Open Letter to Two NPR Reporters

This is just one example of why the government should not try to take over the responsibilities of the family.

Maybe I am dense, or uninformed... but I have heard of single payer health care, socialized medicine, and universal health care. However , I am not sure just exactly what ¨Obamacare¨ is. Is it something that takes care of the health of the president? Or maybe its a skincare product?? OHHHH! I get it its a term for universal health care thats used by right wing elitists who think that insider trading for the elite and super rich is a good thing.. o.k. I get it.

Well, seeing as how Obama just got a medical procedure that would be denied to you or I under the health-care industry nationalization he proposes... "Obamacare" sounds about right.


here's hoping he licks that drinking problem, though!

That's right, Mikey. It's also known as Hitlerscare, Stalinscare, Osamascare, and Satinscare as the mood strikes them.

"Satinscare"

Is somebody afraid of satin? Corduroy I can see. Corduroy is pretty frightening, but satin? I just don't see it.

HA! It's a GOP scare tactic aimed at gays.

Today was the day the Federal cut in Medicare occurred. But then it was only 21%. That's right, 21% in a single day with more to come. I see 30% medicare patients in my practice and medicare accounts for 6% of my income. That's right, 1/3 of my work pays 1/15th of my re-imbursement, and that's BEFORE Obama's cut today. Can't you see how greedy we Doctors are? (sarc). I truly believe this: in the near future, Federal regulations will dictate we see patients for FREE, at the penalty of loosing our licenses if we don't. MEDICARE PROBLEM FIXED. AIN'T SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WONDERFUL?? Until, in 15 yrs time, nobody is stupid enough to be a Doctor anymore. Care will be free, there just won't be anyone to provide it. Who wants to go to school till you're 28, graduate with a degree that will enable you to make the same remuneration as the Hospital janitor and be 300 thousand dollars in debt?

As I suspected, this is hugely over-blown, with a lie (intentional or not) thrown in for good measure. See:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALe...

Also, this was not an "Obama's cut". The Democrats have tried for weeks to prevent it and were blocked in the Senate by GOP Senator Jim Bunning, assisted by the GOP caucus which refused to stop his fillibuster.

This is so typical of the propaganda from opponents of healthcare reform who blame various problems with Medicare and healthcare reform on their advocates when the responsibility lies with their opponents who are motivated, not to fix Medicare and healthcare reform, bu to kill them.

You docs gave up control of your practices to insurance companies a long time ago. I tried to warn my brother back during the Clinton debacle that the govt would make a better deal with them than they'd eventually end up with from the insurance companies. I don't know how many times he's said "You told me so."

Maybe you guys should've been investment bankers.

A valid solution would be to institute government medical schools where new doctors would have no debts, but work for menial govt wage. All out of the goodness of their hearts - just like in Cuba, NK and Soviet Union.

Genteel, yet brutal.

I like it.

I used to send such letters to NPR about its every-6-months-or-so story about how food banks are running out of food. I reminded them that demand for a free good is infinite, so food banks will always run out of food. I quit sending those letters after a few years. Now I just tell my local affiliate to use my pledge for anything other than NPR news programming.

First of all, nice letter, Don.

To most commenters replying to No_Red_Bull: wake up you damn jerks.

Rich people have always engaged in philanthropy, precisely because they have more of an interest in social order than poor people. A rant about the ethics of liberty convinces like a damp rag for a drowning man.

Government intervention has priced people out of the health-care market. Health-care is valued as an essential life service. People will kill when they are priced out of essential markets. Such is the legacy of market controls. Everyone who posts here should know that.

No_Red_Bull is suffering because the government has ruined an essential market, turning it against consumers. Have a care, please.

And don't get all high and mighty because someone isn't as smart as you or just can't write as welll as you. that's just vapid elitism.

Upon the highest throne in the world, we are seated still upon our asses. And many of you commenters have been first class asses. You can still take pride in being first class. That's your style.

When one makes arguments based on logic and reason, and is confronted with anger and emotion as counterarguments, it is easy to lose hope.

Because the irrational cast votes of equal value as the rational.

Just because your dental work cost thousands of dollars, and you are angry, doesn't in any way refute or even address the issue raised in Don's letter.

It doesn't matter how bad things are for some folks; it doesn't matter how cruel and unfortunate life is to some people. These things matter in a moral and ethical sense; but they don't bear on this: government is not an appropriate tool to use to solve this problem.

It's not politics; it's economics, which is almost like physics -- it doesn't matter if you don't believe f=ma, it still does, and you will suffer the consequences of disregarding it.

Under democracy, we all get to suffer the consequences of irrationality.

"It doesn't matter how bad things are for some folks; it doesn't matter how cruel and unfortunate life is to some people. These things matter in a moral and ethical sense; but they don't bear on this: government is not an appropriate tool to use to solve this problem."

Then what tool IS appropriate?

From time immemorial, people have used the tools of insurrection and revolution in an attempt to change the "cruel and unfortunate" economic situations they face. One of the great innovations of constitutional democracy is that it gives the rightly aggrieved an alternative, peaceful means to confront their aggrievers and to choose new governors.

By denying the aggrieved access to the tools of government, your political/economic theory would leave those tools in the hands of the aggrievers exclusively, and leave the aggrieved to a state of serfdom with no option other than to revolt.

This is exactly what led to the American revolution and the invention of constitutional representative democracy. Your opposition to using government to address these grievances is profoundly anti-democratic.

" It's not politics; it's economics, which is almost like physics -- it doesn't matter if you don't believe f=ma, it still does, and you will suffer the consequences of disregarding it."

This is terribly misguided. If you believe this I hope you're not an economist, but I know you're not a physicist. But don't believe me, read Don's blogpost from 2 days ago.

http://cafehayek.com/2010/02/pretense-of-knowle...

publius_texus: "By denying the aggrieved access to the tools of government, your political/economic theory would leave those tools in the hands of the aggrievers exclusively"

Who are the aggrievers?

It is government's restrictions - limits on dental schools and limits on dental licensure and practice - which has created the shortage of dental care. Do you not understand that the high price you pay for dental care is caused by a government-directed supply of dentists? The answer to government-directed shortages is not more government regulation.

John Dewey,

The only difference between Muirdiot and Texas Pubic is that Pubic is capable of constructing a proper sentence. The content is just as illogical and. A magnificent display of ignorance mixed with extreme envy and anger.

For this waste of space, government solves everything (as long as it's not conservative government), but he believes in markets - as long as they aren't allowed to work.

How does the government "direct" the supply of dentists?

I explained it to you already. State governments limit the number and size of dental schools. State licensing boards restrict the licensing of dentists and dental hygienists.

Lew Rockwall explains how such boards have kept medical fees high. His conclusion:

"Medical licensure is a grant of government privilege. Like all such interventions, it harms consumers and would-be competitors. It is a cartelizing device incompatible with the free market. It ought to be abolished."

FYI, I disagree with Lew Rockwall - and probably Professor Boudreaux - that licensing boards should be abolished. I disagree because of the danger of allowing anyone to prescribe pharmaceuticals and perform surgery on humans. But I believe the power of licensing boards should be severely restricted so that competition can lower the prices of routine medical and dental care.

It's a little more compicated than that.

Medical education at state schools is subsidized by the state. Medical training (not school, but residency) is expensive and is paid for by the Medicare program. The U.S. currently gets a free ride - to some extent - by having roughly 15% of residency spots slotted for graduates of foreign medical schools (i.e. there are that many more residency openings than there are U.S. med graduates/year). So, to allow accredited medical schools to offer more spots/year - a number that is set centrally, actually creates significant costs not borne solely by the student/trainee. To not subsidize the schooling and training would create an even greater disincentive to undertake that career choice and a need for greater fiscal reward after the fact to repay loans, etc.

The next fact to understand is that nearly all medical reimbursement is based directly or indirectly on the medicare fee schedule - so is centrally-planned and does not respond to market forces. That's the point of the post.

