The health care debate... OR how there's not been one.

[Robustian]

I'll try again: Where do these assorted bureaucrats come from? From where do they get their power?

You can try until the cows come home. You have no point.

Please attempt to get a USDA Forest Service employee to act solely to your benefit.

And when you find out they don't give a rat's behind what you or I think, I think you'll get picture.

BTW, very nice, but totally unreal argument. In the future, such stupid responsese will be flamed.

[Hamilay]

I'll try again: Where do these assorted bureaucrats come from? From where do they get their power?

You can try until the cows come home. You have no point.

Please attempt to get a USDA Forest Service employee to act solely to your benefit.

And when you find out they don't give a rat's behind what you or I think, I think you'll get picture.

BTW, very nice, but totally unreal argument. In the future, such stupid responsese will be flamed.

I don't think you quite understand what the word 'flame' means.

[Robustian]

What Pantless Hero is trying to say is that preventing expensive treatments might be profitable to you, but it's not profitable to the manufacturers of expensive treatments. These same manufacturers that have a strong say in the prices and availability of inexpensive preventative medicine.

No, he's not. He didn't say that, AT ALL.

And, uhhh, can you please describe for me what "inexpensive preventative medicine" is?

Gladly. There was a case not too long ago of a child with an abscessed tooth. Unfortunately, root canal procedures cost several thousand dollars and the parent's insurance wouldn't cover enough of it. So the infection spread into the child's brain. Of course the critically ill child was saved to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars that the insurance company also wouldn't cover and which bankrupted the parent, costing the parent her apartment, car and everything she owned. Of course, the hospital got their money and the insurance company got to keep all the premiums they charged said parent for their worthless insurance.

ANd the child got permanent brain damage.

I describe regular dental check-ups and root canal procedures as inexpensive preventative medicine.

I'd just call it a case of parental neglect.

[Robustian]

The forum equivalent of a fillibuster won't convince anyone of anything other than your unwillingness to engage in dialogue.

I'm not. The person argued that I was advocating precisely teh opposite of what my initial post had VERY CLEARLY and repeatedly stated.

Obviously, the first post was not read.

[Blouman Empire]

Your silly.

I'll try again: Where do these assorted bureaucrats come from? From where do they get their power?

Actually I'm going to go on a limb here and say that even if bureaucrats do get their powers from the government, it is still open to abuse and negligent by these bureaucrats.

After all if they always did only what they were allowed to by what the government said so we wouldn't need to have people investigating police forces as well as other government agencies.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cen ... 81236.html

[Blouman Empire]

BTW, very nice, but totally unreal argument. In the future, such stupid responsese will be flamed.

In the future you soon won't be posting on here, if you do that.

[Sdaeriji]

This whole "plan" is just a carbon copy of McCain's health care proposal from the election. In fact, it could have been copy-pasted from there for all it's worth. There was a thread on the old forum around that time where I thoroughly deconstructed that foolish plan; I don't feel like hunting it down for this joke of a thread.

The powerful irony of holding up the massively-subsidized agricultural industry as a beacon of free market efficiency nonwithstanding, the discussion can be boiled down to one simple observation: either you believe the government has a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of its citizens, or you do not. If you do, then there is no question that the current health care system is deeply flawed and needs to be replaced. If you do not, then there is no reasoning with you that the current system is flawed, for it accomplishes what you believe it sets out to do: make money.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

No, he's not. He didn't say that, AT ALL.

And, uhhh, can you please describe for me what "inexpensive preventative medicine" is?

Gladly. There was a case not too long ago of a child with an abscessed tooth. Unfortunately, root canal procedures cost several thousand dollars and the parent's insurance wouldn't cover enough of it. So the infection spread into the child's brain. Of course the critically ill child was saved to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars that the insurance company also wouldn't cover and which bankrupted the parent, costing the parent her apartment, car and everything she owned. Of course, the hospital got their money and the insurance company got to keep all the premiums they charged said parent for their worthless insurance.

ANd the child got permanent brain damage.

I describe regular dental check-ups and root canal procedures as inexpensive preventative medicine.

I'd just call it a case of parental neglect.

Well, of course you would. The Free Market loves us all and wraps us up in blankets and cuddles us every night. Insurance companies only have our best interests in mind and would never harm a fly in favor of their bottom line. Hospitals are where angels frolic tapping the sick with magic wands to make everything all better. If only that wicked parent hadn't been so selfish as to rely on a service she paid for out of her paycheck every week all would have been well in Free Market Land.

*a butterfly flutters by*

[The Cat-Tribe]

Perhaps you should look up "democracy" or "elections" in a basic textbook.

The united states federal government:

We elect 1 president packaged with 1 Vice president.

100 senators

435 Representatives in the House.

There are approximately 1.8 million other people who comprise the federal government. We have absolutely no say in what they do, nor are they responsible to us directly.

