Anchovy ice cream

I guess it's the same reason we believe in God as and a saviour. The world is chaotic and the human mind is disquieted by chaos. We search for order and predictability and the hope that order might actually exist right around the corner in the form of that one key person or policy is in itself comforting. The promise of predictability without the fulfillment may serve as a psychological salve. Bernanke can spare us from recession and from the devaluation of our houses. The right president can make sure we'll get really expensive medical care for five bucks. Either our believe in miracles or our willful ignorance has a placebo effect in soothing our fears of randomness.

Or we're just stupid.

Irrational is the word. Or economically illiterate. Both of which can be corrected.

Some other words:

Cynical - Politicians who take advantage of people's irrationality and economic illiteracy

Foolish - Economically illiterate people who read the paper and think they understand what is going on

Psychotic - People who have seen a course of action fail again and again, and who push for that course of action expecting different results the next time

"They like power more than principle."

That's presumption on your part. It could be true of some politicians but not likely of all of them. It's likely true of some doctors, CEO's, aspiring actors and atheletes and even economists but not likely true of all of them. I've read Barak Obama's book (The Audacity of Hope). Actually he read it to me on audiobook. I really believe him when he says he loves his two daughters. I really believe him when he argues his life could have been much easier as a corporate lawyer or a law professor. And I really believe people choose their professions often for reasons other then just making a lot of money.


For some people helping others and feeling like you made a difference in the world matters more then just making a lot of money. In fact their is some biological and pyschological evidence that such traits that make conservative and progressive thinkers are based on genetics.


A man like Barak Obama will make decisions that will literally effect millions of peoples lives across the globe. Just like our current president did. Lives literally hang in the balance. He needs to be principled and we need to do our best to be sure he is and that he stays that way. You make it sound like a politician has a choice of being principled or of following the will of the people. I think one can strive to do both. I think Baraks serving Cookie Dough with hot fudge topping as best a politician can.

Bottom line.... you nor me knows his motivations but we certainly should strive to.

"He needs to be principled and we need to do our best to be sure he is and that he stays that way."

Oh come on, Murthaduck! They've got a (D) after their names and that's enough for you.

If Barry Goldwater was running against Bill Clinton (or Hitlery), you'd vote for the Clinton and make excuses for perjury and subornation of perjury, the bombing of Sudan on the day that Lewinsky testified, or the pardoning of Marc Rich, or the firing of the travel office staff and the smear of Billy Dale's character, because they (like you) want others to pay for your health care. It doesn't matter at all to you that the reason they want that is because THEY'LL be in charge of the money.

You don't give a rat's ass about a politician's principles as long as (BY GOD!) you get your "free" health care.

brotio,

I already have health care and I'm a physician. The government providing it won't make it free. So your idea that I'm looking for free health care is just a bogus irrelevent quip. The fact is universal health care will decrease the cost and make coverage universal and get money grubbers out of the business of rationing health care for their CEO and stock-holders benifit. It will help American firms more competitive with the rest of the worlds firms who don't have the same cost. It will help people be more independent of their jobs and able to switch jobs or even go back and train for better jobs.

While I do noow pay for my own healthcare I am also paying now for the VA, Medicare, Medicaid and a whole lot of redundancies and in-effeciencies in the current system.

The reason I want universal health care is not so others can pay for my care but because it will both cover those who aren't currently able to cover themselves and it will make our economy and our country stronger, more stable and healthier.

Whether Muriego wants to believe it or not Barak's potential positive effect on mankind is really quite limited. If you think he is gonna change lives and make the world a better place, then the joke is on you. BTW, I fail to see how a social democrat, with fantasies of tax rates going upwards of 60 percent of income is gonna do anything all that great for America in the long run.