Dentistry, on the other hand, is largely driven by market forces, at least by comparison.

FWIW, I'm in favor of more market forces in medicine, but am only pointing out that supply issues are not a simple matter of supply of providers being arbitrarily held low by licensing boards for the purpose of affecting supply/demand.

"The next fact to understand is that nearly all medical reimbursement is based directly or indirectly on the medicare fee schedule - so is centrally-planned and does not respond to market forces. That's the point of the post."

Thanks for a reasoned, informed response.

I'm under the impression that insurance companies pay fees that are negotiated with providers, in other words, by market forces. Am I misguided?

(I understand that insurance companies have considerable market power vis-a-vis providers and therefore are in a better position to negotiate than the providers are, but still these fees are not "centrally planned".)

I'm also under the impression that insurance companies receive very large discounts on presciption drugs while Medicare is prohibited from negotiating for discounts appropriate to the demand Medicare represents.

It's worth noting that this policy is not attributable to the advocates of health care reform but to it opponents who claim to be champions of market forces unsullied by govt intervention..

Yes, you're correct that providers negotiate rates with insurance companies. However, most of those contracts follow the Medicare fee schedule - e.g. may be 110% of Medicare, etc. This is for convenience I think, and is not regulatory, but is commonly done. A medical organization that has a local oligopoly of sorts may be able to demand better contracts, however the large outline of the fees typically are centrally-set. That is what I meant by "indirectly." And, as I am sure you aware, it is illegal to charge a Medicare patient more - or less - than the Medicare charge. Interestingly, if a Medicare patient does not pay his 20% (Medicare sets the fee then pays 80% of it, with the patient responsible for 20% [for which secondary insurance is purchased]) the physician can eventually write this off as bad debt and not submit the claim to a collections agency, but the doctor cannot legally decide only to accept the 80% up front - it must be charged. I loved the original blog post, by the way.

Cheers, wbond

Sorry to impose one last time, but I want to make certain I have this down.

Am I correct in understanding that in the US...

* Most healthcare fees are set by market negotiations with the Medicare fee + 10% as a guide (used for convenience but not required), though insurers can drive reimbursements below this level if they're able to negotiate it.

(1) Am I correct that providers can charge more than the negotiated reimbursement amount (plus co-pay) if the market will bear it?

(2) Is it reasonable to conclude (at least tentatively) that the rates insurance companies negotiate are more generous than they'd be likely to receive under direct govt. regulation based on (a) their higher US profit margins compared to margins of health insurers elsewhere in the industrialized world and (b) their strong opposition to healthcare reform?

If (1) and (2) are true, it sounds like prices are largely driven by market forces in this part of the market.

* Medicare fees are set by the govt. and providers may not depart from those fees up or down.

(3) Am I correct that drug prices under Medicare do not reflect the discounts one would expect for the volumes involved due CMS's lack of authority to negotiate with the drug companies?

If (3) is true, then Medicare fees are clearly a product of central planning, except for drug prices where drug companies appear to exercise market power over prices by preventing Congress from authorizing CMS to negotiate discounts.

* Health care providers are free to charge market rates for uninsured fee-for-service patients. However, a portion of these patients (not insured under Medicaid) cannot afford to pay their bills and these charges are written off. Nevertheless, this market segment looks market-driven with what's effectively a pro-bono component.

If questions (1) - (3) are answered "yes" and I've understood you correctly, prices in most of the market seem to be largely market-driven, but in a substantial portion of the market (Medicare--but not drugs), they're set by the govt.

No problem.

1. No. The contract sets the price, the provider cannot charge more, contractually. Again, usually the contracts are written such that the price cannot be discounted either ("insurance only" is forbidden). Obviously, if there is no contract and the patient exercises out-of-network prices, there are - to some extent - market forces, although prices are typically very opaque, if not downright murky.

2. Medicare is usually the worst payer (excluding Medicaid for a moment). Insurance contracts are typically a bit higher - I used 10%, but it could be 50% - it all depends on the bargaining power of the medical group vs. insurance company. Independent providers are not typically allowed to band together to negotiate with ins. companies under antitrust regulations.

3. I know the Mcare drug plans (part D) are adminstered by insurance companies that do have formularies and cost-containing measures. I am unaware of the details and to what extent.

There is one market force in U.S. medicine (outside of charity hospitals and the V.A.): patients choosing their doctors. We could do a better job at exploiting this for quality and efficiency, in my opinion - e.g. what would be wrong with setting Mcare rates as a low base and allowing physicians to set their own prices, as long as they were transparent? Access problems would be largely solved, government expenditures would plateau somewhat and patients could decide if they want long or short office visits, the guy with the best reputation, or the one closest to home - just as they do for all other services. The % that patients actually spend on M.D. labor that increased would likely be relatively small compared to their total health care bill.

You mistook my point: I think that government can't solve this problem; I also think the problem is reasonably well solved by the way things stand.

In regard to your "cut direct", I am neither a physicist nor an economist; my point is that economics is a science with a set of hard facts associated with it; one of those hard facts is that for most things, the free market provides the best solution. A reference to a more detailed analysis of the resemblance of economics to other sciences doesn't in any way undercut that point.

"You mistook my point: I think that government can't solve this problem; I also think the problem is reasonably well solved by the way things stand.""

Then you've lost me. You're saying the healthcare "problem is reasonably well solved the way things stand" or are you talking more broadly?


"my point is that economics is a science with a set of hard facts associated with it; one of those hard facts is that for most things, the free market provides the best solution."

This is a " hard fact"? I believe you're mistaken; it's a hypothesis or maybe a conclusion, but it's not a "fact".

BTW, as a (overly-broad) conclusion, I agree with it much more than I disagree with it. I just don't take it to mean the market is perfect.

That's why I'm an advocate for a mixed economy where the vast majority of assets and means of production are held in private hands and the private sector largely controls the distribution of resources. I just happen to believe there's a constructive role for government to play in influencing (not controlling) the distribution of those resources.

That probably makes me a socialist in your book. If so, you're distorting the meaning of "socialist". I've never been able to induce a critic who calls me a socialist to provide a published definition of the term under which my position qualifies as socialism.

I invite anyone to submit it for my perusal.

I know people who are "anarcho-capitalists" but I am decidedly not one; I believe we need a government. I suppose we probably agree more than disagree on balance, and I was somewhat inflammatory in my remarks, but I do believe this health care reform idea is a bad solution to whatever problem may exist. I don't believe folks should be left to die in the street if they can't afford care; but I don't believe that actually happens in this country, except in cases where the person is not of sound mind, or who chooses to continue self-destructive behaviors.

Well, if you were somewhat inflammatory, I was somewhat over-sensitive. I'm get weary of being dismissed as a socialist, communist, anti-capitalist, stupid, asshole, etc on this site.

While I think you're probably right that we agree more than we disagree, I do think you're mistaken about people not dying in the US because they lack health insurance, some on the street and many more in their homes and hospises.

Members of my own family, after working hard for 40 years, are now without insurance because of layoffs and have lost a considerable share of their assets due to the meltdown brought on by the unchecked greed let loose by the laissez-faire advocates (who populate this site) of financial deregulation in the '90s and '00s. (Try getting a job in your late 50s; the cost of health insurance for 50+ workers is a big reason why it's so tough)

Even if they could afford to go to a doctor, which they can't, they probably wouldn't because of the threat pre-exisiting conditions pose to their insurability. And the irony is that they'll probably end up excluded anyway. Unless healthcare reform is passed, they're unlikely to get insurance before they qualify for Medicare, which most bloggers on this site would junk without trying to fix. (In fact, most would prefer not to fix so they can junk it and Social Security.)

This issue is not abstract to me, to be resolved by reference to a pristine ideology, as it seems to be for many here.

No where else in the industrialized world can this happen anymore. Why are we Americans, the richest in the world, so special, selfish, individualistic, anti-government, whatever, that we are alone in this?

