those to those ********* you all supposedly elected NOW....

 

More ********. What 'W' did was to prohibit public funding of abortions. You see Frosty, the US government presently only pays for a minority of healthcare costs. The majority is paid for by people's own personal funds, typically backed up by private insurance plans. Some people object to abortions (presumably on religious or 'right to life grounds) and so object to having their tax money pay for them, even while they are permitted under the law. And the US is by no means the most rabidly anti-abortion country; try Ireland for example.

But research was the gist of the entire debate, not "doing anything about it", just the pure research and who funds it. There's never a shortage of funding in a capitalist system for ideas that hold the promise of future profits. The drug companies are some of the wealthiest on earth and if they see a promising avenue of research, they will surely fund it. And we have not even mentioned the many private foundations that fund research.

On the technical side, there is no longer even a need for the specifically 'embryonic' stem cells as it has been deduced how to make them from ANY stem cell.

As I've told you it's all just a political football, which you are apparently unable to discern from you vantage point, no offense intended. You're just not getting the full picture.

Jimbo

 

Casey's Daily Dispatch subscribers@caseyresearch.com copy&paste "... Dude, Where Are My Rights?

Health care reform has been in the news a lot recently, and I feel compelled to mention that nobody has touched on what I think is the fundamental issue at hand – the issue of rights.

Although health care and health insurance are often used interchangeably, there is an important difference between the two. Whereas “health care” consists of the actual goods and services necessary for medical care (i.e., consumer goods), “health insurance” is one means of affording such care. The two are closely related but distinct. If health care is a consumer good, like shoes, does it make sense for the president to base his reform plan on a belief, “that every American has the right to affordable, comprehensive, and portable health coverage”? In a word – no. Proponents of the Austrian School of Economics would recognize this statement as a logical and economic fallacy.

Here’s why.

Throughout time, human rights included the right not to be murdered, not to be *****, not to be robbed, not to be kidnapped, etc. These are the classical "negative" rights. A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another human being or group of people – including the state – in the form of violence or coercion.

Firmly rooted in socialist-progressivism, many politicians today invoke so-called “positive rights” – the right to such things as food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. And whether the advocates actually believe it or not is a non-issue – in this universe, it is empirically impossible to simultaneously apply a positive right to all people.

That’s because:

The only way to apply a positive right to a consumer good (like a right to medical care) is by violating the negative rights of certain persons. In this instance, taxation is the only way that government can apply a positive right to an economic good. In other words – to steal resources from productive persons to pay for benefits to others. Taxes, by definition, involve people being subjected to a coercive action of the state – explicitly protected by negative rights. This coercive action violates innocent individuals’ rights to life, liberty, etc., by not allowing them to use their earnings to support their own lives.
Socialism in Medicine

Since we’re kind of on the subject of health care reform, I have a few thoughts on the whole socialism in medicine issue also.

One of the most important insights of the Austrian School of Economics is the extraordinary complexity of the free market. It is so complex that no single individual, no committee, and no computer program can account for more than a tiny fraction of the factors that drive a modern economy.

Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, made this the central point of his writings for the last 35 years of his life. He proved that only through the private property social order and the free interplay of pricing can society become the beneficiary of the market’s (masses of individuals) enormous quantities of relevant knowledge. There is no possible way that a committee of salaried bureaucrats can plan an entire economy or even one industry. Ergo, socialized medicine will not work anywhere ever. These schemes will inevitably lead to rationing of care, a lack of adequate medical equipment and supplies, skyrocketing costs, and a general increase in patients’ dissatisfaction.

The fact that socialized medicine cannot work has not stopped the socialist-progressives from giving it the old college try – over and over, and over again. During the past fifty years, most of the industrialized world (including the U.S., but to a lesser degree) has socialized its medical industries.

