quote:"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.
Coons responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."
She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"
How is she still around?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Because in debates the actual text of the constitution is often ignored in favor of simply discussing hot button issues.
While tests are illegal for voter eligibility, I would have no problem with candidates being required to pass a basic constitutional exam or else fail to qualify for candidacy on election day. It would have hilarious and shocking results on the day of election.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
To be fair, she was probably making a point about the "actual text" in which the specific phrase she mentioned doesn't appear. It's a pretty lame point, but she wasn't outright denying that the 1st amendment contains anything related to the matter.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
It's more that a pretty lame point. You hear the phrase "separation of church and state" and you should think of the first amendment. Talking about the exact phrasing is pointless and an evasion of actual dialogue, especially in a public debate like that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Well, a later exchange was this:
Coons: The government shall make no establishment of religion.
O'Donnell: That's in the First Amendment?
So yeah, his wording wasn't exactly right, but this time she wasn't responding with the "the words 'separation between church and state' aren't in there" canard. She was questioning a passable paraphrase of the actual language.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
So THAT'S what a microcosm looks like.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Because in debates the actual text of the constitution is often ignored in favor of simply discussing hot button issues.
O'Donnell's antics are not indications of Rand Paul-esque selective parsing of the constitution for electoral gain (which I find more odious) but rather of actual, legitimate ignorance of what the constitution actually says versus the common 'constitution loving' tea partiers' easily lampoonable interpretation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And predictably enough she knows zero about science and repeated the whole "evolution is a theory not a fact" stupidity, heck I may have misheard but I suspect she may even have said "... its not even a theory..." as well.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
O'Donnell is a Palin plant to make Palin look smarter by comparison.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And by plant, I mean zucchini.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I thought it was pretty hilarious too. I think part of what she was trying to get at was misunderstood. The first amendment prevents the government from establishing a state religion. She was probably referring to some of the other aspects of separation of church and state that have popped up over the years and are not in the consitution, but she didn't do a decent job of explaining that. She never does.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I have been rather appalled by the news presentation of this. I am personally a gigantic fan of the separation of Church and State, but I don't think the point she was making is utterly stupid or shows her utter ignorance.
Most people seem to think that all of the founders wanted a complete separation and that's just false. There were State Religions that continued for years after the Bill of Rights was law and nobody saw a conflict. Current Constitional law is not based solely on the Constitution and I do not see any harm in addressing that fact. Hearing the context, I think that's the point she was getting at. If the attacks against this idea were more than character attacks, I'd be all on board. But the majority of what I've seen is character attacks (even on NPR!) and I find that upsetting.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
If that was what she was trying to address, than she should have said that.
Asking "Where in the constitution is separation of church and state?" in a public debate, and then later fumbling over the details of other amendments, shows more of a lack of understanding. Not a nuanced discussion of the evolution of the Constitution.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I don't understand why "where in the constitution is separation of church and state?" is so controversial. It's not there.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
The phrase, no. But the concept, yes.
I don't think she was arguing about the exact phrasing, at first.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
The concept as it relates to teaching intelligent design in schools is not there. At least, the people who wrote it certainly did not mean it that way. Clearly, modern law has extrapolated from that.
Please note: I am extremely against intelligent design being taught in schools. I just don't think her statement is worthy of the ridicule it is receiving.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Do you think she has enough of an understanding of the constitution to be a good senator?
I think that's the point that everyone is ridiculing. She has shown several times that has a poor understanding.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think that she would be a horrible senator partially because of the way she seems to think that Constitutional law should be completely based on the text of the Constitution and the original intent. However, this is a main tenet of tea party thought and I think that ridiculing it does not help create a productive conversation. Explaining the full repercussions of this thought process and why it's a bad idea does create a constructive conversation.
*Edited for spelling
[ October 20, 2010, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tenet
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Tenet
Eh. I could make some sense out of it.
I do completely agree with Amanecer's overall point, though.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't understand why "where in the constitution is separation of church and state?" is so controversial. It's not there.
"Separation of powers" and "Checks and balances" isn't there either.
Multiple more narrow wordings, specifically preventing the establishment of a state religion or giving preference to individual denominations, were rejected prior to the much broader (especially in that context) "respecting an establishment of religion" language that we have now.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
While the words aren't there, separation of powers and checks and balances were intentionally established in the Constitution. The idea of a separation of church and state as we think of it now (keep all forms of government out of religion and religion out of all forms of government) was most certainly not what was intended in the first amendment. Until the 1830s. Massachusetts required every person to belong to some religion and pay tithes to it. Many other states had official state religions. The religious clauses in the first amendment were meant to keep the federal government from getting in to the religion business.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A seven day education on the constitution.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The religious clauses in the first amendment were meant to keep the federal government from getting in to the religion business.
The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the Fourteenth Amendment as bringing this same protection to the state level. If that's her issue then she's arguing about the wrong Amendment or the wrong branch of government. Incidentally, she made a stupidly wrong comment on that point as well:
quote:The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards.
When it comes to schools this is virtually never the case. The Supreme Court rarely uses "local standards" as the overriding principal.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not sure if that's a silly mistake or a clever pun.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
MattP, I'm not arguing that she's super knowledgeable about Constitutional law- clearly she's not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You know, a variety of things come to mind after watching these videos.
First off, there's no way she's any sort of constitutional expert. A belief in small government and in Federal overreach is one thing, but not knowing what is in the first and fourteenth amendments? Wow. You know there are a lot of amendments that don't affect our everyday lives, but some of them are utterly key to understanding our basic civil rights. Those two are two of the biggest. But then I hear that her special expertise was a week long seminar at a Republican think tank, and I begin to dislike her even more. For not only is she ignorant, but she's misrepresenting herself as an expert on a subject she clearly has a knowledge deficiency in. I don't like being called stupid to my face.
Moving on, trying to defend her for some sort of literal nitpicking, that the actual words weren't there, ignores too many aspects of that debate. One, the fact that she smiled after what she said. I think she thought she was zinging him. Like "Oh snap Coons, that's NOT in the Constitution." She follows that up by repeatedly asking about Coons' repetition of a paraphrasing of the first amendment and more facial expressions that look like sarcastic disbelief. She makes the same facial expressions earlier in the debate when talking about religion in schools and trying to differentiate between intelligent design and creationism, which floored me a little.
I have respectable disagreements with her on Constitutional interpretive theory. Disagreements like that are nothing to resort to name-calling over, as they stem from an honest disagreement. I think Scalia is wrong, but man, the guy is smart, and writes like a mad genius. Christine O'Donnell however is no mad genius. She's just mad.
Furthermore, even if she did understand the Constitution, how the hell is that the only criteria that she'll be using to base her decision on what to vote for in Congress? She's telling us that is her only litmus test? So anything that's constitutional she'll vote for, and unconstitutional she'll vote against? That means she can't vote for a lot of her own religion-inspired legislation that might cross her desk, and might have to vote to legalize anything from marijuana to prostitution, none of which are prohibited by the constitution. It's one of those stupid statements that sounds good to a certain subset of people, but means absolutely nothing at all.
This woman really irks me, not because she's stupid, but because she's so blissful and forthright in her ignorance.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'd be happy with someone who voted against anything unconstitutional no matter how loony she otherwise was.
Someone who votes against things are just a roadblock. Not someone who uses the force of law to coerce others to live by their own wild socio-political schemes.
That being said, I figure O'Donnell has her pick and choose approach to the constitution just like every other politician. She's still a better pick than Coons or Castle. Just like McLame was a better choice than Obama. One still should bring a motion sickness bag into the polling place.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: This woman really irks me, not because she's stupid, but because she's so blissful and forthright in her ignorance.
As well as being smug and smirky. She's Sarah Palin (even) lite(er). She appeals to people who resent smart, educated people for being smarter and better educated than they are. It is the popular kids looking down on the nerds. I wonder if the downfall of US politics stems from learning our voting habits from holding class elections in high school.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Her ignorance of the document aside, she's not saying anything that Pat Buchanan and his ilk haven't been saying for decades. "America is a Christian country."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
America can be a Christian country while still separating church and state. What she is saying is a major step beyond that claim. I don't think Buchanan would deny that the basis for such a separation is set in the Constitution. He disagrees with the Supreme Court on what that entails though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think there's definitely a strong air of people resenting people who are smarter and better educated than them (plus, any movement that springs largely from evangelist Christians is going to run afoul of education and reason), but, as with most reform movements, a lot of this comes from people feeling that the government is not doing right by them.
I had a thread about this a bit ago that didn't seem to get off the ground. In terms of selecting political candidates, how has picking the "smart" ones really been working out? I think there's a fair number people who really don't feel like they have much to lose by selecting a Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell or even a George W. Bush (although I've got say that their unwillingness to own up to their responsibility for the mess that last one got us strikes me as dangerous).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: America can be a Christian country while still separating church and state. What she is saying is a major step beyond that claim. I don't think Buchanan would deny that the basis for such a separation is set in the Constitution. He disagrees with the Supreme Court on what that entails though.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that would count as a violation of separation for someone like Buchanan would be making particular religions against the law. I don't think O'Donnell is in favor of that either.
The rhetoric is a little different, but there is no practical difference.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'd be happy with someone who voted against anything unconstitutional no matter how loony she otherwise was.
Someone who votes against things are just a roadblock. Not someone who uses the force of law to coerce others to live by their own wild socio-political schemes.
That being said, I figure O'Donnell has her pick and choose approach to the constitution just like every other politician. She's still a better pick than Coons or Castle. Just like McLame was a better choice than Obama. One still should bring a motion sickness bag into the polling place.
I think this shows how fundamentally unfit libertarians are to discuss politics.
You can't say "you figure" and other 'from the gut' style truthiness to discuss this at the sametime as state with complete conviction about what the text/meaning of the constitution actually is.
Miss "Peggy Hill" #2 there is ignorant of the constitution, why would you support or figure her the "lesser" of two evils when almost your entire paradigm is practically based on the specific idea of determining the correct meaning, wording, and content of the constitution?
It's partisan thats what it is, youll ignore or downplay her very obvious record just so you won't have to risk the other guy who you disagree with on principle from winning.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Whose Christine Odonnel? I heard she was black or something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No, that's Sharron Angle and she's Asian. Looks Hispanic though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: That being said, I figure O'Donnell has her pick and choose approach to the constitution just like every other politician. She's still a better pick than Coons or Castle.