Don't dismiss anchovy ice cream lightly. Here in England, one of our most famous chefs is a chap called Heston Blumenthal, who regularly offers bacon and egg ice cream:

http://www.fatduck.co.uk/
<br>
Apparently, the physiology of taste is a trciky thing; it's got lots to do with smell, texture and the like. So odd-sounding ice creams might be brilliant, when provided by men of great skill. Which I guess is where any analogy with politicians breaks down...

Muirgeo,

"The fact is universal health care will decrease the cost and make coverage universal and get money grubbers out of the business of rationing health care for their CEO and stock-holders benifit."

Sorry, but that's just not a fact. Universal healthcare will simply transfer what remains of the privately run profit motivated system to a government run profit motivated system. In other words, the only real difference will be the removal of competition. It will still be run by "money grubbers", as all large organizations are.

Well Russ, pardon me for being an even bigger cynic:

""Once in office, they all want to be popular. They like power more than principle. They respond to the political winds, rather than the rhetoric that got them elected. And when they break their promises because it’s politically expedient, they always have a justification.

The good news? That evil candidate from the other party that you hate, isn’t nearly as dangerous as you think. Once in office, he or she will listen to the public rather than to principles. It happens every time.""

You're on the right track but frankly those "political winds" you spoke of are really the brickwall of reality, meaning that now they have to take that rhetoric and put it into a bill that they can get through a Congress that is quiter likely 48% hostile. Billary couldn't do it the first time around when they had the house, and is unlikely to this time if the split holds close to what it is now or the Repubs make a comeback.

McCain faces the same situation only in reverse, actually he may be the more dangerous simply on the grounds that if he becomes president he might be able to sway more repulbicans to pass socialist legislation than Bar-illary could.

And, in my opinion, yes that candidate I love to hate really is as evil as I think. My brick wall of reality may keep McCain, Barrack, and Hillary from raping me too hard and too fast, but rape me they would if unrestrained.

Meant to read: "Congress that is quite likely 48% hostile."

To justify my cynicism or if you doubt my version of unrestrained reality, spend some time on the 20th century history of Russia/Soviet Union, China, and Cuba for three examples of what unrestrained socialism looks like in reality.

And yes, to me communism is simply socialism carried to its natural excess. So when I speak of the one I am speaking of the other.

No Randy,

You're correct in arguing against anything muirduck says (opne way to know you're right is to take an opposite position from muirduck); but:

Muirgeo,

"In other words, the only real difference will be the removal of competition. It will still be run by "money grubbers", as all large organizations are.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 21, 2008 8:36:23 AM"

is simply not true. Removal of competition is not the only difference. There is a huge!!! vast!!!! colossal!!!! difference between any government run project and that run by private industry for profit. How do you think we would up with $600 dollar hammers? $33 dollar screws? $10,000 dollar commodes? $1,000 dollar frequency meters bought for $16,000? Have I made my point or do I need to continue?

I am in excellent position to preach about government waste in ways and on things you can not imagine until you've witnessed it with your own eyes. I think just the other day I mentioned the $1,000,000 dollar flyover of Dale Ernhartd's funeral.

Pardner if you think removal of competition is the only factor in what will happen to drive up health care costs, think again. that $25 asprin you were given the last time you were hospitalized will become a $300 asprin, and civil servants will use them for spitwads simply because they can, and they'll laugh about it.

Government run, single payer, healthcare should scare the living shit out of every thinking person in America because the proof from around the world on the street where facts count is that it is unaffordable for the country ( it will bankrupt us quicker than we are already seeing) and it is unavailable to the common person.

The fact that certain countries have government owned and directed healthcare systems is not proof that it works, it is proof that they have it and are afraid to attempt to change it because they have brainwashed their people to the point where they can no longer confront the illusion they themselves created.

The fact that muirduck wants it should, as I said above about thinkin people, be enough on the face of it to convince you it has to be very bad.

Meant to read: "How do you think we wound up..."

vidyohs,

"How do you think we would up with $600 dollar hammers?"

