President Obama!
- Thread starter passerby
- Start date
wkmac
Well-Known Member
ObamaCare is a Gov't/Business alliance, a cartel if you will that was mostly written and created by business itself. The belief is that over time, price will come down and that medical insurance coverage will achieve near 100%. I say near 100% because human action will always result in a %age falling through the cracks at any given time, thus the fallacy of central planning ever achieving it's own proclaimed "utopianism."
It will also over time remove some of the competition from the market place (the real utopian aim IMO) while acting as a barrier to new market actors so that the remaining market players profit from the quantity of customers which is hoped to help keep prices down. And yes, there is a subsidy factor involved in this but to see how this plays out fully in cost seems to me will take more time.
Not saying I agree with this approach, just saying IMO this is what it is when reduced down to it's nuts and bolts. And yes, this is fully capitalism, maybe capitalism at it's best truth be told.
And no AV8, my earlier comments were not directed at you specifically. When my comments are directed as such, I always specify by leading the post off using the name of the individual in which it is directed. This post above is also a general statement to the topic and not directed at anyone.
And yes, I know you are not a libertarian just as Rand Paul is not. Both Rand and yourself by your own words have disassociated yourself from that philosophical ideal and to be factual and to your credit, this isn't the first time you've pointed that you are not a libertarian. It might serve well for some to consider what historically is a libertarian. Murray N. Rothbard, known as Mr. Libertarian fondly to many and in some sense the father of modern libertarianism wrote a lengthy piece in 1965' discussing the history of what we call the Left and Right and the prospects of liberty. Regardless where one places his or her chair in politics, this history is worth consideration but at an hour and 15 minutes in length, very few if any here will likely avail themselves of it. 3 hours of American Gladiator reruns is vastly more compelling obviously if not intellectually more stimulating.
Historically speaking of libertarianism, both the modern political left and political right have it very wrong about libertarianism equally while both equally have good cause to also hate it and want to crush it from our midst. And they would be right from their POV too. It will also explain why I see so little difference between yourself and bbsam not to mention so many others here who seem in opposition to one another and thus why Adam made sport of the conservative in the earlier posted video which you did not appreciate. And from your POV, your reaction would be correct. But the truth is, you should in truth be hating historical libertarianism far, far, far more than you do the politics of bbsam, TOS or RR because they are far more the allies you seek. I find Mikhail Bakunin an ally in the same manner.
It will also over time remove some of the competition from the market place (the real utopian aim IMO) while acting as a barrier to new market actors so that the remaining market players profit from the quantity of customers which is hoped to help keep prices down. And yes, there is a subsidy factor involved in this but to see how this plays out fully in cost seems to me will take more time.
Not saying I agree with this approach, just saying IMO this is what it is when reduced down to it's nuts and bolts. And yes, this is fully capitalism, maybe capitalism at it's best truth be told.
And no AV8, my earlier comments were not directed at you specifically. When my comments are directed as such, I always specify by leading the post off using the name of the individual in which it is directed. This post above is also a general statement to the topic and not directed at anyone.
And yes, I know you are not a libertarian just as Rand Paul is not. Both Rand and yourself by your own words have disassociated yourself from that philosophical ideal and to be factual and to your credit, this isn't the first time you've pointed that you are not a libertarian. It might serve well for some to consider what historically is a libertarian. Murray N. Rothbard, known as Mr. Libertarian fondly to many and in some sense the father of modern libertarianism wrote a lengthy piece in 1965' discussing the history of what we call the Left and Right and the prospects of liberty. Regardless where one places his or her chair in politics, this history is worth consideration but at an hour and 15 minutes in length, very few if any here will likely avail themselves of it. 3 hours of American Gladiator reruns is vastly more compelling obviously if not intellectually more stimulating.