It is cruel, stupid and incredibly wasteful. In fact, people like this will die sooner and they'll die expensively because of the lack of care. Even if you ignore moral objections to this travesty, it makes far more economic sense to keep these people healthy and productive than to spend 80% of their lifetime healthcare costs in the last 6 months of their shortened lives.

But that's just my opinion.

What a completely useless comment thread.

It is.

Any time somebody screams at the galling idea that they had to actually pay for a service that's valuable to them and another one repeats "social Darwinism" ad nauseum while trying desperately to plunge his hand in everyone else's pockets rather than his own, the thread descends into lunacy.

The reality even in the most socialist countries is that you either pay or you don't get the service. Theories and predictions and whining about Social Darwinism be damned. Reality will crash down on our heads regardless.

It's one thing when people in the early part of the 20th century didn't understand this, but after all the failed socialist experiments, you'd have to be severely mentally deficient to believe that they will somehow magically work this time.

When the government decided to use fee for service it was just copying the standard developed in the free market by insurance companies.

So why is it bad when the government does it but OK when the private insurance companies do it ?

Exactly. And why is it okay when Holder Construction Company has people dig ditches, but it somehow was "bad" when the SS had concentration camp inmates do it?

This is hilarious!! Unless you're serious. In which case you need medication.

I think you answered your own question Don. Nobody ever claimed that LBJ or Joe Califano was Jesus.

"Given this history, what reason is there to suppose that Obamacare is a good idea?"

Hmmm. I wonder if it might have something to do with the fact that Medicare & Medicaid have made health care affordable to 300+ million people since 1965.

"Joe Califano... admits that the first method of determining doctors’ pay was chosen for political reasons, namely, to buy doctors’ support for Medicare."

So we're blaming this pay mechanism that the AMA extorted from LBJ on the advocates for Medicare. When kidnappers extort ransoms from parents, do we blame the parents for the pay mechanism they adopt?

"you tell how attempts to change this first method of paying doctors were deeply influenced by skilled lobbyists working on behalf of doctors."

More than objections to Medicare, the examples you're citing reflect objections to (1) the ability of powerful lobbies to extract unreasonable and unwise compromises in legislation they oppose but cannot stop (so I assume you're opposed to the SC's decision in United Citizens) and (2) a constitutional representative democracy that requires compromises leading to policies that fail to conform to standards of economic efficiency.

Politics is the art of the possible. Your objections, applied generally, would make just about everything impossible. (But of course, that's exactly the outcome laissez-faire advocates prefer.)

"Joe Califano... admits that the first method of determining doctors’ pay was chosen for political reasons, namely, to buy doctors’ support for Medicare."

So we're blaming this pay mechanism that the AMA extorted from LBJ on the advocates for Medicare. When kidnappers extort ransoms from parents, do we blame the parents for the pay mechanism they adopt?
------------------------------------------

No, we're pointing out how government involvement in such things inevitably leads to interest groups gaming the system to their own advantage. The answer isn't better laws or better designed policies; it's as few policies as possible, to create the fewest opportunities for gaming.

OK, consider this:

Think of government policy as a product of market competition in political markets. (I don't subscribe to this concept, but it will illustrate a point.) Rather than vying for dollars, political actors are vying for votes. Of course, since economic and political resources are fungible, actors with more economic resources have a significant competitive advantage over actors with fewer resources (just as they do in economic markets).

If the analysis stopped here, you'd be right.

But it doesn't stop here because economic resources are not the only ones relevant in the political marketplace. Greater economic resources can be offset (and in periods of reform, they ARE offset) by the mobilization of distributed political power through popular movements and the large number of votes they generate. (This is well-established in election studies confirming that large spikes in voter turnout accompany periods of economic and political reform.)

Granted, most of the time, government policymaking is dominated by those with the greatest economic resources to bring to bear on policymakers. But at crucial times (in American history, there's a pattern of every 30 years or so), these established centers of political power are overrun by democratic forces that enact significant political and economic reforms.

The examples in US history:

* The Revolution (c.1776)
* Jeffersonian democratic "revolt" againsts the Federalists (c. 1800)
* Jacksonian democracy (c. 1830)
* Emancipation and destruction of states rights ideology (c. 1860)
* Progressive reforms (c. 1900)
* New Deal (c. 1935)
* Great Society (c. 1965)
* Reagan "revolution" (c. 1981)

If political markets were eliminated as a means of addressing democratic demands for reform, you wouldn't avoid the "gaming" you oppose. You'd just create a pressure cooker in which the grievances that occur in any society cannot escape until the aggrieved revolt. Then the wealth holders and their children go to the guillotine, the gulag or the gas chamber. If you're extraordinarily fortunate and the stars allign, you get the American revolution.

Perhaps I misread you, but I take it you don't like that "lucky" option either.

"No, we're pointing out how government involvement in such things inevitably leads to interest groups gaming the system to their own advantage."

If you take as a truism the right (expectation, assumption) of economic actors to pursue their own interets, how do you justify condemning actors in political markets who do the same?

"Medicare & Medicaid have made health care affordable to 300+ million people since 1965."

Both programs "worked" by ripping off future generations. Just two generations in and they are already failing.

So fix it or throw it all away?

Throw it all away of course. I see no reason to allow the political class to continue to rip off future generations. They should pay off those who are already in, and stop taking in new people. I don't care if it means that they go bankrupt. They're going after all of Madoff's assets in an attempt to pay off his victims. Do the same to the political class.

"Would you take us all the way back to the antebellum when black folk, Indians, Mexicans and women all knew their place and white men of property carried whips and chains, or would go back further?"

IBD, look at the quotes I just ran across on this very subject. Classic!

"Reason magazine has also alleged that from 1989 to 1994, a period during which Rockwell headed the Mises Institute, "Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist 'paleoconservatives.'"... Rockwell is also alleged by Reason magazine writers Julian Sanchez and David Weigel to have been in charge of Ron Paul's newsletter during a period when what they describe as "bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays" appeared in that publication. In an interview on February 1999, Rockwell explained, "The civil-rights movement of the 1960s complicates the picture. My ideological sympathies were and are with those who resisted the federal government's attacks on the freedom of association (not to mention the federalist structure of the Constitution) in the name of racial integration." He later states, "I never liked Martin Luther King, Jr. I thought he was a fraud and a tool."

Sources: Julian Sanchez and David Weigel. "Who Wrote the Ron Paul Newsletters?" Reason Online, January 16, 2008.
Rockwell, Lew. "Libertarianism and the Old Right." LewRockwell.com.

"Another SPLC complaint[45] involves a Murray Rothbard essay called "Origins of the Welfare State in America"[46] on the Mises Institute website. According to an SPLC Intelligence Report article written by Chip Berlet:

Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers", agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism.[45]

Sources: Rothbard, Murray. "Origins of the Welfare State in America." Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 12, No. 2.
Berlet, Chip. "Into the Mainstream." Intelligence Report. Southern Poverty Law Center. Summer 2003.

Not sure I'm following your train of thought here. Are you assuming I am a disciple of these people?

He's accusing you of being a racist.
Just as in a gun control thread a while back he accused those who support plain language of the Second Amendment of supporting the three-fifths clause, implying that they are racists who wish slavery was never abolished.
I imagine he'll take any discussion on states' rights and bring up the Civil War, so as to accuse supporters of states' rights of being racist.

He's a troll. We should do ourselves a favor and ignore him.

I typical distortion from you, JK. Maybve you have trouble with the English language.

If you had been paying attention you might have noticed I was citing that socialist rag Reason as saying Rockwell, Rothbard and Paul hit the trifecta of bigotry, racism, and antisemitism. Unless Randy works for the Mises Institute, he's not implicated.

"Just as in a gun control thread a while back he accused those who support plain language of the Second Amendment of supporting the three-fifths clause..."

This one goes beyond distortion to lying. Find the passage and send it back. I won't even have to interpret it for you. It'll be clear on its face.