Um. You contradict yourself. We elect representatives who hire and oversee the federal employees (a third of which are in the Defense Department). Of course the President doesn't personally sign every check, watch every campground, etc. But their every action is controlled by our representatives through public laws, executive orders, etc. And the actions of each branch are counter-balanced by the other branches. We have tremendous say in what they do.

We live in a country with over 300 million people. Obviously it is going to take a fair number of people to run the government and not everyone of them is going to be directly elected. JUST AS IN THE MARKETPLACE, outcomes will involve thousands upon thousands of individual decisions over which you have no direct influence.

I love how you fantasize about a free market, but complain about the reality of scale when it comes to government.

[Sdaeriji]

In a related note, I sincerely wish this forum had stricter rules regarding debate like the RP forums have regarding RP.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I'll try again: Where do these assorted bureaucrats come from? From where do they get their power?

You can try until the cows come home. You have no point.

Please attempt to get a USDA Forest Service employee to act solely to your benefit.

And when you find out they don't give a rat's behind what you or I think, I think you'll get picture.

BTW, very nice, but totally unreal argument. In the future, such stupid responsese will be flamed.

Why should a USDA Forest Service employee act solely to my benefit? Aren't there 300 million other Americans whose benefit should be considered?

And good luck convincing that doctor, pharmacist, or Wal-Mart clerk to act solely to your benefit.

[Soheran]

Please attempt to get a USDA Forest Service employee to act solely to your benefit.

Why on Earth should such an employee act "solely" for my benefit?

I mean, you do have a point, somewhere buried in here... there is a principal-agent problem inherent in any government that is supposed to represent the popular interest. Thankfully, in practice, because people actually interested in public service are much more likely to be in government than in business, much of this problem is obviated. And, of course, the private sector does not actually avoid the principal-agent problem itself--the separation of ownership and management is fundamental to the corporate model.

The problem in government would be obviated even more if we did not have gross private concentrations of power and wealth that distort the incentives of public servants. But I digress.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

In a related note, I sincerely wish this forum had stricter rules regarding debate like the RP forums have regarding RP.

I'm tempted to agree, but they can't be too strict, or else who would I mock?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Your silly.

I'll try again: Where do these assorted bureaucrats come from? From where do they get their power?

Actually I'm going to go on a limb here and say that even if bureaucrats do get their powers from the government, it is still open to abuse and negligent by these bureaucrats.

After all if they always did only what they were allowed to by what the government said so we wouldn't need to have people investigating police forces as well as other government agencies.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cen ... 81236.html

I never said bureaucrats are perfect. No one is. That is why we have government. And, in the U.S. at least, checks and balances.

In fact, government agencies investigating other government agencies is an excellent example of how Robustian's claim that government employees are "responsible to no one" is bullshit.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Please attempt to get a USDA Forest Service employee to act solely to your benefit.

Why on Earth should such an employee act "solely" for my benefit?

Jinx. You owe me a Coke.

[Blouman Empire]

I never said bureaucrats are perfect. No one is. That is why we have government. And, in the U.S. at least, checks and balances.

In fact, government agencies investigating other government agencies is an excellent example of how Robustian's claim that government employees are "responsible to no one" is bullshit.

Was he making that claim?

I couldn't be arsed readin over his OP.

[Sdaeriji]

I never said bureaucrats are perfect. No one is. That is why we have government. And, in the U.S. at least, checks and balances.

In fact, government agencies investigating other government agencies is an excellent example of how Robustian's claim that government employees are "responsible to no one" is bullshit.

Was he making that claim?

I couldn't be arsed readin over his OP.

He surely did. Wasn't in the OP, though.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4360&start=50#p131146

[The Cat-Tribe]

I never said bureaucrats are perfect. No one is. That is why we have government. And, in the U.S. at least, checks and balances.

In fact, government agencies investigating other government agencies is an excellent example of how Robustian's claim that government employees are "responsible to no one" is bullshit.

Was he making that claim?

I couldn't be arsed readin over his OP.

The relevant exchange:

I'm curious. Who do you think, in a democracy, is the government?

Assorted beaurocrats, appointed and responsible to no one.

[Blouman Empire]

The relevant exchange:

I'm curious. Who do you think, in a democracy, is the government?

Assorted beaurocrats, appointed and responsible to no one.

Oh I see, sometimes it is best to hit the back button. But then I don't mind going on tangents.

[The Cat-Tribe]

This gives me an excuse to quote Federalist #51:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

[Robustian]

Please attempt to get a USDA Forest Service employee to act solely to your benefit.

Why on Earth should such an employee act "solely" for my benefit?

I mean, you do have a point, somewhere buried in here... there is a principal-agent problem inherent in any government that is supposed to represent the popular interest. Thankfully, in practice, because people actually interested in public service are much more likely to be in government than in business, much of this problem is obviated. And, of course, the private sector does not actually avoid the principal-agent problem itself--the separation of ownership and management is fundamental to the corporate model.