I really want to understand how your political narrative could end up vetting O'Donnell as a better pick. This sounds like the most desperate libertarianism ever.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: That being said, I figure O'Donnell has her pick and choose approach to the constitution just like every other politician. She's still a better pick than Coons or Castle.
I really want to understand how your political narrative could end up vetting O'Donnell as a better pick. This sounds like the most desperate libertarianism ever.
Especially given that her inadequate and faulty grasp of the constitution should make you question whether she is actually capable of making constitutionally sound decisions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The more government sucks the better the argument for getting rid of it.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Do we move on to anarchy or revert back to the monarchy system?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Feudalism would be my bet.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Inadequate understanding of the constitution is better than the outright contempt for it shown by most republicans and all democrats.
When Nancy Pelosi was asked if the health care bill was constitutional, rather than defending it with a catch-all version of the commerce clause or even a carte blanc treatment of the general welfare clause, the best she could come up with was "Are you KIDDING?"
Ignorance and even stupidity can be educated out (to a certain extent.) A complete disregard for the constitution can not be. And neither can the arrogance of the last 4 years.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How is "Are you kidding" even anywhere close to "contempt"? Shouldnt the context easily be "Are you kidding how could you even think its unconstitutional?!"
Since after all, national healthcare IS constitutional.
A senator that has no understand of the constitution just ends up being a waste of tax payers money at best and a catastrophy waiting to happen at worst.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:I think this shows how fundamentally unfit libertarians are to discuss politics.
Maybe in Blayne's Maoist Canada. Fortunately I live in the People's Republic of California where, for now, we still have free speech and can vote without going to the gulag for flipping the wrong switch.
quote: You can't say "you figure" and other 'from the gut' style truthiness to discuss this at the sametime as state with complete conviction about what the text/meaning of the constitution actually is.
So your problem is the way she speaks, not the content of what she's saying?
I believe someone above mentioned that she was taking issue with concept that the first amendment builds a wall of separation between church and state. I disagree with that assessment but that doesn't mean she doesn't know what's in the constitution.
quote: Miss "Peggy Hill" #2 there is ignorant of the constitution, why would you support or figure her the "lesser" of two evils when almost your entire paradigm is practically based on the specific idea of determining the correct meaning, wording, and content of the constitution?
The reason I take the lesser of 3 evils approach with her is because the other two have demonstrated their exuberance to vote for bills that will destroy the American economy. Cap and Trade and Health Care. DE can vote this crazy puta out of office once those issues are repealed/stopped.
quote: It's partisan thats what it is, youll ignore or downplay her very obvious record just so you won't have to risk the other guy who you disagree with on principle from winning.
Why, yes, I vote against people who support collectivism. I often vote for lesser collectivists to stop greater collectivists. I have voted for religious nutjobs to keep collectivists out of office.
Is that partisan or voting strategically? What good would it do me to vote Libertarian every election when they can't win? I voted for Bush twice to stop a much greater evil! Can you imagine if Gore or sKerry had won? If you fervently disagree with everything I say and get excited dreaming about that what-if, then you understand why I'm happy about taking that bullet in the shoulder instead of the forehead.
There simply are NOT any good candidates. If someone believes in freedom they're probably off exercising it instead of working night and day to Control Other People's Lives through force of the ballot box. For those of us who believe in both social and economic freedom, we have to take a big bite out of a turd sandwich no matter WHO we vote for.
And Blayne, I would appreciate not being told that I am unfit to discuss politics in my own damn country.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: When Nancy Pelosi was asked if the health care bill was constitutional, rather than defending it with a catch-all version of the commerce clause or even a carte blanc treatment of the general welfare clause, the best she could come up with was "Are you KIDDING?"
Ignorance and even stupidity can be educated out (to a certain extent.)
For instance, you might possibly (if not likely) be educated to a certain extent necessary to learn that the healthcare bill hasn't been ruled at odds with the commerce clause, and that — as written — it's no more unconstitutional than the Massachusetts required coverage bill.
But, I'm sure what's actually constitutional is a completely abstract idea to hyperlibertarians who insist that even income tax is unconstitutional; they've been chasing that particular phantom for decades now.
"Are you kidding" is not, as advertised, the best she could do; it's the most she was willing to offer in the context of the transaction as it transpired. Interestingly, when context is expanded, things are rarely as simple as you make them out to be.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Samp: Not sure how one can say the healthcare bill has been ruled anything yet as it's still in the courts.
It seems to me requiring someone to buy something by virtue of the fact they are breathing taxes the commerce clause to places that would make FDR blush.
However, just because something that is obviously unconstitutional is before the courts doesn't mean they will certainly rule one way or another. McCain-Feingold was upheld after all. Even the Fairness Doctrine was upheld back in the day.
As an aside... why do progressives seem to hate Libertarians even more than they hate republicans? We don't have any power at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Samp: Not sure how one can say the healthcare bill has been ruled anything yet as it's still in the courts.
Because, so far, the major issues presented that indicate its 'unconstitutionality' that I mentioned — commerce clause issues, right there in my post — have been ruled on, and also poured over by constitutional scholars and appear pretty solidly not to be unconstitutional.
quote:However, just because something that is obviously unconstitutional is before the courts doesn't mean they will certainly rule one way or another.
Okay. It's a good thing that the health care bill isn't obviously unconstitutional!
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Progressives don't hate Libertarians Pixiest. I know many liberals who are very sympathetic to aspects of libertarianism. I was even a registered libertarian for a few years. Besides some general issues with the philosophy that ended up pushing me away from it, I was forced into progressivism by the realities of our political situation. The blatant disregard and rejection of issues that are important to me by the republicans will likely ensure I will never vote republican.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Samp: The commerce clause, nor the general welfare clause can be used as a justification for "anything that strikes our fancy" without rendering the entire constitution meaningless.
No matter how the courts have been packed.
Strider: That's the same reason I'll never vote for democrats. One must have economic freedom before the other freedoms even matter. To control our wallet is to control our life.
Never the less, both here and other places, the leftie hate for Libertarians seems stronger than their hate for the conservatives.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Samp: The commerce clause, nor the general welfare clause can be used as a justification for "anything that strikes our fancy" without rendering the entire constitution meaningless.
No matter how the courts have been packed.
The confusing grammar of this aside, I think I'm reading what you tried to say. My response is: what does this have to do with what I'm telling you? The ruling for the constitutionality was not based on but was in response to a challenge based on the commerce clause. The commerce clause was not used as a vetting in favor of the bill.
Do you have a degree of understanding about what claims to the bill's constitutionality were actually made? Or is the claim of 'obvious unconstitutionality' made reflexively, without regard to precedent?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Strider: That's the same reason I'll never vote for democrats. One must have economic freedom before the other freedoms even matter. To control our wallet is to control our life.
There are plenty of ways to control our lives sans wallet. But more fundamentally, I'd ask exactly what you mean by economic freedom and how it is attained.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So you can stomach pixiest the republicans legislating how every day people conduct their lives in and out of the bedroom but cant stomach or bear being taxes 2% of your gross income to subsidize public schools?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: One must have economic freedom before the other freedoms even matter. To control our wallet is to control our life.
Does this mean that a child who has an allowance and is dependent on her parents for money has no freedom that matters?
Are you saying such a child would be no less free if she were being brainwashed or forced into slave labor?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I believe someone above mentioned that she was taking issue with concept that the first amendment builds a wall of separation between church and state. I disagree with that assessment but that doesn't mean she doesn't know what's in the constitution.
If you're referring to what I said, that's not what I meant. It's clear from the video that she didn't know the 1st Amendment contained the line, "Congress shall make no establishment of religion."
What I was saying was, her ignorance is no worse in practice than the views of those who think there is no separation of church and state implied by the amendment.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Her opponent couldn't name the five freedoms guaranteed by the first amendement.
The constitution doesn't say anything about separation of church and state. Factually, Odonnel was correct. The very same people that prevented the "estableshment of religion" opened congress with prayer. At the time, "god" was a neutral term. Even the atheist has a "god".
The founders thought that "God" was neutral. All religions have a "god". They escaped religious theocracies. A mention of God by a public figure is not the "establishment of religion".
A football coach praying for the safety of his athletes might be considered illegal today due to the "separation of church and state" idea. No where in the constitution or in any amendment is there a "separation of church and state" clause.
The constitution limits government not people. The constitution gives powers to individuals and states and very clearly defines (limits) federal powers. The government cannot establish a national religion...this is not the same as a separation of church and state. Federally mandated Anglacanism isn't the same as a football coach saying "god". Even the atheist football player has a god.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: At the time, "god" was a neutral term. Even the atheist has a "god".
The amount of extreme mental contortion required to offer this as a lame explanation is impressive, even for you. No. This is completely false. Nothing it purports to excuse is excused by it. 'The atheist' does not have a God. s/he has a lack of belief in any gods.
quote:The government cannot establish a national religion...this is not the same as a separation of church and state.
If this were true, a judge could park the ten commandments and a monument to jesus in the middle of a courtroom, simply because it wasn't an established national religion. And we know all too well it turned out when something like this was committed.
quote:Even the atheist football player has a god.
No, they don't. And if you are incapable of understanding otherwise, you've accomplished a feat impressive for one of your ilk: you don't have a clue what 'god' means.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
1st point:
god is universal, even for an atheist. God can be money or biceps,...what leads your life.
2nd point:
In fact, ..... the ten commandments are in the supreme court building and the dollar in your wallet says "in god we trust". Jesus implies the christian religion and the ten commandments implies: christian jewish and muslim, as they predate and source all three. Which religion is established?
What rules your life? Perhaps your god is your own desires. "Have no god before me" is the commandment that makes this concept clear. We all have a god - is your god pleasure, money, flesh? Of course, even the christian, muslim, native, and jew can agree on one thing...god.
Maybe the football players god is the letter on his jacket. Our ancestors lives were lead by god....what leads your life? Is money your god? In "what" do you trust?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
for some reason, mal's post made me think of Time Cube
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's literally impossible for you to understand how someone can live without deifying anything, is it.
quote:you've accomplished a feat impressive for one of your ilk: you don't have a clue what 'god' means.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Had to goodle timecube...