Under a policy of socialized medicine, capital investment in new technologies like an MRI machine is considered a cost rather than an income-producing asset that reduces real costs. William L. Anderson’s “Socialism and Medicine, Part 2,” published in the June 2008 Freedom Daily, provides a detailed analysis of this issue. In the article, Anderson cites a column by Paul Krugman, the well-known economist for the New York Times and Princeton University, who recently declared that medical care in the United States is costly because of high-quality medical capital such as MRI and CAT scan devices. His reasoning (or rather, the lack thereof) follows:

* Those devices are expensive.

* Doctors charge a lot for tests from those machines, since the devices are costly.

* Because the tests are expensive, they drive up health care costs.

* If you want to have less expensive medical care, then you do away with such expensive items or more strictly ration them.

No “economist” can be forgiven for constructing such a faulty chain of economic logic.

Most importantly, Krugman neglects to consider what high-quality medical capital devices like the MRI replace. In a matter of minutes and without the use of a scalpel, they allow doctors to perform exploratory surgery and diagnose countless disorders for a large number of people. Before the creation of such devices, doctors had to perform invasive procedures that took infinitely longer to perform and for which there was a recovery period for the patient. Diagnosing such problems today is done at a fraction of the total costs that used to be involved.

Krugman erroneously appeals to the discredited cost-of-production theory of value. Carl Menger conclusively demonstrated that demand for the final product is what gives value to production and capital goods, not the other way around. Technical jargon aside, this concept is essential in explaining why Krugman and others like him advocate the policies they do and why they are so wrong when they do so. An economist’s theory of value is what guides all aspects of his or her work. If his underlying theory is fallacious, all his conclusions will be too.

What happens when people like Krugman are taken seriously? An excerpt from Anderson’s aforementioned article helps clarify.

I work in Allegany County, Maryland, and we have three MRI devices in this county of about 80,000 people. I have had two MRIs done, which were performed the same week my doctor scheduled them for me. Montreal, Canada, on the other hand, has about 3.6 million people in its metropolitan area, and there are also three MRI devices, one for more than a million people. Anyone needing an MRI there has to wait at least six months.

Why the difference? The answer lies in the somewhat obscure fact that under a socialistic system, capital becomes a liability rather than an asset. The reason is that under a system of private profit, capital is used by its owners to provide an income; in socialism, capital does not provide an income to anyone. Rather, it is an expense item and nothing else.

Thus, demand for high-tech medical care equipment plummets under such a system, R&D to create new such machines stops, manufacturers go out of business, and people die.

With all that said, I apologize if I came across as too preachy in today’s missive. That was not my intention. Certain issues just really fire me up more than others.

And that, dear readers, is that for today.

See you tomorrow in the weekend edition. In the meantime, thank you for reading and for being a subscriber to a Casey Research service.

Chris Wood
Casey Research, LLC ..."

 

Thanks, Mas. Great post!

Jimbo

 

Here is another relevant read http://lafferhealthcarereport.org/files/Laffer-HealthCareReport.pdf

 

the universe is a cold uncaring thing subject only to its own laws and has no concept of your rights

rights dont exist except in the abstract a creation of the thinking mind.

rights are the collective agreement on what they are, nothing more nothing less. anything else is bs

if the collective agreement is you have a right to health care, then you have a right to health care

society can also order rights in hierarchal order ie certain rights take precedence over other rights, all rights may not be equal

 

Your concept of "rights"as delineated above is not compatible with individual freedom. Since prosperity flows from individual freedom, your concept of rights is also incompatible with prosperity. Societies that adopt a philosophy like the one you adhere to always wind up poorer and subjugated to an abusive, oversized, overreaching ruling class.

Jimbo

 

i can proclaim all the rights i want but unless others agree, im only whistling against the wind

do slaves have individual freedom?

cant prosperity flow from slavery?

rights dont exist unless its by common agreement

you can have all the rights to property you want but if i come steal it from you and you cant get it back from me, youll need societies help to exercise your ownership rights

 

"you can have all the rights to property you want but if i come steal it from you and you cant get it back from me, youll need societies help to exercise your ownership rights"

No I won't.