Comments Posted By Ken.McLoud
Displaying 21 To 28 Of 28 Comments
LEARNING NEW THINGS CAN BE FUN
Eddie,
I think one of Rick's major points is that there ARE alternatives that even conservatives can get behind.
(and none of them take 1200 pages long)One big one is allowing insurance competition across state lines. Its a pretty solid truism that fair competition drives prices down.
Another is allowing individuals to form pools so that they can buy insurance at the "bulk" rates that big employers get. This helps insurance companies too because they can spread out the risk from high-risk individuals across the entire pool.
There are many more of these reforms that cover more people and reduce costs but Do NOT increase government power or spending.
I'd even be willing to discuss something like the Wyden-Bennett Bill (Healthy Americans Act)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act
Why haven't you heard much about them?
two reasons?#1)Republicans don't want to talk about them because doing so would admit that we need some kind of reform. One of their big arguments for killing the bill is that we don't need.
#2)Democrats (Obama in particular) want to stifle discussion about anything that doesn't have a public option. Is it because they harbor a deep seated love for single-payer and government power in general? ... I'll let you be the judge.
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 16:25
two things-
First->
Rick, Could you explain (or link me to a previous explanation) how the employer mandate leads to the demise of private insurance? I'm not denying that its true, I'm just not familiar with the argument.It seems to me that the key issue would be whether or not it is possible for a non-subsidized company to provide a profitable plan that conforms to the federal standards at a rate comparable to or lower than the subsidized public plan.
does your logic simply assume the answer is "No"?
(an assumption that is at least reasonable if not probable)The real scary part for me is how easy it would be for a politician with secret (or not so secret) desires to have a single payer system to engineer the bill such the the answer is guaranteed to be "No".
Second ->
There is a fascinating doctoral dissertation to be done in sociology on the topic of Sarah Palin. She has a band of supporters that have a fierce loyalty unlike I have ever seen for a politician.We're not just talking about that people like her, we're talking about Red Socks vs Yankees kind of loyalty here. Like how people get beat up for showing up in the wrong bar wearing a Red Socks hat and laughing at Jeter missing a ground ball.
I've seen a couple of sites where the mere mention that she may have done something in a less than optimal way triggers a flurry of "Hey, you elitist, leave poor Sarah alone!", "Go back to Manhattan!" comments. Even if the original commenter has an extremely strong argument and is merely suggesting that she could have handled the situation better.
So here's my question, and the topic for that dissertation, what did she do to deserve such fervent loyalty? especially when so many of the supporters aren't Alaskan and only know of her through the VP bid?
I get it with the Yankees, they have 39 world series appearances and 26 wins they earned it.
But what did Palin do? Is it her accent? her colloquial way of talking in formal settings? Bush and countless other southern politicians have both of these qualities and don't inspire anywhere near this kind of loyalty.
She has a knack for coming up with catch phrases like "Drill, baby Drill" and "Paling around with terrorists" and "thanks, but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere" but surely she can't be the first politician with catch phrases?
So seriously, I can at least understand why she has fans, but why are they orders of magnitude more committed, loyal, and defensive that other political fan clubs?
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 15:57
Rick,
I in general support the concept of a "voluntary community" too, though this is not to say that I agree with everything Kirk says.
In my opinion, one of the keys to a successful application of the "voluntary community" concept is to ensure that "community" refers to social construct that people choose to enter. (think about a church or a fraternal organization like the Masons or the Rotary)
This is in contrast to a using "community" to refer to a geographical area or a municipality like we do commonly today. People do not necessarily choose to be a part of a certain municipality or geographic area. Requiring people to move away from their jobs or family in order to attain individual liberty is too much like what we have now.
For example, Churches should be able to ban homosexuals, and force them out of their congregations if they choose. However, government bodies such as towns/cities/counties or even states should not be able infringe on individual liberties in the same way.
I guess this just shows we need some kind of convention to hammer out what the core principles are?
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 12:41
Rick,
It looks like everyone wants you to start a new party. If you do, I can promise you at least one new member. Hell, I'd even be willing to pound the pavement for a party of intellectual conservatives.
What would the core principles of such a party be?
maybe:
#1) Governments are instituted among men to protect a small set of inalienable rights.#2) This country's founding documents were written by wise men, who gained that wisdom by throwing off tyranny, they meant what they said and said what they meant.
#3) Fair market competition is the best method for allocating a society's resources. The role of the government in such a market is simply to ensure that it is fair and transparent.
#4) Principles aren't principles if you only stick to them when its convenient.
What do you think?
I think it's a good start. A party that also promoted Kirk's "voluntary community" would be tops in my book. Too much of conservatism today tilts toward individual rights absolutism - a philosophy that glorifies the individual at the expense of community. I am four square behind the primacy of the individual in society - but not to the ruin of the community. Liberals consider this ideal "selfish" when, as we both know, individual rights are the primary guarantor of a free society.
