Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

gags

Patron
  • Posts

    1755
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by gags

  1. The Economist does a decent job of looking at the likely effects of the new bill:

    "What will it mean for America? The short answer is that the reforms will expand coverage dramatically, but at a heavy cost to the taxpayer. They will also do far too little to rein in the underlying drivers of America’s roaring health inflation. Analysis by RAND, an independent think-tank, suggests that the reforms will actually increase America’s overall health spending—public plus private—by about 2% by 2020, in comparison with a scenario of no reform (see chart). And that rate of spending was already unsustainable at a time when the baby-boomers are starting to retire in large numbers."

    http://www.economist.com/world/united-stat...ory_id=15769767

  2. Fact is, they largely are accidental. You should read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond, there are quite a few very significant, and entirely accidental, factors that have led to the dominance of Western civilization.

    Are the nations and people of Africa just the victims of a long series of unfortunate accidents?

  3. This bill expands the Medicaid program and there are subsidies in it to assist anyone who is supposedly too poor to afford insurance. As is usually the case, I'm sure those subsidies will also cover some people who can afford insurance but make other economic choices. One of the big practical problems with Obama-Care is that it expands coverage while doing little to reduce costs. In fact, we all know what happens when we increase demand and reduce supply. Prices must increase. The only way the government can control healthcare costs under this scheme is by rationing. They will have to pay doctors less (resulting in fewer doctors, of course) and make it more difficult for people to receive care, especially expensive procedures. One can see where this will go by simply looking at Canada or Great Brittain. There is a reason why cancer survival rates in those countries are lower than they are here. This bill is going to kill a lot of Americans, all in the name of social justice and income redistribution.

  4. When you go to war against terrorists in the Middle East, you don't mind if the soldier on your right is a Methodist, and the soldier on your left believes in angels or elves, and your captain was an Objectivist but then changed his mind and is now a convinced Utilitarian.

    They are your fellowmen and you combat shoulder to shoulder with them for a common cause. Why? Because it is in your best interest to fight for an environment that will lead to better chances of floushing for you and your beloved ones.

    In the battle for power, at the ballots, why shouldn't O'is join the Libertarians, even if in the philosophical arena we keep our distance from them?

    I think you've made a better case in the current environment for joining the Republicans. Right now, the most pressing political imperative for anyone who loves freedom is to vote enough Republicans into power that Obama doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever he wants. As far as the Libertarians are concerned, over the years the party has been a complete and total electoral failure. A vote for a Libertarian candidate in all but the smallest local races is a wasted vote.

    When you are dealing with a statist of Obama's dismal character, our first priority should be to stop him and the way to do that is to ride the only horse with a chance of winning the race. Right now, that horse is the Republican party.

  5. In the end, though, Obama is a thorough statist and collectivist, utterly hostile to the principle of individual rights. That's the fundamental. Whether he's a fascist or a socialist or a Marxist is derivative. That only identifies the particular form of totalitarianism he is working towards, and from the point of view of the victims -- us -- does that really matter?

    I think this nails it down pretty well. He's a thorough statist who has little respect for individual rights. You can call someone an embezzler, a swindler, or a robber, but they are all thieves. This man is a thief and he believes that what you own should go to someone who is more "deserving". The fact that you worked to earn it means nothing.

  6. I'm going to stop supporting all Republicans because it's their fault this passed. The failure of the Bush Presidency stacked the Congress and the Presidency in the Democrats' favor. Also, the Republicans were unable to propose a free-market solution and compromised with the Democrats on principle (such as ordering insurance companies not to deny coverage in law).

    Everyone knows Bush was an incompetent fool, but he's gone now. As far as free market solutions go, the Republicans are far from perfect in this debate but they're the best chance we have to at least slow the current free-fall toward socialism. I can't believe people are going to sit by and do nothing to end the Democrats' control of Congress. I hope there's a country left when Obama, Reid and Pelosi are finished with it.

  7. To many, if not most people, those consequences don't look all that bad. Because of that, I have a hard time believing that they are going to be repealed any time soon, or by any republican dominated government in the future. It's a little hard to scare people about socialized medicine when there has been a constant and dramatic increase in government involvement in the sector since the 1960's. A recent article I just read stated it clearly enough: by 2012 medicare would have already covered half of the health industry.

    I agree with you in that this will be virtually impossible to repeal until there is a new president and even then it will be extremely difficult. The best we can hope for is to end the Democrat's control of Congress and push the Republicans to fix the most horrendous parts of this mess.

  8. All this is, is a scam and a fraud to part us with our hard earned money. The Marxists in charge believe the money is theirs to redistribute as they see fit (conveniently, some will find its way into their pockets, of course)

    He wasn't joking when he slipped during the election and told "Joe the Plumber" that he just wanted to "spread the wealth around".

  9. I was reading from Section 1501 of the bill, but I missed Section 10106 which amends Section 1501 (in a perversion of all reason, the bill amends itself). It does appear to add a percentage of income to the penalty calculus, but only if it is greater than the flat dollar amount but less than "an amount equal to the national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage, provide coverage for the applicable family size involved, and are offered through Exchanges for plan years beginning in the calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends."
    The 2,000+ page legislation and the "fix" for the Senate bill are loaded with this sort of convoluted and arcane language. It goes far afield from its original purpose by including a provision that kicks private financial institutions out of the business of making student loans and it imposes asbsurd new regulations like requiring restaurants to publish calorie counts on their menus. During the next 4 or 5 years we are all going to go through a discovery process as we find out about the thousands of new regulations and mandates this bill puts on all of us. The unintended and the intended consequences are going to take years to unravel.