Not an incomprehensible idea that something inspires all people's lives. Why do some people work 16 hours a day and ignore their children? Why do some people strap explosives to themselves? God is your motivation. We all have a god. god is what leads your life. "In God we trust" is a universal statement. Even the atheist trusts the money with that phrase written on. What you have faith in is your god. Faith in nothing except yourself? You are your own god....you only have faith in yourself. To what end? The paper that says "in god we trust" on it.
[ October 22, 2010, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Not an incomprehensible idea that something inspires all people's lives.
No, but apparently an incomprehensible idea to you that because something inspires you, it doesn't automatically make it 'your god.' I'm entertained. You've taken a terrible, mealy, contorting excuse for the disempowering misinterpretation of the establishment clause — 'God isn't religious, you see!' — and snow-jobbed yourself into looking utterly clueless even by your own notorious standards.
This is ridiculous. I'm massively amused. Keep going. And, for the love of God (which to me right now is apparently 'a pomegranate rum sling'), donate your brain to science.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Yes of course, you are obviously a godless person. I apologize for suggesting otherwise. Trust in yourself.
In "WHAT" do you trust.
A simple phrase on our money, well thought out. If you are offended by "god" and my insinuation, replace "god" with the term of your choice:
"In MYSELF I trust"....to fill your wallet with that paper. That's fine. An athiest is his own god. He trusts himself...
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'd be happy with someone who voted against anything unconstitutional no matter how loony she otherwise was.
Someone who votes against things are just a roadblock. Not someone who uses the force of law to coerce others to live by their own wild socio-political schemes.
That being said, I figure O'Donnell has her pick and choose approach to the constitution just like every other politician. She's still a better pick than Coons or Castle. Just like McLame was a better choice than Obama. One still should bring a motion sickness bag into the polling place.
Whether you approve of odonnell as a candidate more for her percieved 'lesser potential failings' or because you want to fill government with clowns to have it be torn down by incompetence for the sake of libertarian ideals, it is so a way of showing how your sense in candidate quality is toxically flawed.
However the way you frame politicians with cartoon insult names (like McLame and sKerry) gives me the impression that you aren't very mature when it comes to politics anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Yes of course, you are obviously a godless person.
Strange that nothing has been said to this effect, and that it's irrelevant to anything that's being talked about. Horray!
I guess if the word is such a nonreligious generic term, you would have no problem changing it to "Allah" on our money. After all, if it's objectionable to you, just think it's whatever else you want, right?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: 1st point:
god is universal, even for an atheist. God can be money or biceps,...what leads your life.
I love it when someone asserts universal truths for other people. Please, do continue... I'm terribly interested in finding out the motivations behind the rest of my deeply held beliefs.
quote: 2nd point:
In fact, ..... the ten commandments are in the supreme court building and the dollar in your wallet says "in god we trust".
Seriously Hatrack...? How has no one jumped on this one?
Let's address this in parts:
1. As to the assertion that the ten commandments are in the Supreme Court, please read this:
It nicely summarizes exactly what's wrong with your assertion.
2. Our currency says in god we trust, but this didn't occur until almost 100 years after our nation was founded. Again, a nice summary of why it appears can be found here:
I personally would prefer that our government didn't explicitly or implicitly endorse a religious belief, but unfortunately any attempt to have this removed would be seen as an "attack" on Christianity as opposed to a reversion to it's correct form.
quote:
What rules your life? Perhaps your god is your own desires. "Have no god before me" is the commandment that makes this concept clear. We all have a god - is your god pleasure, money, flesh? Of course, even the christian, muslim, native, and jew can agree on one thing...god.
Without delving too deeply into discussions of faith, I'd like to say one thing: A common acceptance or belief held by large groups of people can be just as erroneous as one held by a single person. Simply pointing at "christian, muslim, native, and jews" as an evidence for belief is ineffective.
quote: In "what" do you trust?
Myself, my family, my community. In that order.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Seriously Hatrack...? How has no one jumped on this one?
To respond, one must read the post in the first place.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Rivka,
Are there certain posts that are being universally ignored now?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Malanthrop has proved so impervious to correction and is generally incoherent enough that only rarely do people who aren't entertained by his ignorance (like me) even bother reading, much less responding to, his posts.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
...and this used to be such a nice neighborhood...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
We can't really control whether people are going to be posting in bad faith, but we can control our reactions to these people. If Hatrack could learn how to effectively deal with posters like mal in a way that minimizes their effect and discourages them from posting here while maintaining a generally respectful atmosphere, I think that it could, in some respects, be said to be a better forum than one that doesn't have trolls on it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here's the way it has worked out for years.
respectful replies to malanthrop: behavior unchanged disrespectful replies to malanthrop: behavior unchanged few replies to malanthrop: behavior unchanged many replies to malanthrop: behavior unchanged attempting to help or politely guide malanthrop, which people really, really, really went out of their way to do here, more than I would have expected from just about anywhere: behavior unchanged impolitely telling malanthrop to shut up and stop spewing falsehoods: behavior unchanged
As someone else said, all other things being what they're going to be, I'd rather stand up to and not leave malanthrop's more egregious falsehoods sitting around unchallenged where someone else might step on them. If someone steps up and trolls up some noxious falsehoods that are actively harmful, like how the gays should be sad that DADT was unconstitutional because it was there for them and 'protected' them from questioning, I will always challenge them with all the respect they deserve.
If the amount of respect they deserve is, by now, incredibly low, then, welp!
MEANWHILE IN OTHER NEWS
O'Donnell had walked off stage thinking she had trumped her opponent.
"After that debate my team and I we were literally high fiving each other thinking that we had exposed he doesn't know the First Amendment, and then when we read the reports that said the opposite we were all like 'what?'"
Mal, do you know why the coach of the football team can't say a prayer to start the game?
Because too many coaches used that prayer to force students in their care to either convert to their Faith, or be ostracized from the team, and perhaps dropped from the team because, God wins football games and if you can't pray to the same God we are praying to, then you are off the team.
Sure, that's just Anecdotal evidence, from a friends High School days in the 80's. But its the possibility, and the inevitability that some person representing the state, the school, the government, who introduces their faith into that position, has "state" leverage to force someone to convert.
That is bad for the individual forced to convert.
That is bad for the faith gaining such reluctant conversions.
That is just bad.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Yes of course, you are obviously a godless person.
Strange that nothing has been said to this effect, and that it's irrelevant to anything that's being talked about. Horray!
I guess if the word is such a nonreligious generic term, you would have no problem changing it to "Allah" on our money. After all, if it's objectionable to you, just think it's whatever else you want, right?
Objecting to the idea that everyone has a god indicates that you don't have a god. "Allah" on the money would be fine with me, if we spoke that language here. Don't want to shock you with this,...people that speak other languages have a different word for god. Allah is God. Jews, Christians and Muslims fight over the same holy land. They have the same God. They deviate with those that came later...messiah, Jesus, Muhammed....
Same "God", same "Allah"....dysfunctional family. Jews, Christians and Muslims are followers of the same god. I'm a follower of Allah. There is only one god and his name is Allah in Arabic.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"Allah" on the money would be fine with me, if we spoke that language here.
would be fine with you? but according to you, the term is completely interchangable. it's still god, it doesn't matter if its in arabic, riiiiiight?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Yes, it doesn't matter. I care about the meaning of a word, not the PC connotation of the day. Negro is black is African American. Allah is god.
What happened to the "Best Actress" Oscar? All actors now. It must really suck to be a PC slave in a Spanish speaking country.
Everyone has a god, even if their god isn't the concept of a divine being. In god we trust. What you trust is your god. Everyone has faith in something...even if it's money. Full faith and credit in the US govt, could be your god.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Constantly repeating your thesis on how God is a nonreligious and universal concept unless you specifically make it religious via your own theism is not going to make it correct.
quote:What happened to the "Best Actress" Oscar? All actors now. It must really suck to be a PC slave in a Spanish speaking country.
quote:I think this shows how fundamentally unfit libertarians are to discuss politics.
Maybe in Blayne's Maoist Canada. Fortunately I live in the People's Republic of California where, for now, we still have free speech and can vote without going to the gulag for flipping the wrong switch.
quote: You can't say "you figure" and other 'from the gut' style truthiness to discuss this at the sametime as state with complete conviction about what the text/meaning of the constitution actually is.
So your problem is the way she speaks, not the content of what she's saying?
I believe someone above mentioned that she was taking issue with concept that the first amendment builds a wall of separation between church and state. I disagree with that assessment but that doesn't mean she doesn't know what's in the constitution.
quote: Miss "Peggy Hill" #2 there is ignorant of the constitution, why would you support or figure her the "lesser" of two evils when almost your entire paradigm is practically based on the specific idea of determining the correct meaning, wording, and content of the constitution?
The reason I take the lesser of 3 evils approach with her is because the other two have demonstrated their exuberance to vote for bills that will destroy the American economy. Cap and Trade and Health Care. DE can vote this crazy puta out of office once those issues are repealed/stopped.
quote: It's partisan thats what it is, youll ignore or downplay her very obvious record just so you won't have to risk the other guy who you disagree with on principle from winning.
Why, yes, I vote against people who support collectivism. I often vote for lesser collectivists to stop greater collectivists. I have voted for religious nutjobs to keep collectivists out of office.
Is that partisan or voting strategically? What good would it do me to vote Libertarian every election when they can't win? I voted for Bush twice to stop a much greater evil! Can you imagine if Gore or sKerry had won? If you fervently disagree with everything I say and get excited dreaming about that what-if, then you understand why I'm happy about taking that bullet in the shoulder instead of the forehead.
There simply are NOT any good candidates. If someone believes in freedom they're probably off exercising it instead of working night and day to Control Other People's Lives through force of the ballot box. For those of us who believe in both social and economic freedom, we have to take a big bite out of a turd sandwich no matter WHO we vote for.
And Blayne, I would appreciate not being told that I am unfit to discuss politics in my own damn country.
I love you, Pix. Just wanted you to know that. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Constantly repeating your thesis on how God is a nonreligious and universal concept unless you specifically make it religious via your own theism is not going to make it correct.
quote:What happened to the "Best Actress" Oscar? All actors now. It must really suck to be a PC slave in a Spanish speaking country.
[url=http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=actress#q=actress&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&fp=b321fbc89a59e17b]Actress. Current Gnews.
Fail. [/QUOTE]
I stand corrected...they still have the award...for now. Are there stewardesses?