Historically speaking of libertarianism, both the modern political left and political right have it very wrong about libertarianism equally while both equally have good cause to also hate it and want to crush it from our midst. And they would be right from their POV too. It will also explain why I see so little difference between yourself and bbsam not to mention so many others here who seem in opposition to one another and thus why Adam made sport of the conservative in the earlier posted video which you did not appreciate. And from your POV, your reaction would be correct. But the truth is, you should in truth be hating historical libertarianism far, far, far more than you do the politics of bbsam, TOS or RR because they are far more the allies you seek. I find Mikhail Bakunin an ally in the same manner.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
It will also explain why I see so little difference between yourself and bbsam not to mention so many others here who seem in opposition to one another and thus why Adam made sport of the conservative in the earlier posted video which you did not appreciate. And from your POV, your reaction would be correct. But the truth is, you should in truth be hating historical libertarianism far, far, far more than you do the politics of bbsam, TOS or RR because they are far more the allies you seek. I find Mikhail Bakunin an ally in the same manner.
]
Don't have time at the moment to watch the video so I'll reserve comment on Adam.
Second you really do not know my political leanings so I'm a little surprised you'd be the one to judge who my allies should be. That's actually a little amusing. I don't claim you and the Unabomber should be allies. Although if those guys would join me in an effort to repeal SSI, ACA, minimum wage, fair labor act, homeland security, department of education, or any number of hundreds of other federal things I'm all for it. If you were for that if be on your side also but as you've made it clear you are not as you don't even have time to vote. I know it's a waste of your time but I haven't seen you suggest something more effective either.
That being said I do not hate libertarianism classical or otherwise. I do not hate you, tos? Rr, or any of the other regular people here. I'm not sure where you and the other one get your hate stuff from but I really don't fill my heart with hate.
Just because I do not quote Man, Economy, and State every post doesn't mean that I do not want liberty.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Strained logic at best. That companies should be responsible for their employees health insurance is illogical to begin with.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
"It is curious that people tend to regard government as a quasi-divine, selfless, Santa Claus organization. Government was constructed neither for ability nor for the exercise of loving care; government was built for the use of force and for necessarily demagogic appeals for votes. If individuals do not know their own interests in many cases, they are free to turn to private experts for guidance. It is absurd to say that they will be served better by a coercive, demagogic apparatus."-MR. For wk
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
So the government taking money from individuals to give to corporations isn't corporate welfare? That's an amazing leap.
Not if it eventually does away with people using the ER as their primary care. You know--personal responsibility and all.
It is just as curious that people insist government should be run like a business. It is not a business. It exists for a wholly different reason than a business and in the United States, the citizens being sovereign can decide what role the government should play absent corporate "speech" and influence.
Did you miss the word "eventually"?
oldngray
nowhere special
"Eventually" is like "the check is in the mail". Possibly will happen in the future. Also might not. I would say probably not but that is just my opinion, the same as those who predict the opposite. All we have to go on so far are the actual numbers which are bad for Obamacare.
Also a bit misleading. 50% saw a decrease or about the same. Didn't get that impression from the way the article is written, did you?
Not really. While not popular, the desire to repeal without replacement is nonexistent. There is no reason the law has to stay as it now is. When congress gets serious about fixing it, they will. Repeal isn't going to happen on the 45th attempt, the 50th or the 100th. Those numbers are all pretty good for Obamacare.
oldngray
nowhere special
Republicans have suggested many alternatives which are just gathering dust on Harry Reid's desk.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the whole thing was a Republican idea...twice.
oldngray
nowhere special
46 percent of emergency physicians have reported an increase in patients. Twenty-three percent reported a decrease, and 27 percent said the patient flow was about the same.
How does 23% equal 50%? You added the no change number to your total. It could just as easily be added to the increase total. A fair comparison is 46% to 23% which is twice as much increase as decrease.
oldngray
nowhere special
Do you mean the Heritage Foundation idea? Not a Republican plan.
Not a Republican plan. Wow. I haven't heard that one before.