I understand your point, but the answer is still lack of competition. A more efficient competing defense services provider would quickly replace a defense service provider that paid $600 for hammers - if there were such a thing as a competing defense services provider.

Government can make it better than it was. Better... stronger... tastier: The Six Million Dollar Anchovy Ice Cream!

But seriously: Representative democracy continues its self-corrosive process. It is now mostly wrotten from within. Lobies, pressure groups, rent seekers, anti-capitalist capitalists, all worm themselves into the system and the politicians are impelled to bite the hook: its the only option out there.

So, if an order is emerging in which all politicians are forced to be liars and/or proponents of the impossible, we must somehow adjust the underlying principles. We are slowly but surely getting to a dead end in which we will have to do something about the system itself.

Hayek, as always humbly and elegantly, comes to the rescue: the third volume of Law, Legislation and Liberty proposes alterations to the political system which will address this problem. This idea he summarized as "demarchy", but unfortunately I have never seen or heard of a book or paper which seriously discusses it (somebody help!).

Randy, Please stop. You're making my head hurt.

Of course if all healthcare is nationalized there will no longer be competition, that's a given that is expressed in acknowledging that it is nationalized.

But, that is an act that fades into the background once it is done. Once competition is eliminated, what then. By its very historically documented track record, government is absolutely incapable of operating any thing efficiently and cost effective.

We talk about the lack of justice, the favoritism, and the inequality in our courts, our legal system. Well how the hell do you think the healthcare system can avoid that same corruption?

It is not lack of competition in healthcare provision that injects racist decisions, ignorant decisions, power broking decisions, class envy decisions, etc etc into how money is spent or who it is spent on in those nations where there is government healthcare; it is the character and morals of the person in the decision making chair that does that.

Furthermore, nationalizing healthcare in America will not be a simple transferring of control from private profit making organizations to a new government profit making organization. Government will not be a profit making organization, the historical record from around the world tells us that it is a 99% certainty that the nationalized healthcare system will lose money like water going down a nice clean new shiney drain.

-----------------------


vidyohs,

"How do you think we would up with $600 dollar hammers?"

I understand your point, but the answer is still lack of competition. A more efficient competing defense services provider would quickly replace a defense service provider that paid $600 for hammers - if there were such a thing as a competing defense services provider.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 21, 2008 10:01:09 AM

--------------------

You don't understand my point at all. At $600 bucks each there was enormous competition!!!!!!!! When there is a chance to sell a $12 item for $600, you have no shortage of suppliers bidding!!! The system created by Congress and the military ensured that those hammers were each going to be purchased at $600 or greater, the price was justified by ridiculous military standards, and the supplier selected by open bidding. The $600 was the low bid!!!!!!




Please understand this.....IT IS NOT THE LACK OF COMPETITION! IT IS YOUR CONGRESS THAT HAS MADE THE RULES THAT MAKES ALL OF THAT INFLATED PURCHASING MANDATORY! Lobbyist have bought and pocketed those heads of committees.

It is that same Congress that will ensure that a government owned and operated single payer, taxpayer funded, healthcare system will be as costly and inefficient as purchasing $600 hammers and $33 dollar wood screws became! It will happen. I mean, com'on Randy, remember who wrote the massive totally incomprehenible Tac Code!

Gee Whiz, Randy, stop arguing just to be arguing, just look at what is being done now, and realize that it is Congress that sets the tone on funding and it is those heads of committees that are courted so constantly by lobbyist for the right to supply government operations at those inflated prices.

What fool, other than people like muirduck - but I am being redundant, would think for a moment that hospitals, clinics, or any other facet of healthcare can escape that corruption?

The evidence is irrefutable that when people have money not their own to spend, they do not give a shit how they spend.

And that brings us to the low level civil servants that will make the decisions as to how the money is spent at the local level and how people are seen by which doctors or who receives what treatment. These low level civil servants are just as susceptible to bribery and favoritism as any Congresscritter.