2.5% of the world population is atheist. God is a universal term. Of course, progressives are always "progressing" to new acceptable terms. "Creator" was once acceptable.
I doubt I can help you make the mental leap... Your god is what you trust. "In God we trust" The atheist trusts something....most likely the paper that says "In God We Trust" on it. I'm not saying this in a disparaging manner. There is a god of all of our lives.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Do you think you could be helped to understand why linking to the wikipedia page on the demographics of atheism doesn't make the case that God is a universal, secular term?
Do you think you could be helped to understand that not all religions have a God (taoism, buddhism, confucianism, to name three) and so God isn't a universal religious constant, either?
Constantly repeating your thesis on how God is a nonreligious and universal concept unless you specifically make it religious via your own theism is not going to make it correct.
(he repeated)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pixiest:
quote:And Blayne, I would appreciate not being told that I am unfit to discuss politics in my own damn country.
Well said. I also liked your perspective on strategic voting.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: There simply are NOT any good candidates.
I've been looking over my sample ballot trying to decide who to vote for, and I'd just like to second this. I don't hate Sink for governor, but the rest of them I'm just not sure on.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: 1st point:
god is universal, even for an atheist. God can be money or biceps,...what leads your life.
2nd point:
In fact, ..... the ten commandments are in the supreme court building and the dollar in your wallet says "in god we trust". Jesus implies the christian religion and the ten commandments implies: christian jewish and muslim, as they predate and source all three. Which religion is established?
What rules your life? Perhaps your god is your own desires. "Have no god before me" is the commandment that makes this concept clear. We all have a god - is your god pleasure, money, flesh? Of course, even the christian, muslim, native, and jew can agree on one thing...god.
Maybe the football players god is the letter on his jacket. Our ancestors lives were lead by god....what leads your life? Is money your god? In "what" do you trust?
I have no god.
I don't care what you think.
Please stop trying to make decisions for other people.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Pixiest:
quote:And Blayne, I would appreciate not being told that I am unfit to discuss politics in my own damn country.
Well said. I also liked your perspective on strategic voting.
While I don't think she's unfit, I can understand questioning her fitness when she says things like this:
quote:One must have economic freedom before the other freedoms even matter. To control our wallet is to control our life.
There can't be meaningful freedom of any sort without economic freedom? Come on. Don't tell me you didn't think up a dozen counterexamples to that statement in the time it took you to read it.
Perhaps it's rhetorical hyperbole, but if so I'm having a hard time thinking of what the un-exaggerated, believable version of it could even be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Everyone has a god, even if their god isn't the concept of a divine being. In god we trust. What you trust is your god. Everyone has faith in something...even if it's money. Full faith and credit in the US govt, could be your god.
This is simply not true. I don't know how to make it plainer than that. Not everyone trusts and has faith in things as much as you're saying, malanthrop, and even if they did that isn't what is meant by the term 'god' and you know that quite well. This is a transparent attempt to prove that everyone is religious somehow, and it's not fooling anyone so I'm really not sure why you're going about it at all.
You can't read everyone's minds. You can't read the minds of your own ancestors, much less mine. Would you kindly just go back to reading the minds of your conservative Jamaican neighbors, please, in between working heroic hours for vast sums of money?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If you're going to define "god" as "the most important thing in your life," or "the thing that motivates you," then yes, almost everyone has a "god." However, this is a very stupid definition of the word "god," and not one that would be commonly accepted.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I define "god" as "cheese."
I am not commonly accepted, especially on long road trips.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
What's worst about this definition, besides the fact that it waters down the meaning of god until it's utterly meaningless, is that it's demeaning to any real gods that may exist!
Seriously, a god is simply whatever it is in which you trust?
What does that say about Odin, or Yahweh, or Amaterasu, or Zeus, or Ishtar, or Amon-rah, or Ahura Mazda, or Vishnu, or whatnot?
It seems to me that any of those, and even the Golden Calf, have something more than merely being "trusted." For one thing, they were thought of as actual entities that really existed, were beyond humans, and to whom you were to dedicate yourself, at times like a servant.
These beings are much more than "the thing in which you trust" and to broaden the definition of god as such would no doubt make any of them testy, should you tell them.
Just imagine telling Zeus that, should he be real. I dare you. See how long you live.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Mine is David Bowie. And Annie Lennox. I'd gladly worship either of them, given the opportunity.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: While I don't think she's unfit, I can understand questioning her fitness when she says things like this:
quote:One must have economic freedom before the other freedoms even matter. To control our wallet is to control our life.
There can't be meaningful freedom of any sort without economic freedom? Come on. Don't tell me you didn't think up a dozen counterexamples to that statement in the time it took you to read it.
Perhaps it's rhetorical hyperbole, but if so I'm having a hard time thinking of what the un-exaggerated, believable version of it could even be.
She's talking about issues that could conceivably become relevant at, say, the Congressional level in the US.
In that context, the issues that aren't economic, in my opinion (and hers I think) are simply not nearly as important as the economic issues.
If we lived in a horrifically oppressive regime like, say, Iran, where gay people are murdered instead of not being allowed to legally marry on the federal level, then perhaps social issues could take precedence over economic ones.
But... we don't.
Does that help? Sorry to speak for you, Pix. If I'm misrepresenting you just say so. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:She's talking about issues that could conceivably become relevant at, say, the Congressional level in the US.
In that context, the issues that aren't economic, in my opinion (and hers I think) are simply not nearly as important as the economic issues.
I think your reading of her statement is pretty generous. To say that the non-economic freedoms threatened by the US government are less important than the economic ones (as you say) is very different from saying that they are completely unimportant in the absence of economic freedom (which is what she said).
But let's talk about your own view, which I agree isn't obviously wrong at first glance the way hers is.
When I think of the non-economic freedoms at risk in the current American political climate, I don't think gay marriage. I think of our due process rights. There's a list of Americans who our military and intelligence branches have been instructed to assassinate, when no evidence of their wrongdoing has been brought before any court. One of these US citizens (al Awlaki) has been in the news of late, but by all accounts there are several more.
OK, you might say, but this isn't a matter that the US Congress has much say over anyway. It's an executive-branch issue, and our current chief executive isn't even living up to his campaign promises in this regard.
But there's another huge problem with America, that should dwarf economic questions for anyone who has their moral priorities straight. This one is Congress's fault too. Mucus has a great thread up about this right now. We started a bloody war for no good reason.
That's water under the bridge, you may say. (Although in a just country, there would be prison cells awaiting those -- like our last vice president -- who gave illegal orders). Not so, I would say, when the same saber is being rattled in Iran's direction. But Iran is actually a threat, you may say. Well, they certainly are enriching uranium for bombs. But will they actually build bombs, rather than just develop the technology? If they do build them, will they use them, or give them to terrorists?
These are tough questions. I think you'll find that the analysts and pundits who say Iran is a threat are, overwhelmingly, the same ones who said Iraq was a threat. Have these people earned your trust, or your contempt?
Even if I felt the way you do about our economy and what's best for it, I would be very hesitant to vote my pocketbook when the very same candidates might end up coating my hands with even more Middle Eastern blood.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There are non-economic freedoms which are always more important than economic ones. To say that you have to have the requisite economic freedoms (which, in Pixiest's case would probably veer out into 'taxation is theft!' territory — demands on the limitation of government that nearly nobody is interested in in the first place) before our other rights, like that of speech, assembly, religion, the ability to vote, protection from harm, etc, even matter is both on the surface and when dissected, ridiculous.
Nor does it at all even touch on the desperation of vetting clearly unqualified, nutty candidates because their ignorance seems preferable to the libertarian ideal than other candidates which actually know what they are doing and don't spend campaign money on rent.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I was once at a Bar Mitzvah, and the Rabbi kept saying "we KNOW God wants" this or "we KNOW God does" that. Despite the fact that we KNOW no such thing, I was quite accepting of the fact that in a place of worship, talking about God in the accepted terms and beliefs of that religion is appropriate, even though I bristled at the level of assumption.
So is there an appropriate venue for atheists to say we KNOW God doesn't exist? Society doesn't seem ready for that.
As for Malanthrop: There either is or isn't a God. If there is a God, then yes, atheists have the same God theists do, even if they don't recognize this. But if there isn't a God (and after all, we KNOW there is no God) then theists don't have one either. So Mal, you don't have a god. Because there isn't one to have. Fair enough?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There is also the possibility that there are multiple gods in which case the odds that the atheist and monotheist have the same god would be roughly (1/n)^2 assuming that we *have* to assign an atheist to a god for some bizarre reason.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Glenn Arnold: Well seeing as how you were at a Bar Mitzvah, perhaps if you hosted a similar occasion where you were surrounded by like minded individuals you could be candid about your disbelief in God.
Also, Adam Savage seemed quite capable of finding a venue to make professions of his belief and disbelief. Give the boys at the Harvard Humanist Society a ring.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: What's worst about this definition, besides the fact that it waters down the meaning of god until it's utterly meaningless, is that it's demeaning to any real gods that may exist!
Seriously, a god is simply whatever it is in which you trust?
What does that say about Odin, or Yahweh, or Amaterasu, or Zeus, or Ishtar, or Amon-rah, or Ahura Mazda, or Vishnu, or whatnot?
It seems to me that any of those, and even the Golden Calf, have something more than merely being "trusted." For one thing, they were thought of as actual entities that really existed, were beyond humans, and to whom you were to dedicate yourself, at times like a servant.
These beings are much more than "the thing in which you trust" and to broaden the definition of god as such would no doubt make any of them testy, should you tell them.
Just imagine telling Zeus that, should he be real. I dare you. See how long you live.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Pixiest and Dan, Destineer and Samp have addressed some of the reasons for caring about non-economic freedoms, but I'm also still curious about addressing the question I have above about how economic freedom can be attained and what that would look like.
It seems that these notions of economic freedom providing some sort of deeper more meaningful freedom are somewhat naive, ignoring much of what we understand about human behavior and decision making from the cognitive sciences and behavioral economics. I mean, how difficult is it to think of an example of an economically free decision that actually leads an individual to be qualitatively less free as a result? I feel like this notion you have still assumes the fallacy of the rational decision making agent in all economic matters, when we know this is far from the truth. You are ignoring the myriad of factors that go into an economic decision and I argue that this economic freedom of which you speak would not actually bestow real freedom.