Good idea. Please ignore me so I don't have to read and be tempted to respond to your drivel.
I imagine he'll take any discussion on states' rights and bring up the Civil War, so as to accuse supporters of states' rights of being racist.

He's a troll. We should do ourselves a favor and ignore him.

I confused you with Adam Hockenberry. My bad.

Though I still consider that post of yours to be a thinly veiled 'guilt by association' allegation of racism.

I have no idea who that is, bt no harm, no foul.

No, but for whomever the footware fits, so shall he wear it. I see no evidence to suggest that the shoe fits Randy.

It absolutely was. He's only attempting to back peddle and reinterpret what he meant as he sees how stupid it was. Here's his comment again.

"Why am I not surprised. Would you take us all the way back to the antebellum when black folk, Indians, Mexicans and women all knew their place and white men of property carried whips and chains, or would go back further?

You know there are some Islamic fellows running around these days who would transport us all back about 1300 years. Maybe you're a moderate compared to them; depends on your answer I suppose."

I think the 2nd paragraph is where the "thinly veiled 'guilt by association' allegation of racism" is most affective.

He's proving to be more disingenuous than DK.

You should take it too, JK. It's only 15 questions and for most of them I supplied the context so you won't even have to Google many of them to see what the hell they reference.

But you won't because either you'll have to lie, and others on the cite will know you're lying, or you'll have to show your true colors.

I thought you were going to stop feeding trolls.

Maybe I won't because I'm not so stupid as to recognize a loaded question, let alone a whole list of them.

*Have you stopped beating your wife?
*When you masturbate do you use baby oil?
*How much did you pay for that hooker last night?

Actually, you might notice that none of the loaded questions you offer are true/false. That's because true/false questions can't be loaded (without ridiculous convolutions).

These questions are uncomfortable to answer only if you don't like what the answers indicate about you.

I, on the other hand, am ready to answer any t/f questions you put to me.

True or false.

You no longer beat your wife.

You use baby oil when you masturbate.

The hooker you slept with last night was worth the money.

True, never did.

False.

Tru dat!

Your turn.

HA! So you think I was associating Randy with Osama. Well, for the record and to clear up you mental confusion, I don't think Randy has been associating with Al Qaeda. Man, MWG, your logic is loose.

But on the larger question, I have a liittle test for you. Answer the following questions true or false, then we'll know:

* At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, I would have voted for the 3/5 provision (and others) that incorporated slavery into the Constitution.

* If I had been in Congress when the Fugative Slave Act was passed and the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision, I would have opposed both.

* When Lincoln ran in 1860, I would have supported his moderate stand on slavery over the accomodational and out-right defensive stands of his three opponents in the general election.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have supported the Emancipation Proclamation.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have voted for the 13th Amendment which ended slavery.

* If I had been in Conggress at the time, I would have voted for the 14th Amendment, which gave full legal rights to the former slaves.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have voted for the 15th Amendment, which gave freedmen full political rights including the franchise.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have voted for the 19th Amendment, which gave women full political rights including the franchise.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have supported Truman's integration of the armed forces.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have opposed Jim Crow and "seperate but equal" and would have supported the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v Board of Education.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have supported Ike's decision to send federal troops to Little Rock to force integration of the schools.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have supported the 24th Amendment, which outlawed the poll tax.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have voted for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have voted for the Hate Crimes Act.

"HA! So you think I was associating Randy with Osama. Well, for the record and to clear up you mental confusion, I don't think Randy has been associating with Al Qaeda. Man, MWG, your logic is loose."

A weak attempt to deflect by holding up a strawman. I never accused you of suggesting Randy is "associating" with Osams. What I did accuse you of is suggesting that, in general and , libertarians are homophobic, racist, and sexist (including Randy).

You love to cite FDR and his "New Deal". FDR imprisoned thousands of Japanese. Do you hate Japanese? FDR refused to desegragate the military. I think it's safe to assume you would have been a fervent opponent of desegregation as well.

See what your logic looks like?

Actually, I think FDR was dead wrong in interning the Japanese. Unlike Randians and Hayekians and their idols, however, I don't worship FDR or think he's infallible. The internment of the Japanese has nothing to do with the New Deal. Your logic: massive fail.
----------------

Sure, you accused me of associating Randy with Osama. Here's what you said:

You: "I think the 2nd paragraph is where the "thinly veiled 'guilt by association' allegation of racism" is most affective.

My 2nd paragraph (look it up): "You know there are some Islamic fellows running around these days who would transport us all back about 1300 years. Maybe you're a moderate compared to them; depends on your answer I suppose."

Now you're changing your story.
------------------

I never accused libertarians of being racists. You're confusing me with the authors of the Reason article. Do you read Reason?
-------------------------------------

Why did you duck answering the questions?

That's ok. You're confirming suspicions as much as if you answered them.

* If I had been in Congress at the time, I would have supported Truman's integration of the armed forces."

If I were FDR my answer would have been 'False'.

Why am I not surprised. Would you take us all the way back to the antebellum when black folk, Indians, Mexicans and women all knew their place and white men of property carried whips and chains, or would go back further?

You know there are some Islamic fellows running around these days who would transport us all back about 1300 years. Maybe you're a moderate compared to them; depends on your answer I suppose.

You should reread Marx, who would tell you that all the instances of exploitation you name were functions of the political structure. And you want me to believe that political structure is the solution? Your Progressive politicians fucked up, and you want me to believe that more Progressive politicians are the answer? That if I just give them more money all will be well? How big a fool do you take me for?

Ironic you citing Marx to me. If you thought he'd have any credibility with me, you're both wrong and typical. I don't take you for a racist, but "how big a fool"? Jury's out.

The Medicare everyone loved, the one with hundreds or thousands of percent ROI for nearly everyone 65+ years old, can no longer exist. In that sense, it cannot be fixed.

And as the involuntary Ponzi scheme has consumed large portions of people's savings, dramatically increased health care prices, help destroy consumer-driven incentives, empowered a class of busybody Washington overlords, and politicized an entire industry, people of conscience should be disgusted at any futile attempt to even try.

"The Medicare everyone loved, the one with hundreds or thousands of percent ROI for nearly everyone 65+ years old, can no longer exist. In that sense, it cannot be fixed."

An easy conclusion through a faith-based economic theory whose adherents opposed Medicare (and Social Security) from the beginning, have never had an interest in fixing it, tried repeatedly to gut or kill it, and are delighted to see deficits skyrocket (like the Reagan and Bush II starve-the-beast ideologues accomplished) so they can finally drive a stake through the heart of the New Deal and Great Society programs that draw their fanatical ire.

Well said.

I love this:

Mr. CALIFANO: By late '67, the budget data was just stunning. I mean 1968, we knew that system should be changed. We asked Congress for authority to change it.

JOFFE-WALT: But you just created it.

Mr. CALIFANO: I know it. But we saw what was happening with costs so fast. So fast.
--
Wonder if Krugman will finally 'fess up to his ignorance. Or maybe stop bidenizing.

"what reason is there to suppose that Obamacare is a good idea?"

Is it too cynical to suggest that the reason may be that it can be done, no matter the merits?

Yep, it would be.

How right was Reagan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

I spent thousands and thousands of dollars on my DENTAL care last year and the first 2 months of this year. I think that my diabetes contributed to the deterioration of my middle- aged teeth, not to mention infirmed body. I just paid an endodontist $1,400 for a root canal on #31 molar. I accidentally discovered that that particular dentist lives in a 7 million dollar mansion in Beverly Hills. So far, I'm happy with the results of the root canal therapy that took him under 2 hrs. to perform. I am destitute compared to my dentist. Where is the pro-bone dental work? I suppose I could have asked him for discount, but it is quite painful, like a sore tooth, to have to beg for one, and embarrassing if denied one. Where is the talk about universal dental care? You don't think teeth are important to one's health and happiness? You don't know nothin', then. And if you are an "economist" who fails to see the ironies of a poor dental patient forking over vast quantities of money (via a credit card) to a millionaire dentist in order to try to save 1/30 of his teeth then your degree isn't worth more than the wall decoration that it currently is.

