LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Guinness]

It sure would stop $398 multi-million dollar tax payer funded boondoggles like the Gravina "Bridge to nowhere" up in Alaska.

Why on earth would you pay for it when you can have it for quote-unquote free?

[Hockeynut!]

She could pay for the drug if she wanted, but then she couldn't continue to use state funded health care.

I do believe there are private health care options in the UK and private insurance plans. She chose to take the public route instead.

[Guinness]

She could pay for the drug if she wanted, but then she couldn't continue to use state funded health care.

I do believe there are private health care options in the UK and private insurance plans. She chose to take the public route instead.

So, in an environment where government had artificially inflated the cost and/or created conditions that lead to poor quality of medical care (yes, that is what monopolies create -- yes, a monopoly is what socialized health care is...), she was quite "free" to continue to pay for her care herself?

And it's us libertarians who don't care about other people?! Rubbish.

Let's walk through this story again... Government creates a monopoly on medical service. Medical service becomes expensive and/or of poor quality. Woman develops cancer - no doubt because of late screening policies (strawman, I know... but not unlikely). Woman seeks to extend her life. Government tells her, "no". Single-payer advocates tell woman that she's perfectly free to continue to pay for expensive/crap quality health care herself, or die straight-away - whatev... Then turns to libertarians and asks, why do you hate other people.

[Hockeynut!]

You know, I just did some research on this case and Mrs. Hirst did end up receiving the drug and that policy that Rockwell was ranting about was overturned in 2008. Now you'll need to find a different reason to hate UK health care.

Lew Rockwell should do better research. But, I guess using an outdated "horror story" to scare people is the kind of political discourse that people have come to expect. Sad.

[Guinness]

You know, I just did some research on this case and Mrs. Hirst did end up receiving the drug and that policy that Rockwell was ranting about was overturned in 2008. Now you'll need to find a different reason to hate UK health care.

Lew Rockwell should do better research. But, I guess using an outdated "horror story" to scare people is the kind of political discourse that people have come to expect. Sad.

Uh, yeah. See, the article was written by Bill Anderson, not Lew Rockwell; and Anderson went ahead and mentioned that Mrs. Hirst received the drug, due to the publicity the case received. The ARTICLE at LRC links to the original New York Times piece as well -HERE, where the observant reader can see that it is dated 2008, which, I suppose in relation to, you know, two-thousand-say...-6, would be "outdated" - a full 22 months ago.

But I guess reading the article as requested is too much to ask? Sad.

Anywho, the point of posting the article was the quote, which I highlighted and underlined, which illustrates the immorality and faulty logic of the system in particular and the collectivist mindset in general:

Patients "cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the N.H.S. and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs," the health secretary, Alan Johnson, told Parliament.

"That way lies the end of the founding principles of the N.H.S.,

Policy rescinded or not - I need no other reason to "hate" the NHS than the fact that it is immoral and destructive.

So now, who - exactly - should be doing better research?

[Hockeynut!]

So when the US was founded slaves were property and women couldn't vote. Does that mean those are still reasons why we can write off the US as immoral?

Errors will always happen. This one was corrected. Why it's still being brought up is beyond me. The article on the site didn't admit that the policy was rescinded. Why not? When that section of the article rails against the NHS because of this policy, why not state the fact that the policy was rescinded over a year ago? Scare tactics, pure and simple.

[Guinness]

So when the US was founded slaves were property and women couldn't vote. Does that mean those are still reasons why we can write off the US as immoral?

Errors will always happen. This one was corrected. Why it's still being brought up is beyond me. The article on the site didn't admit that the policy was rescinded. Why not? When that section of the article rails against the NHS because of this policy, why not state the fact that the policy was rescinded over a year ago? Scare tactics, pure and simple.

The story is only a small part of the entire article, which was about Paul Krugman's criticism of the health care reform opponents (and not about the NHS)... I think given that, and given that Anderson mentions that Mrs. Hirst was "allowed" ( ) to take the medicine, he can be forgiven for not mentioning that the policy was rescinded; because the greater point remains the immorality and faulty logic of socialist policies, not just this one particular aspect of this one collectivist policy.

Humanity has been a vigorously debating freedom and collectivism for over a hundred years. To condense the entire position of the advocates of freedom (of which this article, and LRC in general represents a segment) down to "scare tactics, pure and simple", is disingenuous. It's a perfectly legitimate criticism, and a perfectly legitimate position.

[Hockeynut!]

I didn't say one single thing against, libertarianism, I simply pointed out some things which I saw as major flaws with the article. And I think if the roles were reversed and someone who was pro socialized medicine had left out a major piece of information like this, you would have been all over it.

You're going a little overboard with the hyperbole.

[Geezer]

Correction: when charity finds a way to pay for the almost 3 trillion decaying road and highway system in this country ...

Duh... who the heck ever advocated that charity pay for our roads and bridges?