Dan Ariely has a great book called Predictably Irrational which I would highly recommend. He has a few TED talks too. Here's a link to one. He doesn't talk about politics at all, but I don't think you can fail to apply certain facts when thinking about policy decisions.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I am also a bit confused by the term Economic Freedom.
Is that the freedom to earn and spend your money as you see fit?
There are a lot of freedoms that trump this. I wouldn't be happy in a place that allowed me economic freedom, but allowed the President to beat me senseless every night. I wouldn't want to live in a country where I could buy anything I want, but someone else controlled the media to the extent that I wasn't offered anything worth buying. I wouldn't want to have that freedom, only to have others starve and die of poverty in its many ugly forms.
On a side note, I think most of us will agree, Mal--you are not allowed to define words for everyone. If your definition of God is The Most Important Thing In Your Life, fine. But you don't get to say that is my definition of God.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: I define "god" as "cheese."
I am not commonly accepted, especially on long road trips.
So are different types of cheese different Gods, or just different manifestations of Godness?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
polyfromageism vs. panfromageism
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Strider: That's the same reason I'll never vote for democrats. One must have economic freedom before the other freedoms even matter. To control our wallet is to control our life.
There are plenty of ways to control our lives sans wallet. But more fundamentally, I'd ask exactly what you mean by economic freedom and how it is attained.
Wallet is nothing compared to "health". Controlling (providing) healthcare is the ultimate form of control. When what you eat and how you behave impacts all of society = when your hot dog eating habit and sedentary lifestyle negatively impacts the collective government expense, you are no longer free. Nationalized healthcare might be second only to cap and trade legislation when it comes to a loss of individual freedom. Communist progressives are using healthcare and global warming to make their socialist agenda palatable to the American people.
Healthcare for all, means centralized control (taxation) of behavior that impacts your health. You like to eat fried chicken or smoke cigarettes,....you'll pay a premium. Cap and trade legislation,....everything uses energy.
Foot in the door, frog in a pan...we know where this road ends. IE NY soda tax. What made soda relavent for targeted taxation? Individual freedom vs government freebies. Nothing is free. Nothing is universal.
[ October 26, 2010, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Why don't you go ask the folks in countries with nationalized health care just how much they hate not being able to eat at Mcdonalds?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why don't you go ask the folks in countries with nationalized health care just how much they hate not being able to eat at Mcdonalds?
Like Greece or the other immature nations of the EU that are going broke, cutting their budgets and raising the socialist retirement ages?
Legally, Americans don't have to sign up for social security. If you refuse you can't get a job or go to a public school though. Nations with national healthcare do have McDonalds...pay twice as much for a burger though. You're "free" to imbibe...if you're willing to pay the tax.
Taxation isn't about money, it's about life. Every man has a limited number of hours to live. Many of those hours are spent working to make an income. Taxing a burger, tabacco, light bulb or SUV is taking away the profits of a man's life. How many hours per day should a person work for the government? What is fair? What about people that don't work at all? Money represents the hours and effort people have invested in their lives. Some people study and work, others live on the guarantees of society. We have a limited number of hours in our lives. Some of those hours, we work to make money. Many people sacrificed years of many sleepless days for a high income later on.
"The rich" is an easy target but no one talks about the effort. It takes a dedicated student, junior high through grad school, and thousands of hours of effort to get to that point. My 11 year old daughter understands this concept and is top of her class. Twenty years from now, she'll be one of the demonized "privileged".
The hours of your day is your life. What does one who works owe to one who doesn't. Why study hard and put in the time when what you earn is a universal promise? There is a tipping point. Your tax rate is your slave rate. How many working hours do you owe to the government? I can take care of my family.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QB]Nations with national healthcare do have McDonalds...pay twice as much for a burger though. You're "free" to imbibe...if you're willing to pay the tax.
US 3.22 UK 3.90 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE* Euro region: 3.82 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE* AUS 2.67 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE* CZ 2.41 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE* NZ 3.16 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE* SK 3.08 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE*
etc etc etc etc
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
everything you say is wrong. it's amazingly consistent.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I love that that information is readily available in convenient table form.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QB]Nations with national healthcare do have McDonalds...pay twice as much for a burger though. You're "free" to imbibe...if you're willing to pay the tax.
US 3.22 UK 3.90 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE* Euro region: 3.82 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE* AUS 2.67 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE* CZ 2.41 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE* NZ 3.16 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE* SK 3.08 *SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE*
etc etc etc etc
I don't actually have any opinion on mal's assertion here; I have no difficulty believing you are correct. However, looking at that table I do notice that the USA big mac price is based on an average of New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and Atalanta. I wonder why they chose that... just logistics? I imagine it would be pretty difficult to get an accurate average of every big mac in the country.
But that means the price might be slightly inflated. In my experience, big macs do tend to be a little more expensive in the city than in rural area. But... not nearly enough to be double anything. So... yeah, he's still wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Foot in the door, frog in a pan...we know where this road ends. IE NY soda tax.
A side note: if this road ends at soda taxes, it seems to me that this is in fact a relatively small price to pay. I'm not a huge fan of punitive taxation, myself, but it would never occur to me that the worst-case scenario for rampant authoritarian government would be a tax on soda. It seems to me that, for example, our society's tolerance of the ordered assassination of American citizens is a far worse symptom of a similar trend.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:When what you eat and how you behave impacts all of society = when your hot dog eating habit and sedentary lifestyle negatively impacts the collective government expense, you are no longer free.
I'm not sure I get the logic behind this complaint. Under the private sector health care situation, people who take poor care of themselves cost the system just as much. However, because of how it is structured, this cost is shared across the people in the same pool as them. You're saying that in a system where people have to take financial responsibility for their choices that lead to them needing more health care is less free than one where they have no more liability for this than people who make better choices.
From the perspective of the fatty junk food eater, I can get that they'd want other people to pay for their mistakes, but I don't think that this is more free. Actually, I find it the opposite. Obviously, in any pooled system, I'm going to be picking up some of the tab for the people who make bad choices, but it seems to me that one where they bear more and I bear less is both the more free and the more fair one.
Likewise with a theoretical cap and trade system. Fossil fuel energy generation has an impact that goes beyond its direct costs. Cleaning up or dealing with the pollution that this creates has indirect costs that someone has to bear. Right now, this is either taken care of by the government or it exists as a sort of hidden cost through the effect of pollution on the people hit by it. As far as I can see, cap and trade is supposed to be moving these costs more onto the people whose energy generation and consumption causes them.
From what I can tell, you seem to be arguing for systems where the costs and responsibility for people's choices are subsidized by the whole of society instead of falling more fully on those people and yet somehow this is more free and less socialist.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
It struck me last week that Evil Obamacare is the 2010 WMD.
In 2002 we all knew that Hussein had WMD in Iraq. He had tons and tons of the stuff, and our mission was to stop him from using it on others--either other Iraq innocents, his neighbors, Israel, or even the US.
Anyone who said differently was just wrong. No one bothered to check the facts because it was just given--Hussein had WMD.
Today we look back on that scare and laugh. It was so obvious he didn't have them (not counting some 20 year old forgotten stockpiles of weak mustard gas).
So too--in 10 years we are going to look back at the Health Care Law of 2010 and wonder what all the fuss and fear was about. It is not a take over of health care. It is not a governmental regimentation of doctors and medical practices. It is an attempt to get people covered under private insurance. That is all.
The most vocal critics of it find danger 4-10 steps removed. If it works, and If a public option is enacted and If the public option out performs private options and If then a single-payer nation wide insurance program is all that is left then those running the program may make bad decisions. There are a lot of ifs in there. As it stands now, people die because they can't afford to go to a doctor so they wait out their sickness until its too late. No ifs. Just facts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
How on earth Norway manages to have socialized health care, and top the prosperity index is beyond me. They must be fudging their numbers.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: How on earth Norway manages to have socialized health care, and top the prosperity index is beyond me. They must be fudging their numbers.
Is it really fair to compare a small group, about half of New York City's population for comparison, of overwhelming white people to a massively larger and much more diverse group?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why do you think the diversity of the group matters?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Why do you think the diversity of the group matters?
Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because culture, education, and genetics all impact healthcare success.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Why do you think the diversity of the group matters?
Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter?
Nope. Just trying to figure out your reasoning.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
You can reference Tom's post for starters
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Country rankings on that index seem to swing pretty wildly from year to year. There's probably not a huge amount of separation between countries near the top. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legatum_Prosperity_Index Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why do you think the diversity of the group matters?
Because people are just plain more willing to share with others like themselves. It's a sad fact, but there you go. Thus, socialised systems work better in ethnically homogenous areas, because people are less willing to cheat the system when the beneficiaries are visibly like themselves. Such opposition to our welfare system as does exist in Norway is, I'm sad to report, very strongly correlated with opposition to immigration.
The other point is that there are strong path-dependency issues. Norwegians have a thousand-year tradition of working together, sharing with the local community, and generally just being more socialist than capitalist, because for those thousand years there was no dang capital. People who tried to go it alone in that climate just plain failed; piss off your neighbours so much that they wouldn't help when disaster struck, and you were a goner. This leads to a completely different cultural tradition than the frontier-pioneer-individualist ideal of American settlement. (I remind you that the southern part of Norway is at the latitude of Newfoundland. Try settling Newfoundland as a single pioneer in a Conestoga and see how far you get.) You just cannot map the laws and structures that work on this sort of tradition onto the atomised American culture and expect good results; indeed it's breaking down just because we're becoming wealthy, urban, and isolated.
Culture matters. So does scale. Norway's total population is about half that of New York City. You would not try to govern the continental US the way New York City is governed, or the state of Ohio; nor would you assume that Texans want the same government structure that New Englanders do. So why assume you can lift things wholesale from Norway?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not assuming that. But I think that there are things we can learn from cultures that are getting things right that we can't seem to manage.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I wouldn't worry all that much about it, I'm not really convinced that cultural effects are all that strong anyways. I'm sure there are some, but they might just get swamped by other factors. In Canada, there are only fairly small differences in healthcare support between provinces that are fairly homgenous and those that have very diverse cities like Toronto and Vancouver.
In fact, you'll find much more support for universal healthcare in those cities than say, the more conservative and homogeneous Calgary, so meh.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: How on earth Norway manages to have socialized health care, and top the prosperity index is beyond me. They must be fudging their numbers.
Is it really fair to compare a small group, about half of New York City's population for comparison, of overwhelming white people to a massively larger and much more diverse group?