"You don't think teeth are important to one's health and happiness?"

Uhm... yes, I do, in fact.

So is food, however, and I will go to prison before I pay for your food. Same deal for your dental work. You cannot force me to produce for you, no matter what. Try it, and see what happens.

Will you go to prison if "the people" force you pay for some form of socialized medicine, or for a war in Iraq or a tax cut for the wealthy making the little people foot the bill for the Pentagon, etc.? I seriously doubt it, unless you are a tax evader type who is willing to go to jail for his/her beliefs. So, your comment is baloney as I see it.

I think you are missing the point. That dentist that lives in the several million dollar mansion also went to school for many years. He provides a service that you find valuable enough to pay for. If you are forking over $1,400 for one root canal you need to find a new dentist, or how about this, maybe an insurance company. Just like everyone else who made a poor vocational error in their youth, you want something for free. I too had a root canal but I also had enough foresight to find an affordable insurance company. You would better serve yourself if you would start taking responsibility for your actions and quit looking for a hand out, because this is the real world and you wont get one.

Where is the pro-bone dental work?

All of my dentist's work is pro-bone. It's no understatement to say that preventing bone loss due to gum disease and other causes is one of her chief concerns. If your dentist is not pro-bone, you should find a new dentist.

My dentist wanted to do laser treatments and scraping for $1,000 because my gum pockets were at 4 & 5 mm.

I put her off and bought a Waterpik for $80 and used it nearly every day for several months.

At my last exam, she was quite satisfied with the health of my gums and there was no more talk of those procedures.

Waterpiks are good. Regular (every day) use of dental floss achieved the same effect for me over a year.

BTY: I have a high deductible policy -- I can spend the deductible for health care from a HSA before tax. These policies are priced (you can easily check this) so that IF you spend the entire deductible each year, you still pay less than if switched to a co-pay policy.

When I tell my medical providers that I'm paying cash, I always get AT LEAST a 25% discount and sometimes as much as 50%. It's worth it for them not to have to do all the paperwork. (It doesn't hurt to let them know I'm shopping around, as well.)

When I tell my medical providers that I'm paying cash, I always get AT LEAST a 25% discount and sometimes as much as 50%. It's worth it for them not to have to do all the paperwork. (It doesn't hurt to let them know I'm shopping around, as well.)

Really? My experience has been just the opposite. If you're on insurance you get the insurance company's negotiated rate, which is invariably less than the list price. In some cases the difference is extreme; I've seen factor-of-10 differences, although 2 or 3 is more common. Moreover, my understanding is that the providers' agreements with the insurance companies require to charge this higher rate. Are your providers simply violating their agreements under the table, or are they able to find some sort of a loophole?

This seems like an important point because a lot of the hardship faced by the uninsured stems from the fact that the insurance industry has negotiated prices upward for the uninsured. If there is a way to get around that, then more people ought to know about it.

I have had no such experiences here in Colorado, nor in Wyoming or Montana (the only places I have needed medical care in the last 5 years). I strongly suspect that such an agreement (requiring a provider to charge a higher rate for others) would be illegal in Colorado -- A violation of our restraint of trade laws. In any event, I have had no refusals to discount in the 2 major hospitals and 3 clinics that I have used.

Are you sure you're not mixing up the co-pay with the total cost?

BTY, when I said I paid "cash", I was referring to paying with a debit card on my Health Savings Account (HSA). This is not strictly "cash", but the provider's bank account gets credited just as fast (faster, even, since they don't have to make a trip to the bank to deposit it).

For drugs, check out the pharmacies in the Kroger-owned grocery stores (King Soopers, City Market, Publics, etc.). They have started selling nearly all generic prescriptions for $4! They have to be losing money on this, but must be treating it as a loss-leader.

rpl: Another point: Assuming that your state doesn't have the restraint of trade protection that is common in the western states and the prices are as you say -- to be complete, you should include your monthly insurance premiums in the calculation. When I priced health insurance I invariably found that spending the entire deductible each year (which I have yet to do) would still be cheaper than buying health insurance with small co-pays, even though my costs per visit would, indeed, be multiple times more (even with the discount) than the co-pay.

"I strongly suspect that such an agreement (requiring a provider to charge a higher rate for others) would be illegal in Colorado -- A violation of our restraint of trade laws."

Of course, it's not that there's an agreement "requiring a provider to charge a higher rate for others", it's that there's an agreement giving deep discounts to the insured while the uninsured are left to pay much more--the very people who can least afford the higher rates.

For a particularly egregious example, when there've been attempts to authorize Medicare to negotiate deeply discounted rates for drugs just as private insurance companies do, the GOP has consistently and overwhelmingly opposed it--successfully.

Also, you seem to be unaware that health insurance companies enjoy an exemption from antitrust laws, an exemption the House Dem. health reform bill would end.

I assume you would oppose ending this exemption since it's clearly an extension of the Progressive era's antitrust and regulatory reforms.

"Also, you seem to be unaware that health insurance companies enjoy an exemption from antitrust laws, an exemption the House Dem. health reform bill would end."

You shouldn't assume too much until you learn to reason (or, at least, learn to use Google).

Health insurance companies are exempt from federal anti-trust regulation because:
1) They can't sell policies across state lines -- hence don't engage in interstate commerce which would subject them to federal regulations, and
2) They are already regulated by the various state governments to prevent collusion, price-fixing and other anti-competitive behavior. (e.g., Colorado's restraint of trade laws).

Despite the non-problem of these regulations not being duplicated by the federal government, the House of Representatives voted last Wednesday to strip health insurance companies of their federal antitrust exemption. The vote was 406 to 19. There are not 406 Democrats in the House, so do the math (if you can) to decide if this was a partisan vote.

Here's an article I found in, oh, about 15 seconds on this subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
Some quotes:
"The provision passed on a 406 to 19 vote, with most Republicans joining all the House Democrats in voting for the measure. "
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, however, said last year that because states already investigate health insurance companies, repealing the exemption would not significantly reduce premiums. "
"Republicans privately complained the House antitrust measure was designed for political reasons. Republican leaders circulated a memo before the vote saying the issue was being pushed by Democrats for "political calculations, rather than substantive reasons." "

So, this entirely meaningless measure was put up for purely emotional reasons -- good work Congress! The only effect will likely be an increase of bureaucratic overhead on insurance companies which they will pay for by increasing their rates.

While the Democratic health "reform" bill won't be necessary to end the meaningless "exemption" of health insurance companies from federal anti-trust regulation, it will effectively end private health insurance. Since I know you can't figure this out for yourself, I'll give you a hypothetical example that has already been solved in a more rational way:

Food stamps are a government program where the problem of people not having enough money to buy sufficient food is addressed by the government directly subsidizing those folks by (now) giving them debit cards that can be used to buy food. The money to do this comes from my taxes (and yours, assuming you are gainfully employed).

If this problem had been addressed in the way the current pack of Socialists in Congress want to "solve" health care, the government would have set up tax-subsidized grocery stores (and perhaps even farms) that sold food to anyone at a deep discount. Since these stores (and farms) would not have to make a profit, they would put all private grocery stores (and farms) out of business. Fools like you would crow about how little you paid for food, not being bright enough to realize that you were really paying for your food through taxes.

But that wouldn't be the end of it: Grocery stores have to be run efficiently, as they only have about a 3% profit margin (thanks to widespread competition -- similar to health insurance companies, actually ). Once the government is running all the grocery stores, there is no longer any incentive for efficiency and the actual cost of food (paid by taxes, hence hidden) would soar. The food bureaucrats would also have no incentive to find products and brands that people liked so would carry only a few varieties of anything. The winners would be picked by lobbying processes that would promote corruption and more inefficiency. Pretty soon, you would have the kind of grocery stores that were common in the old USSR -- few choices, poor quality, and scarcity.

