Comments Posted By Mike Farmer
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 69 Comments
CBO ESTIMATES ON OBAMACARE TOP $1 TRILLION
If a country wanted to win a war, they'd pay what is necessary, but national defense isn't the topic, it was just an example of your logic that government provision of some services is necessary -- we don't really know it's necessary unless we consider alternatives. It may turn out after analysis that government is best suited for defense and courts, but there's no proof of this. You're simply being obstinate now. If you refuse to acknowledge government's role in the present healthcare mess, and if you can't entertain the alternative of free market solutions, then there's nothing left to discuss. We'll see once we have national healthcare how it works. There's simply no reason to assume anything, especially that government healthcare will be more efficient, less costly, and will provide better or similar services, but we could study the issue and consider free market solutions -- private, voluntary solutions are certainly better than government confiscating money from producers against their will to pay for the healthcare of others. The damage to the economy and the waste will be far greater than any profits hospitals make. You don't believe or accept this, I do. But, concerning costs and benefits, the reasonable thing to do would be to analyze the two approaches objectively -- one thing that can't be accounted for, though, is innovation. We can only go by the historical lack of innovation in government run programs, and the history of smart innovation by the market when left alone. Finally, regarding service, look at the airlines for the history on service and how competition affects the market -- study People's Airline, then you'll see the computer industry will be affected by the same principles.
Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 17.05.2009 @ 23:59
I meant Spencer, not Niebuhr
Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 17.05.2009 @ 19:59
What you fail to realize is that, for the most part, we've had government-run healthcare for a long time -- hardly anything about the current system works on free market principles. Reason tells me that if the government has done this to healthcare, total control which eliminates competiton will be much worse. My "faith" in private solutions is based on evidence of private companies doing a better job of delivering services. To be honest, I'm not sure private national defense wouldn't be more effective than what government offers. The point is to look at private alternatives -- that's reasonable -- to paraphrase Niebuhr -- contempt prior to investigation ensures ignorance.
Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 17.05.2009 @ 18:33
In a free market there will always be a company which will provide coverage, and, if not, there will be charity hospitals which will likely provide better service than the government is prosposing for everyone. Competition, and lack of stupid regulations, will keep costs down and promote innovation in service delivery to lower costs - profit is also a means of testing the efficiency of a company, not just something that's an excess. Government healthcare will become bloated and inefficient and taxes will rise to the point that it hurts the whole economy, simply because they don't have to be concerned with efficiency and competition. If healthcare is privatized, along with other government responsibilities which should be privatized, workers will be able to keep their money and buy healthcare coverage, and a society challenged to help the unfortunate will have the money to donate to charity. I imagine that most private facilities will accept a certain number of indigent cases as community goodwill -- I worked in a private specialty hospital for 10 years and through the years we treated many many indigent cases.
Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 17.05.2009 @ 16:43
Michael,
I don't hold your cynical view of the private sector, but even if it's true, government is subject to the same cost pressures and will have to make decisions just like private businesses-- rationing, for example -- the only problem with government run healthcare is that it will be a monopoly and there will be no where to turn -- at least in a free market, companies will have to compete by providing better services.
Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 17.05.2009 @ 14:27
"Many of us are so pissed off at the system you’re defending that we’d like to see health insurers replaced in toto by a French-style system."
The system we have has been broken by government, so the answer is to have government fix it? Are you open to private solutions if they work? Let's hear what the private sector would do, without government interference.
Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 17.05.2009 @ 13:27
I recommend a private commission of healthcare providers and experts who look at every private alternative available, including charity hospitals, and give a full report to congress. Unless we consider private solutions, we're stuck with a bureacratic nightmare. If the private solutions don't match up to government run healthcare, then so be it, but I think they will, if the private commission goes back to the beginning and looks at a total private restructuring, sans Medicare, Medicaid and stifling regulations and taxes levied to pay for the current mess. In other words, a private commission should show what private health care would look like if we were starting from scratch without government involvement and taking the disadvantaged into account.
Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 17.05.2009 @ 09:48
FIRE STEELE AND BRAND THE RUMPS OF RNC COMMITTEEMEN
c3 said,
I think it's going toward political influence rather than political power. It's my theory that a large portion of the independent movement we see are libertarian-minded voters -- not necessarily people who understand the whole libertarian philosophy, but are fairly grounded in the principles of classic liberalism. Whether this creates the viability of a third party is questionable, but I foresee libertarian ideas limiting government and strengthening the private sector (charity organizations, private education, mail, etc.) in the near future.
Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 15.05.2009 @ 18:13
"Can I have some of what you’re smoking?"
Can you expound on that?
Comment Posted By mike farmer On 15.05.2009 @ 10:17
"You guys have an additional problem: you had the White House for the last 8 years. So ideas you suddenly come up with now will beg the question as to why you didn’t advance them over the last 8 years.
You have to ditch the base. They’ve already lost on all their major issues anyway. They are a spent force. Look to the future."
The Democrats have a larger problem, now -- control of congress and the adminstration. I would also advise ditching your base before they ruin the country and the Democrat Party. The Democrats won because of independents, and swinging moderate Republican votes, but neither will stay with the Democrats if the radical left base completely obliterates an economy already damaged by the previous Republican president and Democrat controlled congress.
Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 15.05.2009 @ 06:01