Have you ever heard of toll roads? Ever driven the PA Turnpike or driven across almost every bridge in NYC?

It sure would stop $398 multi-million dollar tax payer funded boondoggles like the Gravina "Bridge to nowhere" up in Alaska.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the Big Government effort of the left continues to advance ,the final result is easy to view. California, New York and New Jersey are economic basket cases. These 3 states lead the country in income tax, proprty tax and sales tax but are all broke. California's business losses have been huge and I doubt there are businesses looking to move into the other two. The California model will be nationalized once the liberals are done "levelling the playing field". Socialism dargs eveyone(other than bureaucrats) down to the same misearble, ever-declining level.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/rea ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
People's Republic of California ans New York 2 biggest losers population-wise. Likely would have lost more if people could get rid of their houses in those states.

[Guinness]

You're going a little overboard with the hyperbole.

You know, you're probably right; I apologize. I was still in "doublem" mode... he had me pretty frustrated/irritated with the discussion.

I generally try not to be that... abrasive. Sorry about that.

[Hockeynut!]

No worries.

[shafnutz05]

[shafnutz05]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... pular_bill

Actually, a very interesting article discussing the healthcare legislation. Essentially, Barone tries to note the last time such a widely unpopular, partisan bill was rammed through Congress with such a narrow margin. He goes the whole way back to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which you history buffs may remember that it replaced the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and made the issue of slavery up to the popular sovereignty of each state. While the Democrats passed this pro-slavery bill through (with the help of Stephen Douglas), the Republican Party was immediately formed in opposition to this bill, in addition to adopting the anti-slavery banner. In the next election (1854-55), the Democrats lost the massive majority they enjoyed, and the Republicans took solid control.

That being said, it should be interesting to see how the 2010 elections shape up. Keep in mind, we are all going to be paying higher taxes for a bill that doesn't start pouring out it's "benefits" until 2014. Just thought it was an interesting comparison.

[doublem]

When charity finds a way to pay for roads, education, heath care etc. etc. okay, but anyways Happy Festivus. Correction: when charity finds a way to pay for the almost 3 trillion decaying road and highway system in this country or a public education system, not that I have any problem with charity, it's a really good thing and it helps a lot, it is just unreasonable to think charitable outpouring would be able to fund massive programs in a country of over 300 million and then people would be companies about why the state didn't do more. Esp. when we have seen when the income tax number drops it really hasn't put a dent in those programs.

I've not suggested here that charity should pay for roads, health care and education (I do believe in free markets, however). I've stated that I believe charity is moral, while theft is not; a distinction, I unfortunately must add, that you do not (and seemingly cannot) make. I've suggested that more freedom, not less, is a better and moral solution to repair our broken health insurance/medical market. You've responded to this each time with obfuscation, misrepresentations of my position, and by blatantly ignoring it.

I usually enjoy these discussions with you, but usually you do a decent job of responding to all of what I post, and what I actually post, instead of what you want to believe I post. I suspect it's because you have no logical answer to these questions and points, but regardless, it has become frustrating to the point that I'm weary of responding to each of your questions and points (without the same respect being returned), only to continue to have it implied that "I don't care about the poor and sick". The notion that only those who support government action really care about other people is absurd, and illogical.

Well that's good. My point is that you need both. I have never tried to make a charity vs taxes argument, I simply think we need taxation to fund projects, I have always said that the argument should be government vs markets not socialism vs capitalism, plus I never really try and make moral arguments only when responding to things like the Judge said or theft is immoral. We are all morally ambiguous to some level. When someone tries to claim charity is an effective way of dealing with health care( I'm not saying you did), I used myself as an example to see what others would say, I got the response I though I would, " pay for it your self" "work harder", I can pay for it myself but the reality is that a lot of people can't for whatever reason. I don't think it is a right to not being taxed. I think what the discussion should be is to what level and what it is used for but when you start saying you support freedom more or less, that means that freedom can be measured objectively by every human being that is alive. Freedom means different things to different people. It is a matter of ideas. Anyways I done with this issue.

[doublem]

Correction: when charity finds a way to pay for the almost 3 trillion decaying road and highway system in this country ...

Duh... who the heck ever advocated that charity pay for our roads and bridges?

Have you ever heard of toll roads? Ever driven the PA Turnpike or driven across almost every bridge in NYC?

It sure would stop $398 multi-million dollar tax payer funded boondoggles like the Gravina "Bridge to nowhere" up in Alaska.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Toll roads are your argument? Really? You are going to have to do better.

[shafnutz05]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladni ... gnored-msm

Just wondering if anyone else saw this from over the weekend....our good buddy Max Baucus giving what can only be described as an "interesting" diatribe about healthcare on the Senate floor. To me, he is obviously hammered, hence the constant slurring and stumbling over his words. Check the Youtube to see for yourself, it's pretty interesting. Naturally, the mainstream media is choosing to ignore this story...imagine if you showed up to your work drunk? Although I have to cut him slack...maybe he and his pals were out remembering Ted.