No not wholesale it isn't. But when you live in a place like I do where American exceptionalism is taken for granted, you start to wonder what list does America have to start to bottom out on before people realize that other countries have some pretty good ideas too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: How on earth Norway manages to have socialized health care, and top the prosperity index is beyond me. They must be fudging their numbers.
Is it really fair to compare a small group, about half of New York City's population for comparison, of overwhelming white people to a massively larger and much more diverse group?
We've been over this before. The entire eurozone is more diverse, spends on average about half as much per person on healthcare, and they receive better care and live longer.
Our system sucks, socialized healthcare is superior by all reasonable metrics, and America's freemarketeers should, at long last, get over that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Those of us who support a free market (yet universal) healthcare system see nothing contradictory about state-run systems outperforming our current system (which is aggressively not free market).
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
What does a "free market yet universal" system mean?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
not having only a single hmo per constituency?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If it means 'single payer,' that's not free market either. But I dunno??
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why do you think the diversity of the group matters?
Because people are just plain more willing to share with others like themselves. It's a sad fact, but there you go. Thus, socialised systems work better in ethnically homogenous areas, because people are less willing to cheat the system when the beneficiaries are visibly like themselves. Such opposition to our welfare system as does exist in Norway is, I'm sad to report, very strongly correlated with opposition to immigration.
The other point is that there are strong path-dependency issues. Norwegians have a thousand-year tradition of working together, sharing with the local community, and generally just being more socialist than capitalist, because for those thousand years there was no dang capital. People who tried to go it alone in that climate just plain failed; piss off your neighbours so much that they wouldn't help when disaster struck, and you were a goner. This leads to a completely different cultural tradition than the frontier-pioneer-individualist ideal of American settlement. (I remind you that the southern part of Norway is at the latitude of Newfoundland. Try settling Newfoundland as a single pioneer in a Conestoga and see how far you get.) You just cannot map the laws and structures that work on this sort of tradition onto the atomised American culture and expect good results; indeed it's breaking down just because we're becoming wealthy, urban, and isolated.
Culture matters. So does scale. Norway's total population is about half that of New York City. You would not try to govern the continental US the way New York City is governed, or the state of Ohio; nor would you assume that Texans want the same government structure that New Englanders do. So why assume you can lift things wholesale from Norway?
Socialism only works in homogeneous societies. Socialism is a great idea that requires sameness of the society.....hence, the genocides of the 20th century with the aim of a socialist utopia. The Amish in the US are a great socialist success... they build each others homes and barns. Successful socialism (sameness) requires everyone contribute the same, have the same culture and values. Class warfare cannot lead to successful socialism. Class warfare leads to things like the "killing fields" of Cambodia, where people threw away their glasses because only the evil educated had glasses. Demonizing the rich....who wants to be rich? Maybe the poor will start offering jobs.
Socialism is a great idea that cannot succeed in a melting pot. It could work in a purging pot, where no one has a job because bosses are evil. It could work in nation that outlaws minarets, the Bible or Jews.
[ October 30, 2010, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
How on earth Norway manages to have socialized health care, and top the prosperity index is beyond me. They must be fudging their numbers.
They refuse to warp their reality to the true one that resides in his head. Thank God.
The socalist utopia of the KKK.... Norway.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Malanthrop, why. Just ...stop.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
malanthrop,
quote:Socialism only works in homogeneous societies. Socialism is a great idea that requires sameness of the society.....hence, the genocides of the 20th century with the aim of a socialist utopia. The Amish in the US are a great socialist success... they build each others homes and barns. Successful socialism (sameness) requires everyone contribute the same, have the same culture and values. Class warfare cannot lead to successful socialism. Class warfare leads to things like the "killing fields" of Cambodia, where people threw away their glasses because only the evil educated had glasses. Demonizing the rich....who wants to be rich? Maybe the poor will start offering jobs.
So malanthrop, how was the movie Witness? Enjoyable?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Successful socialism (sameness) requires everyone contribute the same, have the same culture and values.
Said by someone who has clearly never lived in a "socialist" country.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Why do you edit your posts so much?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I like this new "No no, socialism only works in homogenous societies" thing. It's the spirit child of yesteryear's failed "No no, socialism works in the small countries, but wouldn't work in our LARGE country."
The whole idea that it only works in places like Norway because they're liberal KKK utopias is about as well-informed and impressive as 'herp derp socialized healthcare results in 2x mcdonalds costs olololol'
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:What does a "free market yet universal" system mean?
Remove healthcare from employers entirely. Create Very Large Groups (millions of groups, at minimum) that are easy to discover based on demographic information and overlap heavily. Have insurance companies bid on offering standardized insurance to those groups, and then be able to offer whatever additional options they want. Any health care company insuring more than some small number (a few thousands) of a group be required to offer their plans at similar rates to everyone in the group. Have insurance be required, with an accompanying progressive tax (ideally folded into the general tax program, but whatever) that is used to subsidize those with difficulty affording insurance (possibly they would also be members of a special group with a sort of "automatic insurance" they don't have to explicitly purchase, to simplify things).
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Remove healthcare from employers entirely.
id vote for that. many of the problems we now have could be solved by that one act alone.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Nearly all of the people I know who say they favor the free market would never, ever, ever describe that as a free market solution to healthcare. They would say it's not free market at all, especially what with the blatant governmental meddling and regulation.
It probably needs a different descriptive term.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If those who favor a free market support the current system, then they aren't remotely aware of what a free market is.
A free market only exists in the context of rules and norms that guide and constrain the mutually consenting actions of individuals. While what I propose is more constraint than normal, those who are familiar with the details of contract, trade, and labor laws will be aware that the free markets we have in those are not some void absent structure, either.
I call the setup free market (admittedly with certain non-free market components, in order to deal with the unique problems of health care -- that's the "yet universal" part) because it preserves most of the properties that are considered desirable in a free market: many sellers and many buyers, price competition, product differentiation, price signals, et cetera.
It is also significantly more free market than the other serious propositions.
Health care being tied to employers is going to become a serious problem in the US, with the option to not provide health insurance going away. That significantly increases the cost of a low-wage employee. If that cost were supported by society at large, employers would be able to employ substantially more low-wage employees.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: If those who favor a free market support the current system, then they aren't remotely aware of what a free market is.
They don't think that the current system is free market either. It's not. Nor, I think, would they be willing to say that this is. It's just a different flavor of statist meddling. They would probably break into hives at the audacious idea that a plan where the government requires coverage of all people is in any sense 'free market.' It's coerced by the government if you don't have the option to not be covered; it's not universal if you do.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Requiring coverage is the least part of what one might argue prevents there from being a free market in that arrangement. Our car insurance markets, for instance, are quite free and function extremely well, despite it being a requirement for driving a car around. The increase in "freedom" of the market without the universality requirement would be miniscule.
They might feel it isn't particularly free in other senses, but a universality requirement is at best a minimal deviation from a free market, especially when it is addressing a market failure (markets with market failures are also not free markets).
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He fails at that, too.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Fugu, you have a strange definition of a "free market" solution.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As a point of interest, the original version of the Norwegian constitution did in fact outlaw Jews; also Jesuits. ("Jesuitter og Munkeordener maae ikke taales. Jøder ere fremdeles udelukkede fra Adgang til Riget." Or in English, "Jesuits and cloistered orders shall not be tolerated. Jews remain forbidden to enter the kingdom.") The clause was repealed in 1851. The laws at the time were anything but socialist, though. Workhouses for the poor, canings for thieves, no unions. Malanthrop should approve.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's coerced by the government if you don't have the option to not be covered; it's not universal if you do.
I'm not sure I agree that it's coercion to make people pay for services they receive. If you go to hospital, the ER has to save your life. Then they bill you (in the most convoluted and dishonest way possible, but leave that aside for now). Then people who don't have a few thousand in the bank default on their debt.
If our options are to make you pay upfront or let you die or make you pay upfront with gradual taxes over the years, I vote for the second option as more humane.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But that means the price might be slightly inflated. In my experience, big macs do tend to be a little more expensive in the city than in rural area. But... not nearly enough to be double anything. So... yeah, he's still wrong.
Also typically in Europe there are fewer "rural" McDonalds' than in the US. Most especially this is true in central Europe- CZR has McDonalds' only in the most highly developed urban areas, and a few of the key busiest traffic corridors.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I like this new "No no, socialism only works in homogenous societies" thing. It's the spirit child of yesteryear's failed "No no, socialism works in the small countries, but wouldn't work in our LARGE country."
Well, the idea that European countries are more homogeneous than the US is a tad ridiculous. It could only be true if you were very selective about what aspects of different societies you were willing to compare. Are there more white people in Europe? Yes. Does that obtain in the same way as in the United States? No...
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
I'm a Delawarean and I'm just jumping in to say I met Christine O'Donnell yesterday at my highschool football game (she was campaigning for votes) and she seemed really nice and charming as a candidate.
But when I looked into her eyes it felt like she was trying to steal my soul!
She may very well be a witch Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's coerced by the government if you don't have the option to not be covered; it's not universal if you do.
I'm not sure I agree that it's coercion to make people pay for services they receive. If you go to hospital, the ER has to save your life. Then they bill you (in the most convoluted and dishonest way possible, but leave that aside for now). Then people who don't have a few thousand in the bank default on their debt.
If our options are to make you pay upfront or let you die or make you pay upfront with gradual taxes over the years, I vote for the second option as more humane.
When you are paying through taxes, you are not "paying upfront" for yourself, you are paying for everyone, and you have no choice in the matter. This is government coercion. Sure, it is morally and tactically superior to the "free market" solution (which is no obligation to either pay for or provide medical coverage or care), but its obviously coercion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Requiring coverage is the least part of what one might argue prevents there from being a free market in that arrangement.
It's really not a 'free market' arrangement. I should quote wikipedia: a free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property. This becoming a new revisionistic definition of a 'free market solution' would give most libertarians hives.
Iit's blatantly redefining 'free market' at convenience, for the sake of language framing it for appeal. Not that this doesn't tend to work, of course ('fair tax,' anyone?), but ..
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
What's your take on the substance of fugu's proposed model?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I would venture that it would naturally lead to single payer in the U.S., and as a stepping stone it's an excellent idea for a managed proposal for initially universal coverage.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:It's really not a 'free market' arrangement. I should quote wikipedia: a free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property. This becoming a new revisionistic definition of a 'free market solution' would give most libertarians hives.