The problem in government would be obviated even more if we did not have gross private concentrations of power and wealth that distort the incentives of public servants. But I digress.

You don't understand. He does not act AT ALL FOR YOUR BENEFIT. He acts according to what motivations his superiors have imposed upon him, which is to maximize their benefit, not yours. His supervisors act to improve their own standing in those above them. All of which have agendas, ideas, and ideological ideals they impose upon those below them.

All of which are motivated to provide justification to get more money, more power, more turf, and more control.

The CONCEPTUAL purpose of the USFS is to manage the nation's forest for the nation's benefit. However, the USFS is highly incompetent, extremely inefficient, and is constantly engaged in an ideological struggle to impose the top management's "image" of what it should do. At the same time, it has all but completely failed to serve the public's interest.

Yet, the USFS is a smallish agency. It has no profit motive. It is the epitome of what you claim a government health service would be like. And it sucks royally. It's job is much simpler, and the "cared for patient" will never complain. All it needs is to follow the science and implement it. But it can't. Privately owned forests are VASTLY better managed.

Yet, you're trying to make the case that all these people are responsible and responsive to the public. They're not. They're just hired people who have no altruistic motivation, other than to find ways to move up for more pay and benefits.

[Robustian]

This whole "plan" is just a carbon copy of McCain's health care proposal from the election. In fact, it could have been copy-pasted from there for all it's worth. There was a thread on the old forum around that time where I thoroughly deconstructed that foolish plan; I don't feel like hunting it down for this joke of a thread.

The powerful irony of holding up the massively-subsidized agricultural industry as a beacon of free market efficiency nonwithstanding, the discussion can be boiled down to one simple observation: either you believe the government has a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of its citizens, or you do not. If you do, then there is no question that the current health care system is deeply flawed and needs to be replaced. If you do not, then there is no reasoning with you that the current system is flawed, for it accomplishes what you believe it sets out to do: make money.

Did you just make that up?

Frankly, I think you have an agenda, and "best results" has absolutely no figuring in that agenda.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Please attempt to get a USDA Forest Service employee to act solely to your benefit.

Why on Earth should such an employee act "solely" for my benefit?

I mean, you do have a point, somewhere buried in here... there is a principal-agent problem inherent in any government that is supposed to represent the popular interest. Thankfully, in practice, because people actually interested in public service are much more likely to be in government than in business, much of this problem is obviated. And, of course, the private sector does not actually avoid the principal-agent problem itself--the separation of ownership and management is fundamental to the corporate model.

The problem in government would be obviated even more if we did not have gross private concentrations of power and wealth that distort the incentives of public servants. But I digress.

You don't understand. He does not act AT ALL FOR YOUR BENEFIT. He acts according to what motivations his superiors have imposed upon him, which is to maximize their benefit, not yours. His supervisors act to improve their own standing in those above them. All of which have agendas, ideas, and ideological ideals they impose upon those below them.

All of which are motivated to provide justification to get more money, more power, more turf, and more control.

The CONCEPTUAL purpose of the USFS is to manage the nation's forest for the nation's benefit. However, the USFS is highly incompetent, extremely inefficient, and is constantly engaged in an ideological struggle to impose the top management's "image" of what it should do. At the same time, it has all but completely failed to serve the public's interest.

Yet, the USFS is a smallish agency. It has no profit motive. It is the epitome of what you claim a government health service would be like. And it sucks royally. It's job is much simpler, and the "cared for patient" will never complain. All it needs is to follow the science and implement it. But it can't. Privately owned forests are VASTLY better managed.

Yet, you're trying to make the case that all these people are responsible and responsive to the public. They're not. They're just hired people who have no altruistic motivation, other than to find ways to move up for more pay and benefits.

You've convinced me. We need privately owned police departments immediately!

[Milks Empire]

They're just hired people who have no altruistic motivation, other than to find ways to move up for more pay and benefits.

And the private sector is any different exactly how?

[Robustian]

I never said bureaucrats are perfect. No one is. That is why we have government. And, in the U.S. at least, checks and balances.

In fact, government agencies investigating other government agencies is an excellent example of how Robustian's claim that government employees are "responsible to no one" is bullshit.

LOL, you don't read the newspapers? You don't pay attention to your city, state, local, and federal government?

Accountability? Real, honest to goodness accountability? nowhere to be found.

Nobody even bothered to verify that Obama is legitemately a citizen. No, not conspiracy talk.

It's true. Whether he's a citizen or not has never been investigated. Literally. NO PERSON ANYWHERE in the process did it.

And, I would suggest this is true for MANY people elected. Accountability? It does not exist in any real, substantive fashion. This is why the founding fathers suggested handing the central government very few things to do, little power and even less authority over people.

they did not view government through the rosy glasses of ideological radicalism, where government is considered holy.