[Kaizer]

awesome, i can put that right next to my Crawford Ranch playset.

[ExPatriatePen]

Correction: when charity finds a way to pay for the almost 3 trillion decaying road and highway system in this country ...

Duh... who the heck ever advocated that charity pay for our roads and bridges?

Have you ever heard of toll roads? Ever driven the PA Turnpike or driven across almost every bridge in NYC?

It sure would stop $398 multi-million dollar tax payer funded boondoggles like the Gravina "Bridge to nowhere" up in Alaska.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Toll roads are your argument? Really? You are going to have to do better.

Why because like the PA turnpike, NY state Thru-way and Varrazzano Bridge, the idea is proven?

Sure beats your Nanny State or Charity "Red Herring" proposal.

[PensFanInDC]

Obama Amends Executive Order 12425, US under authority of INTERPOL

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama-am ... y-interpol

What, exactly does this mean? It means that INTERPOL now has the full authority to conduct investigations and other law enforcement activities on U.S. soil, with full immunity from U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act and with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.

In short, a global law enforcement entity now has full law-enforcement authority in the U.S. without any check on its power afforded by U.S. law and U.S. law enforcement agencies.

You have GOT to be kidding me!

Anyone else see this on the news on Friday the 18th? What happened to that transparency we were promised?

[shafnutz05]

Wow..........I just did some reading up on that. Why in the world would Obama do that? And sneaking it in the week before Christmas to boot. If our Constitutional rights were being infringed under the Bush administration, they are being outright violated under Obama. Giving an international police agency full immunity and power on U.S. soil? I am sure this is an attempt by the president to take us one step closer to joining the International Criminal Court, which is international authoritarianism at its finest. Our freedoms are being stripped away from us one at a time, and most of the people in this country are completely oblivious.

[thehockeyguru]

Dont know if you guys have been discussing this, but what are your opinions on how the Obama administration views the protests and political unrest in Iran?

[slappybrown]

Wow..........I just did some reading up on that. Why in the world would Obama do that? And sneaking it in the week before Christmas to boot. If our Constitutional rights were being infringed under the Bush administration, they are being outright violated under Obama. Giving an international police agency full immunity and power on U.S. soil? I am sure this is an attempt by the president to take us one step closer to joining the International Criminal Court, which is international authoritarianism at its finest. Our freedoms are being stripped away from us one at a time, and most of the people in this country are completely oblivious.

I dont know anything about Interpol beyond what I have learned from the media, but this post from a former Interpol employee (full disclosure of course) indicates:

Both McCarthy and the ThreatsWatch duo's understanding of how Interpol works seems to be heavily shaped by fiction and film. In real life, Interpol is also not an "international police force." This would imply that Interpol is composed of units of officers that can chase criminals across the world, Jason Bourne style. In fact, there is no such thing as an "Interpol officer," as such. Rather, law enforcement officers from Interpol's member states are seconded to the organization from national law enforcement agencies, like the FBI, U.S. Marshals, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, ect.

This is not just a semantic distinction. Officers seconded to Interpol do not have any sort of transnational executive arrest power. Rather, officers seconded to Interpol do things like coordinate busts of international child pornography rings. The people actually making the arrests, though, are members of the national law enforcement of the country where the crimes are committed. They are not "Interpol Officers" -- because there is no such thing as an "Interpol Officer." Further, "Interpol" can't arrest an American on American soil, a Canadian on Canadian soil or a Rwandan on a Rwandan soil. Only national law enforcement can do that.

http://www.undispatch.com/node/9344" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hockeynut!]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

[shafnutz05]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

I know what Interpol is..........but thank you for your condescending assumption. My point is, the amendment to the executive order effectively gives Interpol the power to gather evidence, make arrests, and conduct investigations of Americans on American soil. So instead of having to go through normal constitutional channels, the federal government can now act under the auspices of Interpol, thus bypassing the usual checks and balances. My question to you is, why would Obama even bother sneaking this amendment in over the holidays? But thank you for your wonderfully sarcastic and condescending tone...it really helps to raise the level of dialogue.

[slappybrown]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

I know what Interpol is..........but thank you for your condescending assumption. My point is, the amendment to the executive order effectively gives Interpol the power to gather evidence, make arrests, and conduct investigations of Americans on American soil. So instead of having to go through normal constitutional channels, the federal government can now act under the auspices of Interpol, thus bypassing the usual checks and balances. My question to you is, why would Obama even bother sneaking this amendment in over the holidays? But thank you for your wonderfully sarcastic and condescending tone...it really helps to raise the level of dialogue.

That article says that Interpol cannot arrest an American on American soil. Only American law enforcement agencies may do so.