In any single payer, taxpayer funded, government owned and oeprated healthcare system lack of competition is just one of the minor problems. Inefficiency, favoritism, waste, deteorating facilities and deteriorating skills will be of far more severe consequence.

Randy, if you have not ever worked in a government job, especially civil service, then you have no basis for understanding the casual ease with which millions of dollars are squandered daily around the world by U.S. Government low level civil servants because they have plausible deniability to cover their asses. They do it because they can and in many cases because they think it is funny. It isn't lack of competition that causes that, it is ignorance and a corruption of morals and character that has caused it.

Vidyohs,

I spent 20 years in the Air Force in Supply and then Logistics. Believe me, I know exactly what you're talking about. My point about "competition" is that if the people who were actually paying for defense services were able to choose between competing suppliers of defense services then they would choose a supplier that did not pay $600 for hammers. They do not have such a choice, and this leads to precisely the kinds of behaviors you describe. Like end of fiscal year closeout in which every last dime in the federal budget is spent on something in order to justify maintaining the same amount of funding for the next year. At one point early in my career it was my job to process the requests. By comparison to the spending done every year in the last weeks of September, $600 hammers are a drop in the bucket.

Yes, all of that is true as witnessed by myself as well, and as indicated, I understand your point. And I agree.

Do you understand mine about the ievitability of corruption, inefficiency, inequality, accelerated fiscal irresponsibility, and the morals and character of the decision makers?

You don't have to agree, but IMHO, though both are bad, the latter outweighs the former in power of degeneration.

The reason is simple observation of how insurance works now for most people. There is service between suppliers (healthcare facilities and personnel), but there is a gate-keeper at the insurance co. (soon to be a government bureaucrat) that makes decisions on your health, how much and to whom it is paid. My point is that there is no gate keeper for the gate keepers now, it will be worse when government becomes the single insurer and assigns a gate keeper to you.

Well, we are butting heads. I am going to stop.

Thank you very much.

Vidyohs,

"Do you understand mine about the ievitability of corruption, inefficiency, inequality, accelerated fiscal irresponsibility, and the morals and character of the decision makers?"

Absolutely. The only thing I have to add is that the inevitability of these behaviors in the defense services industry is due to the fact that the perpetrators have no competition to constrain them. And I think that removing the last vestiges of competition from healthcare will yield the same types of behaviors in that industry.

Hey, lay off my sardine smoothies!

There is no ievitability of corruption in government run healthcare. Corporations are far more corrupt because government workers care!

/leftist la-la-la

And yes, to me communism is simply socialism carried to its natural excess.

Marx did assert that socialism was the intermediary phase between capitalism and communism. Then, once everyone saw how well it worked, the state would fade away.

Santa will come every day of the year to deliver the goodies.

All we need are blanket trees and ham bushes.

Actually, the savior types may be the most dangerous, many crimes are exonerated by good intentions.

And the more such a leader believes the fate of a nation depends upon hizzer staying in power, then staying in power becomes the most important goal. And so, the means becomes the end.

If you want to dis-empower people, tax their money away from them thus removing their ability to choose and control how it is spent.

This is the disability of any system in which 'the government' controls the money.

Please tell me who are these people who need health care and aren't getting it? Seniors get Medicare, we have Medicaid for increasing numbers of people, I pay property tax to a hospital district for "indigent care", we have SCHIP for kids whose parents MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY to qualify for Medicare. Who does that leave? People who don't want to pay a dime for their own health care, betting that they won't need it? (incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid..) Illegal aliens? People priced out of the health insurance market by insane state requirements that healthcare policies cover every conceivable contingency (pregnancy coverage for unmarried young men - don't laugh, my state requires that all policies sold in the state cover this)? My state also covers the Medically Needy - defined as a group whose medical costs would drop them out of the middle class if they had to pay them out of their own pocket. That can't leave very many. Maybe we could set up a charitable trust for the few that are left.