But extremism in this sphere leads to a breaking of that community. Hence, a party that recognized individual rights in the context of a larger, voluntary community would be a much more realistic approach to governance than one that simply spouted "Leave me the hell alone" conservatism. There are times when that attitude is necessary, but to make it a mantra is not rational.
ed.
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 11:59
JohnJ,
I will have to sadly agree with your conclusion that a substantial portion of the American public is too willingly ignorant to even comprehend rational, intellectual arguments, be they from the left OR the right.
One great example of this is the "creationism debate":
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm
"Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true."
I'm an Engineer by trade and have a science-based education. That sentence makes my head hurt.
The concepts behind radioactive decay aren't even that complicated! I went to public school and we were taught them in the 7th grade. I could explain them in a few paragraphs! and yet two thirds of Americans willingly choose to outright ignore them. It really is like a horse with blinders on.
How could we possibly get people on board using rational arguments for topics that are infinitely more complex, like the healthcare system, or the economy?
I fear you may be right, that in this day and age the majority of the public is simply immune to intellectual argument.
education reform anyone?
if what you and john say is true, there's not much hope, is there? I think fear mongering is a fine old American political tradition and predates our present day ignorance. Obviously, it works to some extent or politicians wouldn't be using it.
But I have to think that enough Americans are serious about debate to tune out the hysterics on both sides and seek to learn what is being proposed. Don't have to be educated in the traditional sense to have this attitude. And it is likely that many won't really understand or grasp the implications of some policies anyway.But I think these are the people who are going to decide this issue. And if they can be shown how truly bad these proposals are, they will come down on the right side of the issue (from my perspective). There is a native caution in this country in granting government too much authority. It is one of the things that truly make us an exceptional people and you've got to have faith that in the end, that is where their feelings will lie.
ed.
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 11:01
Michael Reynolds,
I agree with you at least partly. I find myself in the same position as Rick.
I firmly believe in limited government, and in upholding the constitution, which you would think would make me a conservative.
However, I also pride myself on critical thinking, and would even describe myself as an intellectual (gasp!). The modern conservative movement, run by people like Palin, Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh wants nothing to do with people like me and Rick. They want people who rely entirely on emotion, reject critical, intellectual thought as "elitism", and wholeheartedly swallow anything they shovel down our throats.
Think about it, there isn't a single Republican or Libertarian politician out there who calls out people like limbaugh for saying the Obama logo is a secret swastika, or Palin on her "death panel" BS. Instead they just complacently remain silent (or even stoke the flames) because they know it will fire-up the uneducated portion of the base who views critical thinking as "elitism".
So, the "conservatives" don't want people like Rick and I, where are we supposed to go? The Democrats reject our core beliefs, so they're out of the question, and I can't think of any other party with enough power to make joining them worth-while!?
Where are we supposed to go?
Very well said. Until conservatism gets back to reason and rationality, you and I will probably go into the voting booth, holding our noses to vote for people either with no principles or those who pander to the base.
Taking the world as it is rather than as you wish it to be is a sign of intellectual maturity. Fighting to change the world into what it should be while keeping the above in mind is a sign of enlightened rationalism.
ed.
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 09:39
Moltenorb-
I'd say this question as to whether Pelosi was referring to the protesters or their signage is at the very least questionable.
here's the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGRUx2b0ArMher exact quote when asked if the protests were grass roots:
"you be the judge, They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare"I will at least admit that it could be interpreted either way, though I'm not a Palin, Beck, Hannity-nut my first reaction was to be shocked that she was implying that the protesters are neo-Nazis.
I will admit is was possible that she was expressing outrage that the protesters were calling Democrats Nazis. Though if that is the case she chose her words very poorly.
You're argument is that Pelosi is far to wise a statesmen (states-person?) to make such a blunder. I will firmly disagree and point to the recent CIA-torture-Briefing fiasco as proof of my argument.
I'm not saying for certain that she was calling the protesters Nazis, but it came across that way, and there is at least a solid possibility that that is what she meant.
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 09:26
Rick,
I have just recently started reading this blog, and I can happily tell you that are not "the last sane person in America" and I am happy to know that neither am I.
I agree with almost everything you said in this post.
I too have been the victim of this default assumption that if you dare to question boss Limbaugh or Her Royal Highness Madame Palin then you must instantly be a limp wristed liberal swallowing everything MSNBC feeds you.
What ever happened to critical thinking? Swallowing everything Beck, Hannity, and Palin tell you is no more noble or less idiotic than the left swallowing everything Obama tells them as gospel.
Think for yourselves folks! Verify! do research!
Like Rick said, this is a horrible bill, that needs to be stopped. However, it is so stuffed full of horrible ideas that we can easily defeat this bill without making sh*t up and alienating every critically thinking independent in the country along the way.
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 07:35