Iit's blatantly redefining 'free market' at convenience, for the sake of language framing it for appeal. Not that this doesn't tend to work, of course ('fair tax,' anyone?), but ..
I didn't say it was purely a free market solution. By the definition given on Wikipedia, there is no free market in anything in the United States (or any other place on earth). (Not that Wikipedia's definition is especially good, since it misses several things that have been important in what free markets mean as they are discussed in the literature that defines them.) Since that makes it a quite useless definition for the purposes of analyzing actual systems that exist, another definition is needed if one actually wants to discuss the free markets (aware that this is a fuzzy and relative distinction) and the non-free markets that really do abound in the real world.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Requiring coverage is one thing. A bill that "requires" coverage but the fines to the employers that don't offer it are less than the current cost of healthcare to the employer while the bill skyrockets the costs of healthcare....
Roadmap to single payer. Structure is in place. Foot in the door politics. The Obama healthcare bill didn't institute single payer. It killed private healthcare...intentionally. The American people don't want single payer but they do want "reform". Obama will destroy the current system to get single payer down the road. "Stimulus" money went to government employment. This administration were good students of Alinsky. It's easier to destroy the current system than it is to pass single payer. Once the private system is destroyed,....we'll have no choice. Only the government will be left standing.
If you want to put Americans to work, slash taxes. On one hand they call the expiration of the Bush tax cuts a "tax reduction" for the wealthy if renewed. Is denying an increase a reduction? Liberals operate on the assumption that the people's money belongs to the government first. Not increasing taxes is somehow a "tax break". Tax "credits" to people that pay no taxes aren't called an expense. Who's paying the child tax credit to the welfare mother who lives in government housing and feeds her kids on food stamps? That check is a "tax break".....really?
[ October 31, 2010, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I didn't say it was purely a free market solution. By the definition given on Wikipedia, there is no free market in anything in the United States (or any other place on earth).
Welcome to the ideal that is the free market. "Free market solutions," by definition, don't include a taxed, required government involvement. They involve the absence of that. That's it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The Obama healthcare bill didn't institute single payer. It killed private healthcare...intentionally. The American people don't want single payer but they do want "reform"
"Killed private healthcare" is the most asinine apprehension of the healthcare reform bill I have yet heard.
Oh god, private healthcare is dead! Yet I still go to the same hospitals and still somehow magically get health coverage from Cigna.
Shut up or quit being clueless.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: "Killed private healthcare" is the most asinine apprehension of the healthcare reform bill I have yet heard.
This version of health care reform will, over the next few years, dramatically change private health care in many intended, and unintended, ways.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That is why it is called "health care reform" and not "health care status quo" Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Usually the unintended effects of an action are not included in the term 'reform'. Of course it's possible to argue that the unintended effects will be good; but generally speaking, when you tinker with a complex system there are many more ways of screwing it up than there are of improving it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Usually the unintended effects of an action are not included in the term 'reform'.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. I think that reform always has to lead to unintended consequences, it is pretty much a law (as in The Law of Unintended Consequences). Consequently, if you don't want any unintended consequences then it means you don't want any reform.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Welcome to the ideal that is the free market. "Free market solutions," by definition, don't include a taxed, required government involvement. They involve the absence of that. That's it.
Welcome to what people who don't think about it think the free market is. While I am not saying my proposed system is entirely free market, it is far more grounded in the realities of how free markets have been discussed by the great thinkers of that scholarship. For instance, the description you just gave obviates things like "courts" and "police", both of which are absolutely essential to a functioning free market of any size. Ultimately and broadly, free markets are about allowing free exchange within some sort of system of property rights: in my proposed system, the property rights are defined over large groups and periodically reissued using an auction mechanism, but given the market failures associated with allocating them in other ways, I would definitely contend that is one of the most free market ways to do it. A system with a market failure isn't a free market that doesn't work, it isn't a free market -- and there's nothing unusual about that definition in any of the actual economic literature.
If I'm changing the definition on people who mucked up the more basic definitions in the first place, good.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here's an experiment. Find ten to twenty reasonably persuasivepeople who consider themselves advocates who argue in favor of a 'free market' ideology, such as Advocates for Self-Government or whatever, or even just your average run of the mill arguin' internet Libertarians. Describe your system to them without first describing it as a 'free market yet universal' proposal. Use this post:
quote:Remove healthcare from employers entirely. Create Very Large Groups (millions of groups, at minimum) that are easy to discover based on demographic information and overlap heavily. Have insurance companies bid on offering standardized insurance to those groups, and then be able to offer whatever additional options they want. Any health care company insuring more than some small number (a few thousands) of a group be required to offer their plans at similar rates to everyone in the group. Have insurance be required, with an accompanying progressive tax (ideally folded into the general tax program, but whatever) that is used to subsidize those with difficulty affording insurance (possibly they would also be members of a special group with a sort of "automatic insurance" they don't have to explicitly purchase, to simplify things).
At the end, ask them if they consider this system, wherein coverage is mandated by the government and progressive taxes are used to provide it to the people who aren't well off enough to provide it for themselves, a 'free market solution' to our healthcare system's woes.
I will do the same. Note their replies.
This without even informing them that they have 'mucked up more basic definitions,' but if you would like to subsequently thereupon inform them that this is actually a free market proposal and if they don't think so they have the term wrong, you're welcome to see where that gets you.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm not sure I see why this essentially semantic debate is such a big deal, Samp.
As far as I'm concerned, fugu's point is well taken: the "free market" fundamentalists you're talking about are operating under a shared delusion -- that there's some sort of "natural" economy that was there before government started making the rules. I see no reason to take their definition as preferred, given the false presupposition behind it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not preferred, but when people hear economists talk about the advantages of the free market without knowing that they mean something different by "free market" they think that their idea of "natural" economy works and has the support of those economists.
Like the confusion with the idea of the deficit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I'm not sure I see why this essentially semantic debate is such a big deal, Samp.
If the language framing of the proposal is really, really divorced from what freemarketeers think of as free-market solutions and proposals, then the proposal's packaging can backfire as being dishonest. Mainly though it deserves to be noted that calling it free market, in my opinion, doesn't make any sense. It isn't proposing deregulation or removal of government impediments from the healthcare system, it's proposing the opposite.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The Obama healthcare bill didn't institute single payer. It killed private healthcare...intentionally. The American people don't want single payer but they do want "reform"
"Killed private healthcare" is the most asinine apprehension of the healthcare reform bill I have yet heard.
Oh god, private healthcare is dead! Yet I still go to the same hospitals and still somehow magically get health coverage from Cigna.
Shut up or quit being clueless.
It's only a matter of time. “We don’t want to be the first one to drop benefits, but we would be the fast second.”
quote:If the language framing of the proposal is really, really divorced from what freemarketeers think of as free-market solutions and proposals, then the proposal's packaging can backfire as being dishonest. Mainly though it deserves to be noted that calling it free market, in my opinion, doesn't make any sense. It isn't proposing deregulation or removal of government impediments from the healthcare system, it's proposing the opposite.
And if I had been writing in this thread to argue a proposition to the small, small percentage of people who are courts+police free marketers, that might matter. I made an offhand remark because I supported a system I feel is maximally free market, given the constraints on any health care market and a minimal aversion to suffering, that is also universal, in a discussion about current and more socialist approaches, and then when requested, I described the system. You're imagining a pulpit that doesn't exist.
And yes, I do think a lot of more free market people would be on board with such a system. It has similar elements to many of the proposals bandied about by somewhat more libertarian members of Congress, while being generally superior to their plans.
It is also likely to be superior to single payer, since there is a strong incentive for insurance providers to compete, yet it has pretty much all the strengths of single payer.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:And yes, I do think a lot of more free market people would be on board with such a system. It has similar elements to many of the proposals bandied about by somewhat more libertarian members of Congress, while being generally superior to their plans.
Of course, Obama's plan was itself very similar to plans the Repubs had put forward in previous years.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It would lack the larger risk pool of a single payer system, though. Wouldn't that be a pretty significant drawback?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Remember, the groups would be at least a few million in size (often larger), and would be picked in ways largely orthogonal to health (geographic location, for instance). Risk pools that size should be pretty much indistinguishable from the riskiness of the entire population. What's more, the ways in which they weren't orthogonal (heavily polluting cities, for instance) would provide additional incentive for individuals to preserve collective health.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: And yes, I do think a lot of more free market people would be on board with such a system. It has similar elements to many of the proposals bandied about by somewhat more libertarian members of Congress, while being generally superior to their plans.
Do you think any Republicans, with the possible exception of senators from Maine, would have voted for this plan?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Remember, the groups would be at least a few million in size (often larger), and would be picked in ways largely orthogonal to health (geographic location, for instance). Risk pools that size should be pretty much indistinguishable from the riskiness of the entire population. What's more, the ways in which they weren't orthogonal (heavily polluting cities, for instance) would provide additional incentive for individuals to preserve collective health.
I'd be interested to see any sources you might have handy on risk pool size vs. riskiness. It's not something I have more than a cursory knowledge of, so I'm willing to take your word on it.
I am a little skeptical, though, regarding orthogonality. It seems like certain regions could be skewed more heavily towards being older, for example. I also don't really think the incentives towards collective health would work out. We already have some pretty strong incentives for that now, and it doesn't seem to be having much effect.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I am a little skeptical, though, regarding orthogonality. It seems like certain regions could be skewed more heavily towards being older, for example.
Sure. I don't think that's a problem; quite the opposite. Remember, part of the point of this plan is to preserve incentives as much as is possible to do so while simultaneously ameliorating market failures.
quote:We already have some pretty strong incentives for that now, and it doesn't seem to be having much effect.
Could you give some examples?
quote:I'd be interested to see any sources you might have handy on risk pool size vs. riskiness. It's not something I have more than a cursory knowledge of, so I'm willing to take your word on it.
A million people is a substantial percentage of the entire US population. Unless selected for in a way with substantial bias, the risk pool will not be extraordinarily different from the risk of the entire nation -- and, as I point out above, the ways in which it is different will be an overall good effect, not a bad one.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Before I respond, can I ask you to clarify how these groups would be organized? The way you described it in the post summarizing your plan doesn't really make sense to me, primarily this part:
quote:Create Very Large Groups (millions of groups, at minimum) that are easy to discover based on demographic information and overlap heavily.