It's obvious that the way the Food Assistance program currently runs is vastly superior to my hypothetical example of government taking over the food distribution industry, so why do the Socialists in Congress not prefer that method of "solving" the health care "crisis"?

The answer is obvious: Directly subsidizing needy people to buy health insurance only requires a (relatively) small amount of money and gives those people some measure of control over their lives. Taking over the entire health care industry involves gigantic amounts of money to flow through the control of the political class and gives them massive power over everyone.

It's obvious what the ultimate outcome of collectivization is -- the history of the last 100 years is perfectly clear on that -- but the Socialists are willing to screw everyone over for power.

And fools like Publius_Texus cheer them on, not being bright enough to know they're being had.

ColoBob, why have you not responded to my post from 15 hours ago? It doesn't take this long to do Google research.

Wow!. First point into your dissertation, and you're already wrong!

"Health insurance companies are exempt from federal anti-trust regulation because:
1) They can't sell policies across state lines -- hence don't engage in interstate commerce which would subject them to federal regulations, and
2) They are already regulated by the various state governments to prevent collusion, price-fixing and other anti-competitive behavior. (e.g., Colorado's restraint of trade laws)."

You better go back to your Googling. As your WP article demonstrates (if you'd been paying attention), health insurance companies are in fact under federal jurisdiction for anti-trust purposes, irrespective of the prohibition on interstate competition you cite. (BTW, the intrastate limit was placed on the companies by... themselves. Why? To create smaller markets in which to exercise market power. Look it up.)

The reason the companies are not subject to federal anti-trust action is that Congress (under Rep control) passed a law giving them the exemption. Without that law, the feds could go after them. The law would be unnecessary if the feds lacked jurisdiction.

As you note, the House healthcare package would repeal this exemption. Why did the Rs vote for it? Certainly not because they supported it. As the WP story implies (you need to read your cites more closely; this article is really helping me make my case), it's because they were afraid to face their constituents in November defending the monopolistic power, 40% premium increases and pre-existing conditions policies of the insurance companies.

If you think the Dems are demagoguing this issue, where were you when the Rs were screaming about the bogus death panels? Even if you're right, which you aren't, this pales in comparison to death panels and the other junk healthcare reform opponents have thrown up.

If the state of Colorado regulates health insurance companies, name the agency that has this authority.

Your experience is virtually universal, with the few exceptions being providers, like MedSavers in my hometown, who have created a discount generics-only niche for prescription drugs. Many providers don't even accept cash these days. Just insurance and credit cards.

It is the third party payer system that is the problem. Be it an insurance company or the government, when someone else pays the bill on your behalf, they don't care what it costs as long as they get a cut.
It's not their money, what do they care?

What if oil changes were covered by auto insurance. What do you think they'd cost? $50? $100? And that would be for everyone, not just the lucky ones with insurance. Why should they offer a lower price if a majority of the clients have someone else paying the bill for them? And what would auto insurance cost of the covered said oil changes?

"when someone else pays the bill on your behalf, they don't care what it costs as long as they get a cut"

Competitive third party payers do care what it costs, since lower costs allow them to better compete by offering lower premiums. The problem is (1) THE CUSTOMER doesn't care what it costs, since he's already paid for it; and (2) any third-party payer is in a poor position to efficiently determine individual consumer buying preferences in the broader market.

VV, how do you explain the capability of healthcare systems in Taiwan, Japan, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, South Korea, Hong Kong, Scandinavia, New Zealand, Belgium, and Switzerland to provide virtually universal coverage at substantially lower cost with better health outcomes and greater consumer satisfaction than we do?

Clearly, it's not because there's something unique to the economies, resources, governments or cultures of these countries that make them fundamentally different from us. This list is not a uniform set of countries. Some are Asian, some European, some North American. Some are social democracies, some are more free-market economies. Some are fast-growth, some are slower-growth. Some are new systems, some have been around in some form for most of the 20th century. And together they cover the full gamut of healthcare insurance/delivery options.

Point to a SINGLE example of a fully privatized, laissez-faire healthcare system (like libertarians and conservatives idealize) anywhere in the world that matches or even approaches the records of these systems in terms of costs, coverage and outcomes.

And it's not like these systems are alien to US health care insurance/delivery. Medicare is like Canada; employer-provided insurance is like Germany; veterans healthcare is like the UK, and for the uninsured it's self-paid fee-for-service like rural India. It's a mess and the cost, coverage and outcomes demonstrate it.

Who is this system designed to serve? Compare the profit margins of US insurers and drug producers with those in these other countries and you have your answer.

OK. I'm ready to receive the predictable diatribes about how I'm a socialist, hate capitalism, hate profits, don't understand incentives and markets and how I'm stupid etc I am.

Maybe someone out there will give me a reasoned response.

Why would I want to explain a string of false propaganda? Healthcare outcomes are not better and in many cases are worse, costs are growing at a similar unsustainable rate as in the US, and if you factor in the costs of denied care and delays, it would likely be the judgement of a great many people that the costs are NOT cheaper than in the US.

Why do people in general feel good about being told they they will have free healthcare if they ever need it? You have to ask that? Get back to me when you've compared polls of actual health care experiences among those who are old, or have rare or life threatening diseases.

Publius_Texus is best left ignored. He has contributed nothing to this forum other than regurgitated statist arguments dripping with arrogant condescension. He has no desire to exchange ideas, only to attack people who do not share his views.
He is a troll.
Don't feed the trolls.

You don't have any evidence for this. If you do, substantiate ANY of your claims about costs, coverage or outcomes.

I could ask the same of you, but then you'd post the same old WHO study and satisfaction surveys, and I'd explain why those are wrong and refer you to specific health care outcomes studies, etc., etc. I'd be repeating what I've posted too many times in the past. You could search my name in this forum, but instead I suggest you search for health care articles on cato.org and mises.org, then come back armed with arguments, and push me to the next level. Very likely you will find out why you are so wrong on all counts. If not, we can at least have an interesting argument.

It no longer interests me to go down the same old road again and again. Sorry.

As is obvious from his other posts, Publius has never figured out how to use Google (or any other resource) for research. Like most "progressives" his beliefs are arrived at (if, indeed, any rational process is used at all) by choosing what he would like to believe and then shutting off all other input. Generally, progressives choose to believe things that make them feel morally superior to others, regardless of the actual consequences of those beliefs.

(Publius can't conceive of anyone else actually researching something -- or even what constitutes research -- which is why he is always accusing others of just taking Hayek on faith.)

I would bet that Publius is not now, and never will be, a successful engineer, as that takes some degree of attention to reality outside one's own fantasies.

I don't have to do Google searches because I actually read books (know what those are?) on a whole bunch of different subjects like history, philosophy, religion, law, cosmology, politics, economics and even a novel or a biography every now and then. I can give you a recent reading list if you'd like.

You see, my attention span is long enough to read something longer than a Wikipedia entry or a newspaper article. But then I haven't done as much crack as you guys have.

I know of members of his cult breaking their chains. The chains are emotional, so the web of indoctrination is a fairly easy intellectual challenge if one can muster the curiosity. The fact that he is here at all may mean he's questioning some of the nonsense he was raised on.

Exactly. Like a lapsed Catholic, I'm drawn back to the church in my dotage. My father was a Goldwater Republican.

Of course not. You might have to defend some faith-based, social darwinist ideological claim for which you have no evidence, and since Hayek didn't address the matter directly, you can't go back and lift some quote from the Hayek canonical scripture to satisfy yourself.

Look, I'm trying to help you out. I've done my debate time as any search of Cafe Hayek will show. I happen to be an industry insider with a great deal of first hand and academic knowledge. If you spend just a few hours on cato & mises (and I'll add aapsonline.org), you can educate yourself even faster than tit for tat postings with me. I've spent my valuable time studying the facts, now you can too. I think you'll be glad you did, whether or not you change your mind. If you don't care to learn or engage, then stop bothering people here with your adolescent name calling.