    Thank you Chairman Maobama and Madame Pelosi for dumping this steaming pile of shit on America.

    I still doubt that the tax will pass constitutional muster.

    I don't know whether that specific tax provision will pass muster or not, but it would be easy enough to change. If there's anything that Washington is good at, it's writing new tax laws. As far as the entire bill being declared unconstitutional, I doubt that will happen. The Commerce Clause has been twisted to justify the regulation of a ridiculous number of things. In fact, the commerce doesn't even have to be inter-state for the Feds to regulate it. Let's face it, the politicians have made the Constitution a meaningless document in many ways.

  10. Like with Social Security, Medicare, and Civil Rights legislation, Health Care Reform will define the political environment for the foreseeable decades to come. If the consequences of this bill become popular, Democrats will hold power for twenty or thirty years, running on the importance of keeping their Heath Care entitlements in place. If the consequences of this bill become unpopular, however; if the Democrats fail to deliver quality health care to all Americans, then the Democrat Party could be sunk and we may see the longest reign of a Republican Majority in the history of the United States Government. 2010 will only be a small step in either direction. If the Republicans don't take both the House and the Senate, the chances are that they will not be able to accomplish enough of their own agenda to run on their own progress in 2012. If HCR is popular by 2012, if we have pulled out of this Recession by then, President Obama could lead another relentless campaign and regain the Congress on his coattails. By 2012, 2010 could look like an ominous overreaction to positive legislation. So we won't know anything until then.

    The world isn't going to an end tomorrow, however 10 years from now we are certain to have a worse healthcare system than we would have had if this package of controls, taxes, and other "reforms" wasn't passed. This legislation virtually guarantees fewer doctors, the rationing of care, continued increases in HC expenditures, and another fiscal disaster for the country that will make Social Security and Medicare look small by comparison.

    I don't know whether the American people will favor the Republicans in sufficient numbers during future elections. After all, there were actually some Objectivists who advocated voting for Obama in 2008. If Objectivists can't understand the danger presented by Obama and his followers, then I doubt the average American victim of our public education system will have that ability.

  11. Swain flu is one of the major disease which is very harmful to the people and if people are not going to take precaution due to the primary stage then it spread Fast in human body after that there is no any anti vaccination is available till now.

    In swain flu H1N1 virus is the main which is performing in this disease.Till November month 16,328 cases are noted and among them 600 was dead.It will also decreased your immune system.

    Wow. It would be a lot easier to understand your points if you paid just a little bit of attention to grammar and spelling.

    Based on what I think you might be trying to say, I wonder how swine flu compares with the regular flu virus in terms of fatalities and hospitalizations. My general sense (supported by no empirical data whatsoever) is that the whole H1N1 scare turned out to be far less than everyone expected. Let’s face it, the media and the government did a pretty good job of hyping up H1N1 and they did the same thing with Asian Bird Flu a couple of years ago. These kinds of scare tactics don't exactly lead to increased trust in our elected officials.

  12. Now, here's a question - why did everyone see the need to get involved in the war? Why did Russia commit itself on a suicidal course against Germany, why did Britain see the need to get involved? There are plenty of explanations from the hubris of monarchs, to a general misunderstanding of the scope of the conflict. Ironic that Germany thought it would end quickly, yet Britain thought the same? I suppose Germany was a lot bigger once unified, and was very economically powerful. It was expansionist and had a violent history. I'd see the desire to stop it from expanding to rule Europe. As I see Germany's desire to rule Europe.

    I don't think you can ignore the interlocking alliances and mutual defense treaties (some of which were secret) coupled with a general atmosphere of militarism that helped to draw countries into the Great War. As far as your thesis about Marxism is concerned, I've never heard that before. Not that it's implausible for that reason, but I don't think enough Marxists were in positions of influence to bring about the series of events that lead to WWI.

  13. I couldn't agree more with you. The only reason why we see the state of our economy today as it is today is because of government siding with the collective interests, instead of siding with the capitalist interests.
    Actually, we appear to agree on very little. Government shouldn't side with anyone. In fact, it should butt out and create an environment where men are free to pursue their own rational self interest. The proper role of government is to protect individual rights, not to pick winners and losers.

    But I think still that the only thing that stops "the average Joe" from becoming a billionaire today is just plain stupidity and lack of virtue.
    There are many reasons why "the average Joe" doesn't become a billionaire (although some certainly have) and I tend to doubt that what stops them is "plain stupidity and lack of virtue".

    America is much freeer after the Reagan revolution, although there are many criticisms that can be made of him.
    As with all presidents, some of what Reagan did was good and some of it was very bad. In this country, the general trend has been toward less personal freedom and bigger, more intrusive government since at least the New Deal. In some limited areas Reagan might have been a small speed bump in front of government, but the overall trend has continued.
×
×
  • Create New...