In this context, what does "easy to discover" mean? And in what sense would they overlap?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oops, I typo'd for "millions of people" -- no wonder the confusion. I only mean several hundred, maybe a thousand groups, with extreme overlap.
By "easy to discover" I mean all sorts of things. The groups could be by geographic area living in, by geographic area born in, by time of year born, by day of week born, you get the idea.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think I understand now. Thanks! Does the federal government identify these groups and control the bidding process? Or the states?
(By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. )
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I definitely envision the federal government; I want many of the groups to cross state boundaries.
Though actually, there could be some interesting effects if the states got to add to the requirements of the insurance offered within them (but were restricted to making those changes go into effect at the times of re-bidding). It would make things more complicated for the insurance companies, but not prohibitively so, if kept within reason.
The problem would be if states started doing the things that kept inter-state insurance walled citadels right now. My suspicion is that differences in the coverage mandated are not the main sticking point (and thus could be safely set by the states), but differences in organizational requirements are a major sticking point. I'd have to look into that more.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
To answer your earlier question, it seems to me that the incentives for collective health are largely the same under your plan as the incentives we have now. The benefits of being healthy, and having other people be healthy seem really obvious. Additionally, keeping other people healthy will tend to lower your own medical costs. We still largely eat too much, and exercise too little. I just don't see what added incentive your plan would provide (or specifically what it would incentivize).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:To answer your earlier question, it seems to me that the incentives for collective health are largely the same under your plan as the incentives we have now. The benefits of being healthy, and having other people be healthy seem really obvious. Additionally, keeping other people healthy will tend to lower your own medical costs. We still largely eat too much, and exercise too little. I just don't see what added incentive your plan would provide (or specifically what it would incentivize).
If the people in an area are part of the same group, every bit the health of the area improves, the lower the cost of insurance for everyone.
That effect is basically swamped right now by business considerations and the variance of the smaller populations being insured as part of the same group; an entire area will have a much lower variance, and the business considerations angle will be largely gone.
That's the more obvious effect, but the really big effect is a less obvious one: you'll be able to improve your insurance rates, sometimes substantially by moving to healthier areas. Healthier areas are healthier for a variety of reasons, many of them relating to the environment and social effects that promote healthiness. The positive effects of moving to such areas are potentially quite large for many individuals.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Granting, for a moment, that people would actually move significant distances to lower their rates, wouldn't this create feedback loops in less healthy areas, leaving the riskiest people all in the same groups (and shrinking the risk pools to boot)? Bearing in mind, these people would also be the ones least likely to be able to afford expensive rates, because they'd also be the ones least likely to be able to afford to move.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Granting, for a moment, that people would actually move significant distances to lower their rates, wouldn't this create feedback loops in less healthy areas, leaving the riskiest people all in the same groups (and shrinking the risk pools to boot)? Bearing in mind, these people would also be the ones least likely to be able to afford expensive rates, because they'd also be the ones least likely to be able to afford to move.
I think part of the insulation on this would be that most people aren't going to move to lower rates in the short term -- but if someone is moving anyways, considerations of health insurance will be high.
The truly poor would have subsidized health insurance under the plan, so I don't envision the mobility problems hurting their total effective income. I am somewhat worried about the "lots of unhealthy people in one spot" effect, but I suspect increased mobility effects might more than make up for it in overall welfare.
I believe the general availability and separation from employers of health insurance would help lower the overall mobility barrier some, too, as the cost to employ a marginal employee would drop drastically -- often by more than a quarter of the overall costs of employing that person.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I was actually pretty happy to think 'horray, we can stop talking about O'Donnell now!' but this forum was ahead of the curve.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:The truly poor would have subsidized health insurance under the plan, so I don't envision the mobility problems hurting their total effective income. I am somewhat worried about the "lots of unhealthy people in one spot" effect, but I suspect increased mobility effects might more than make up for it in overall welfare.
I'd kind of been assuming that subsidization would be a necessary component in this, but it's good to hear it. How do you envision the subsidizing working? Would the federal government tax the insurance companies, then credit those companies insuring lower-income pools, or something similar?
Also, how do you see increased mobility (I assume this means between groups?) improving overall welfare?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I'd kind of been assuming that subsidization would be a necessary component in this, but it's good to hear it. How do you envision the subsidizing working? Would the federal government tax the insurance companies, then credit those companies insuring lower-income pools, or something similar?
Part of the income tax. I don't see a reason to try to create silos of taxation; it creates all sorts of silly bookkeeping, and is frequently filled with unintentional consequences. Of course, I'd also drastically simplify the income tax system
quote:Also, how do you see increased mobility (I assume this means between groups?) improving overall welfare?
I mean mobility between jobs and between locales (of course, that usually entails a job change), primarily. If there are fewer costs to to hiring a new person, more people can be hired in more locations, resulting in one kind of improvement. Further, if people find it lower costing to move between places, they're more likely to take an optimal job. For instance, there's a lot of evidence that a substantial proportion of the lowered welfare in the current recession comes from people being unable to move to take jobs, due to the prohibitively high cost of dispensing with their current residence.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Part of the income tax. I don't see a reason to try to create silos of taxation; it creates all sorts of silly bookkeeping, and is frequently filled with unintentional consequences. Of course, I'd also drastically simplify the income tax system
I think the benefit to going at it from the end of the insurance companies is that it wouldn't be possible for individuals to take the tax credit (or whatever) and just skip getting the coverage. I imagine it'd lower enforcement costs quite a bit. It could possibly also make a nice incentive for companies to take on poorer and riskier groups.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I think the benefit to going at it from the end of the insurance companies is that it wouldn't be possible for individuals to take the tax credit (or whatever) and just skip getting the coverage. I imagine it'd lower enforcement costs quite a bit. It could possibly also make a nice incentive for companies to take on poorer and riskier groups.
I don't see what the difficulty is of requiring anyone getting the tax credit to notify their company, and then requiring every company to file information on all the people who have notified them about getting the credit. The company has no reason to lie, because they get no benefit from lying. The person has reason not to lie, because if they are on the benefit list but not the insurance list, the government comes after them.
Distributing straight to the insurance company would be acceptable to me as well. I don't want the money collected from insurance companies, though, as that adds needless complication when we already have a good way of collecting money progressively (and depending on how the money is collected from companies, could end up penalizing companies differentially, or even being effectively a regressive tax).
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Requiring coverage is the least part of what one might argue prevents there from being a free market in that arrangement.
It's really not a 'free market' arrangement. I should quote wikipedia: a free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property. This becoming a new revisionistic definition of a 'free market solution' would give most libertarians hives.
Iit's blatantly redefining 'free market' at convenience, for the sake of language framing it for appeal. Not that this doesn't tend to work, of course ('fair tax,' anyone?), but ..
This administration has undermined the fundamentals of the free market. Wonder why the wealthy aren't investing? It might have something to do with the fact that this administration has undermined the basis of our economy....contracts.
General motors was taken away from the stockholders and given to the unions. Salary contracts for executives were invalidated and the government determined executive compensation. "Predatory Lenders" are under attack for forcing the borrower to stick to the terms of their contractual agreement. Banks are under attack for forclosing under the terms of the contract.
The economy will freeze when the government intervenes in contracts at a whim. The victim of "predatory lending" signed a contract. Elderly Americans lost their 401k's when the government handed over their wealth to the union.
Contracts are no longer contracts. Laws are no longer laws. Illegal aliens are no longer illegal and lenders are now considered predators. The economy cannot flourish in a lawless environment. If you can't count on law and a contract, what can you count on?
[ November 04, 2010, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If you can't count on law and a contract, what can you count on?
You not making any sense? That's pretty guaranteed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Like seriously all of that was bull and also had nothing to do with anything you quoted.
Cut back on the oxycontin and try posting again.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Wonder why the wealthy aren't investing?
My 401k was at 11% as of yesterday. Anyone not investing right now is doing it wrong.
quote: "Predatory Lenders" are under attack for forcing the borrower to stick to the terms of their contractual agreement.
I was confused on this one at first, too. Apparently, these are places that weren't charging Prime +1 for interest. These were places charging credit card interest on home loans. The companies I've worked for aren't evil, so I hadn't heard of such a thing.
If you truely feel contract is everything and caveat emptor is the highest rule of the land, than I can see that not mattering. But to me, people are really only free to choose the best path for them and their families when the paths to ruin are as carefully marked as possible.
My credit union does what it can to offer home buying classes and responsible credit classes, but we're only serving 30,000 or so people in a city of 170,000. How many people who honestly just don't know better because their families have always been bad with money are missing out on this vital information that could change their lives for the better just because our ads don't reach them?
I'm conservative enough to want people to be responsible for their actions but realistic enough to want help to be available so they can tell good choices from bad.
quote: Banks are under attack for forclosing under the terms of the contract.
Actually, they're under attack for foreclosing under conditions not in the terms of the contract. And possibly in illegal ways.
And in my world, the bigger ones are still under attack for taking tax money, giving out huge bonuses, making profits, and not lending at the same rate as banks that didn't take TARP funds. They made a mistake and still managed to punish the consumer and reward themselves. I'm sticking with "evil".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:lenders are now considered predators
Historically, lenders have usually been considered predators.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I don't see what the difficulty is of requiring anyone getting the tax credit to notify their company, and then requiring every company to file information on all the people who have notified them about getting the credit.
Ahh, I see. That does sound like it could work.
I don't have a lot more to add. Your proposal sounds like a strong model - a great deal better than what we currently have.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Part of the income tax. I don't see a reason to try to create silos of taxation; it creates all sorts of silly bookkeeping, and is frequently filled with unintentional consequences.
What do you mean by 'silos of taxation'? I'm getting an image of big cylindrical buildings filled with shredded tax forms, but that's probably not it. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Separate taxation systems that function over separate areas of focus. In this case, the silo would be taxing insurance companies in order to fund the insurance rebates. It sounds like it makes sense, but it really doesn't. The point of the insurance rebates is so wealthier people can subsidize poorer -- and the most effective way to target that is with the income tax system.
Not that having taxes other than income taxes isn't sometimes appropriate. For instance, I like gasoline/carbon taxes, because they deal with a serious specific externality (really a whole host of externalities) in a definitely welfare-improving way. I don't like the idea of setting aside the revenues for transportation or other accounting silliness, though.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)