Sure. I'll go on cato and mises and come back to you.

Trust me, I'm familiar with these propaganda mills. I've read Road to Serfdom and Ayn Rand's tracts, stuff from the Mises Institute and enough on this site to recall the complacent, reflexive bigotry, racism, vitriol, etc. of my youth. I grew up in a Goldwater household in Texas, among my parents' John Bircher friends, thick as theives, who quietly celebrated JFK's assassination, whose kids went to college and came out like their dads but one rung up the intellectual ladder to Ayn Rand and libertarian economics. Their "theories" provided the simple cognitive framework that allowed them to rationalize their hate for blacks, Jews, FDR, JFK and eventually the Texas traitor LBJ, and the dog-eat-dog social darwinism that killed their conscences and allowed them to sleep at night.

I don't know which of their fates was worse: Christian fundamentalism or Randism (i.e., economic fundamentalism). Some of them were somehow able to manage both. They didn't read Ayn very closely, but by then they didn't have enough cognitive to have dissonance.

I also know the origins and history of the libertarian think tanks, who funds them and why, and Friedrich's and Ludwig's roles in founding them. And I've read "Invisible Hands" by Kim Philips-Fein. Good book. If you don't know this history, you should read it.

Am I surprised that an industry insider draws upon the theoretical framework of laissez faire apologists like Hayek and Mises?

No.

I've worked on Capital Hill, in the US Treasury and in politics and policy-making generally, and I've lobbied enought to know better. I'm an insider, too. You're not in a position to try to pull rank.

But I accept the invitation to read and get back to you.

"if it" not "of the" in the last sentence.

So, Mr No_Red_Bull:

If you insist on only using a good dentist, why are you upset with his wealth? Do you expect a good dentist to be poor?

How much of your dentist's wealth and time do you think you are entitled to and why? Do you think you owe your labor and its fruits to anyone who happens to be poorer than you? If not, why not?

If everyone else is responsible for you, who are you responsible for? Anyone?

What else do you think you should get for free? Food? Gasoline? Your house? Your automobile? If you have these things already, paid for by your labor, why don't you owe them to anybody in the world poorer than you (and, if you live in the US, there are legions poorer)?

And, if you think having a bad tooth means that everybody else owes you, will you reciprocate by giving your wealth to someone else with a toothache when you are better? Why not?

"How much of your dentist's wealth and time do you think you are entitled to and why? Do you think you owe your labor and its fruits to anyone who happens to be poorer than you? If not, why not?"

Jeeze, CoBob. You've never felt like you've had to pay too much for something or that one person ever benefits unjustly at another's expense? Cool. I've got some door-to-door salemen who want to meet you. Are you in Denver?

Your faith in markets has crossed over to fundamentalist faith-based economics.

Did Hayek, like Mohammad, receive the word directly from God?

Publius_Texus: I notice you didn't actually answer any of my questions -- perhaps they required too much unaccustomed thought, as opposed to simply parroting collectivist tripe.

So -- can we conclude (from your second paragraph) that; IF you feel envious and downtrodden, THEN other people DO owe you money? Again I ask -- how much, and do you reciprocate by giving your money to those who are more envious and feel more downtrodden than you? How is this decided anyway?

Oops, sorry! Asking a collectivist to reason is like asking a pig to sing. No wonder you have trouble with door-to-door salesmen -- they are experts at exploiting those with feeble logical facilities.

And you believe in the god of communism.

Tagged: Ad Hominem

Tagged: Ad nauseum

lol

Sorry. I'm an atheist who hates the godless communists.

Now I'm led to conclude you're a lassez-faire, social darwinist, cancer-tobacco and global-warming denying, flat earth, home schooled, arms-bearing-rights libertarian. (How many did I get right?)

So, did Hayek receive The Road to Surfdumb directly from God?

Tagged: Ad Hominem

Why were you embarrassed/afraid to negotiate? Health care providers are doing this more and more these days. One of the dirty secrets of the health care industry is how much more they (docs, drug stores, hospitals, imaging) charge cash providers than they get paid by health insurers. If you are paying cash, stipulate up front that you will only pay the same rate as the least they expect from an insurance plan they participate in. Maybe they agree, maybe they don't, but they sure will come off the 'rack rate'.

Also, what is this comparative destitution you speak of? You are either destitute (without the means to take care of oneself) or not. I take your comment to mean that you are envious of your Dentist's wealth. Perhaps you should have gone to Dental school and then started your own business and built it into a roaring success, which apparently your dentist has done.

Well, I agree with your first paragraph that maybe I should have asked for a discount. Still, it always is humiliating to me to do so. I feel like I'm in Tijuana trying to get a deal on leather shoes. I wanted a top specialist, rather than "shop around" for a bargain on something so important to me like saving my tooth. So, I felt that I shouldn't quibble about the price; maybe I was dumb, but it's not my style. Maybe I'd make a lousy business man. Bargaining feels unseemly to me. I don't like it. Isn't it unseemly that he would charge me more than he's getting from insurances companies for the same procedure? Maybe there ought to be a law...

As far as your second paragraph goes, it is full of platitudes about envy and that I should spend the next 10 years studying to become an endodontist. Forget it man! I'd rather play Frisbee at the beach with my dogs. Then I suppose I should study another 10 years to become a lawyer, so I don't get ripped off by them. Life is too short for that. And, you're wrong besides; I don't begrudge my dentist his wealth or success. I will be very happy if he did a good and careful job on my tooth. I'm happy he hasn't retired to the Bahamas and is still practicing dentistry. Btw, I also don't care to own a 7 million dollar Beverly Hills mansion, a 1 million dollar house in the suburbs will do just fine, thank you very much.

Just more bitter class envy.

No, but I do have penis envy. I want a bigger penis, paid for by, you guessed it, people who have big bank accounts.

Well there actually is low cost/pro-bono dental work to be had if you happen to live near a dental school and are willing to let students in your mouth.

But actually government often prevents medical providers from giving away their products. I read an article a few months back (can't recall from where off the top of my head) about a group of doctors who were trying to organize free clinics around the country. Basically they'd get doctors (and dentists) from around the country to come to a certain city for a day or two and set up a mobile clinic and give free health care to people. States (in the particular case of article, predictably it was California) shut them down because they wouldn't grant temporary licenses to doctors/dentists from other parts of the country. If they wanted to give away health care, they'd have to get board certified for California (or whatever state) even if they were only planning on coming in for a weekend to do a good deed. You can't give something away without paying the beast.

As for universal dental care, I have, in all seriousness, wondered why that is left out of the discussion and why dentists are left free of government meddling (to the extent of other health care providers). Or optometrists for that matter. I need corrective lenses to survive out in the world--surely the government ought to pay for that. But of course, this is exactly why a "right to health care" is so ridiculous. I ought to then be able to claim a right to food and housing...oh wait, I guess the government is giving those away as well. Nevermind.

Yeah, you can get discounted laser surgery the same way. And vasectomy procedures, too.

"Well there actually is low cost/pro-bono dental work to be had if you happen to live near a dental school and are willing to let students in your mouth."

I strongly advise against having dental students use a drill in your mouth. I tried to save money by going to USC dental school, years ago. The clumsy student with chubby fingers over-drilled my tooth and I needed surgery on my jaw bone to enable a crown to be placed on that tooth. The procedure is called "crown lengthening." I'd rather go seriously in debt to have good work done on my teeth than have someone practice on me like a guinea pig. Your teeth are very important to your health and good looks. The next time you have a bad toothache you will remember what I'm telling you and you'll agree with me.

Years ago, I drove to Oregon to visit my sister and my car broke down in a small town. I went to a repair shop and I ask the mechanic/owner for a discount. He asked me if I was a "Jew." That is bigoted small-town, small-time America for you. I hope that Christian s.o.b. never got a discount from anyone ever, not even from the billionaire owners of his local Wal-Mart.

Tagged: Off topic

Go grab a beer, my man, and chill out.

"I hope that Christian s.o.b. never got a discount from anyone ever, not even from the billionaire owners of his local Wal-Mart."

You can rest easy; if he went to Wal-Mart, he no doubt got exploited by paying its owners the discounted prices that have made them rich. I just returned from Wal-Mart, where I buy my groceries and ammo at, you guessed it, lower prices than anywhere else in town; so you may take pleasure in knowing that I too have been victimized by the corporate Leviathan that liberals love to hate (for reasons that only liberals can explain to other liberals).

Yes, the Jewish dilemma: pork at half price.

Tagged: Off topic

I heard this one at a dinner party last night from a Jewish wife sitting next to her husband: You know what's shorter than a Jewish man's d***? A Black man's to-do list.

Will this get me thrown off this site?

Tagged: Off topic

"I just paid an endodontist $1,400 for a root canal on #31 molar. I accidentally discovered that that particular dentist lives in a 7 million dollar mansion in Beverly Hills. So far, I'm happy with the results of the root canal therapy that took him under 2 hrs. to perform."

No economist whose degree is "worth more than wall decoration" subscribes to a labor theory of value; would you have been ok with your dentist if it had taken 8 hours?

And without the expense if lidocaine.....

This is a contentless response. Why botter to write it?

Beats shooting squirrels.

Yeah, especially if you eat what you catch. Squirrel dumplings stink up the house for days.

How do you like your wooden false teeth? I bet they hurt you everytime you open your mouth to utter utter nonsense. You may need dental implants. Do you have any idea how much they cost when done by a highly qualified dentist? You might have to mortgage your barn to pay for them. That is if a billionaire banker decides that you are credit worthy. Maybe you can pawn some of your guns to get some cash. Then how would you be able to shoot them there varmints in your backyard? What you be wantin', purty new teeth or fewer gopher holes round the ole house?

Is it the pain in your teeth that causes your brain to scramble your posts so badly that they always come out as nonsense. Ridiculous nonsense at that.

No, well it must be just liberal insanity then.

BTW, it is vidyohs that enjoys shooting varmints in his yard...well I don't know perhaps Indiana Jim does as well, he just hasn't said so yet.

I don't sit around, suck my thumb, and whine about my health either. I get off my butt and get out to work on a regular basis, so that I have cash to pay my dentist, who BTW made a deal with me to accept cash payment upon completion of services that equals the rates he gives the best Dental plans. I don't pay for insurance and I just pay cash, roughly half price.

Try working instead of whining and you'll be surprised what it will do for you.

"BTW, it is vidyohs that enjoys shooting varmints in his yard...well I don't know perhaps Indiana Jim does as well, he just hasn't said so yet."

I enjoy shooting squirrels that interlope at my wife's bird feeder with a pellet gun (we live in town so I can't enjoy using my 9mm Sig Sauer). My wife was holding them off for a while with a super soaker water gun, but the squirrels eventually became adept at avoidance and grew indifferent to her kinder and gentler approach, hence I got the green light from the little woman (as long as I dispose of the corpses).

Totally off-topic: does the pellet gun work? We're in the country, but I don't want squirrel guts flying everywhere, so we've held off on using the .22 as yet.

I too have squirrel problems. Little vermin steal the pecans out of my tree and they have a habit of ruining more than they take, because they will pick ones not quite ready to ripen, check it out and throw it down on the ground. My little 22 is a Brazilian semi-auto, and when I upgraded the scope on my deer rifle I put the old scope on the 22. That more than allows me to go for head shots only. No guts.

Hm... not a bad idea. The problem I'm having is getting the other neo to use a rifle.

Btw, I think the reason libs hate hunters/fishers and others are because they can't conceive the thought of people being able to sustain themselves without support of the big nanny.

The real kicker is that many of the libs I know align with the "farmers markets" and other "locavore" movements. Ah, hypocrisy.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/754.html

Why no one tries to invade Switzerland.

Nice. The man is spot on with his commentary at the end - to be free
you have to be able to defend your freedom.

Also, I like one of the stickers in his gun locker: "Fight Crime:
Shoot Back." Classic.

Oh bull! No one invades Switzerland because they also do their banking there. Duh! How many Jewis gold ex-fillings are in Swiss vaults?

Yes, the Swiss have a long-standing practice of letting the dominant power on the continent slip a leash on them in order to avoid occupation.

It works, but half the time it takes a second shot to finish the job; further it is unusual that the first pellet does not slow them enough to make the second shot one that is at an almost unmoving target. The problem with the pellet gun is that I have to load pellets one by one; but pellets are cheaper than .22 ammo.

I like the bird feeder with a persh that spins under the weight of the squirrel. You put it high enough, they're stunned when they hit the ground and then it's easier to shoot them without hitting the feeder.

http://office-humour.co.uk/item/13113/

Check it out. Worry about squirrels in the birdfeeder? Squirrels just might be the least of your worries.

So what? In Russia squirrels shoot at you!

Great photos! Thanks for posting the link.

I've got one of those kicking around in the summers. We've come to an understanding. She takes what she wants and I'm okay with it.

Sounds like a wise arrangement. :-D

I am country down here. But for a mile or more around me is old rice paddies and other old grain fields, and some forest that offer nothing for a bear. Coyotes, yes.

You have no idea what I do, or how hard I work. So shut up! You keep on cashin' yur govmint V.A. checks, while sittin' on yur lazy butt and keep on talkin' nuthin' but trash. I wish you'd be suckin' yur thumb to keep you from blatherin' on about stuff you know nothin' 'bout. Stop killing little animals, you rotten redneck murderous beast. Hunting should be outlawed, and you should be in jail right now, with or without computer privileges. You should be mopping the floor in the brig's mess hall to earn yur keep. I know that much. It was obvious to me that Indianajim is a redneck killer as well and should be on a chain gang bustin' rocks without computer access or his cell phone to call his wife to complain about his rotten luck. She has squirrel blood on her hands, too. She like birds but wants the squirrels dead. Go figure. She's not a nice lady, and I'd put her in jail, too, if it were up to me.

Tagged: Ad Hominem

"You have no idea what I do,"

Sure I do, it isn't hard to figure out.

You sit on your butt, sucking your thumb waiting for someone to do it for you, even your health, and then when the feelings of uselessness overwhelm you, you obviously get thoroughly stoned on something illegal or legal, and when at your lowest, you come to the Cafe to post.

You're no enigma. Just another subspecies of liberal/regressive/socialist/communist/democrat.

Tagged: Ad Hominem

It's not really an Ad Hominem when the point of his post is to insult.

Indeed

YeeHaw! I gotta say this. For a caricature, your writing sure sucks, and your intellect seems to be as flat as a caricature's profile.

I'd start a list of your stuff like I have for muirduck's muirpidities, but you don't even pretend to be sane, so essentially I'd have to copy and paste you in total, and that would just take too much space.

Tagged: Ad Hominem

"Hunting should be outlawed. . . "

Why?

You have no respect for life other than your own, do you? You are pathetic.

You cannot survive without taking life from somewhere. So if you had the "respect" for life that you imply, you would have stopped eating by now.

Tagged: Ad Hominem

OK, so your answer to my question of why you think hunting should be illegal is to insult me. I would have to guess that you have no logical reason to want others' freedoms to hunt to be made eliminated by law.

BTW, ponder this self-appointed life-lover: hundreds of millions chickens are killed everyday by humans and because of the profitability of this human activity their species has never had so many representatives on Starship Earth.

No-Red-Bull:

There gonna ovathow da govmint if ya take there huntin' privligis away.

They're social darwinists so hunting's part of the plan: eliminate all those socialist govmint programs and finish 'em off for sport. Especially the yungens before they breed.

From NPR transcript:

"JOFFE-WALT: So that question about paying doctors, we're still working on it."

For an example of how much of an understatement this can be, see:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/35238...