And yet I don't feel controlled by the federal government. And I don't
Mr. Bender - Thank you for expressing your opinion. Now can you provide just a
small bit of evidence to support your theory? I suppose if you had some
evidence you would have included that in your letter. But we just got your
opinion, which you are welcome to express anytime, thanks to a government that
protects that right.
Its all about control. If you don't believe the government controls you,
just don't pay your taxes (if you are not one of the 47%) and you will
learn who controls you!
No, it has not become apparent. The only thing apparent is how easy it is to put
a few sentences together to say bad things about government, and get them
@ Hutterite. As opposed to Cuba, China or N. Korea you mean? The only freedom
left in America is that of dissent and you want that to go away too? And you
NEVER criticized the government when GWB was in the White House, did you?
Liberals are only tolerant of other liberals. Furthermore, liberals demand
EVERYONE to kiss the ring of other liberals in the White HOUSE or be silenced,
sort of like N. Korea, China or Cuba, liberal paradises all.
My only reation?...roll my eyes, and shake my head...[hahaha, LOL, and
Mr. Bender,Yes, it is our job to control your choices in life. But, rather
than putting a negative spin on it, try thinking of it as compassionate concern
for your well-being. Someone has to take care of you; it might as well be us
enlightened liberals. Try not worrying so much about "freedom" and other
antiquated notions of government limits. Relax, come with us. You too will grow
to love the comforting embrace of the State.
How ironic. Utah is the poster child for control. Let's fix our house
before we go after bigger things.
ECR: How about this as "evidence" - a set of tax code regulations that
makes the encyclopedia set my parents bought years ago, look small.The US Constitution fits in your shirt pocket. Today, nearly every bill that
goes through Congress needs an army of staffers just to read it. Those who vote
on the stuff, don't even know what is in it. Obamacare was something like
2000 pages long and didn't include half the "regulations" that
would come later.If that isn't evidence of "control", I
don't know what is.
The exact opposite is true. Conservatives cannot stand a person with an open
mind. Conservatives cannot believe the their narrow world view isn't the
only way to look at things.Liberals are the group that carries society
forward. When it's Progressives vs regressives, I'll take
progressives every time.
Re: ". . . we just got your opinion, which you are welcome to express
anytime, thanks to a government that protects that right."Yeah,
a government that "protects that right" by using the IRS to control and
stifle dissenting organizations, uses the Department of Labor to punish
religious dissent among businesses, uses the NSA to track dissent, uses the EPA
to reward compliant cronies, while penalizing and criminalizing dissenting
practices, uses its controlled media arm to label dissent as racism or
craziness, uses the military chain of command to punish constitutionally
protected dissent on social issues within it ranks, attempts to use police
agencies to collect the tools of dissent [though it's not going so well for
them in Colorado, at present], and uses propaganda blitzes, funded by
taxpayers' own dollars, in vain attempts to respond to reasoned,
widely-held dissenting views.With that kind of protection, who needs
@Mountanman – “If you don't believe the government controls
you, just don't pay your taxes… and you will learn who controls
you!”Is that the connection – taxes = Orwell’s
dystopia? If so, should we all be flocking to tax-free countries to
live the Utopian dream? I hear if you book a flight to Mogadishu far enough in
advance they include a free bullet proof vest.
In order for a government to accomplish its primary mission of protecting the
citizens, it must be able to exercise control over the actions of those
citizens.The leaders we elect to lead us exercise control over us by
controlling what we do and try to control what we think. There is
no such thing as a free society. Any time you have a group of human beings
brought together for some common purpose there has to be rules and a means of
enforcing those rules. The desire to control people is only
partially due to the needs of government. The majority of leaders are
businessmen who would like to control the minds and actions of people to buy
their products. It is this latter motive that causes most of the problems of
Paranoia is alive and well in Utah.
RE: Dave Park City: Indeed. Utah is the locus of thought control.
OK, let's get rid of EPA, public schools, Medicare, and all that
"controlling stuff." Then we can choke on our own pollution, create a
permanent underclass, and bankrupt ourselves paying for mom's heart
problems. The society conservatives envision would be a true nightmare.
Irony Guy - part of the irony is that almost all the things cited in this letter
and other conservative rants are things that were really created by
conservatives themselves. They just can't recognize it because they have
allowed themselves to become submissive to conservative thought control.
This complaint by Mister Bender, and some of the comments posted are surreal.
They complain about a lack of freedom. In fact one poster lists China, Cuba, and
North Korea, seemingly implying that they are the few countries with less
freedom? But frankly I don't know what his point is. The same poster says,
"The only freedom left in America is that of dissent . . ." That's
the ONLY freedom left in this country? Like I said absolutely surreal. Never
mind the fact that the freedom to dissent is absolutely huge. But to think that
that is the only freedom left? And you have people stating that
having to pay taxes indicates a lack of freedom. These people think we should
have no laws in place? That the mere exsistance of laws (or laws they disagree
with?) indicate we are a country with no freedom left? I mean, this
is really strange thinking. Does having to drive on the right side of the road
mean you have lost freedom? Sure. The freedom of being able to drive on the left
side. But so what? It is how we are able to have relatively smoth
If "Control" of what one does, eats, drinks, sleeps, lives with,
worships, ect. is the litmus test for being "Liberal", thenUtah has got to be the most "Liberal" state in the Union!And for the record -- try looking up the definition of "Liberal" in a
dictionary.It's better English than what the college drop outs on the
radio are telling.
JoeCap2 - Thanks for your attempts to give examples. But nothing you pointed to
controls "what we think and what we do" as Mr. Bender suggested. Oh, if
you're talking about making a choice between paying your taxes or not, then
the IRS tax code would have some relevence to this argument. But then how would
our essential government functions operate if you didn't pay your taxes.
And just a note - the so-called "47%" that Mr. Bender refers to actually
pay taxes, just not income taxes and in many cases their taxes take a higher
percentage of their income than the poor zillionaires who pay lower rates on
their income thanks to the votes they have bought in Congress.And if
you think you can write a comprehensive healthcare bill on paper that "fits
in your shirt pocket" then you must be advising Herman Caine. If any of us
think our government is limiting the things we think and do then we are not
taking advantage of all the freedomes that we have that were paid for by the
blood of others.
"It has become apparent that government programs such as Obamacare are not
as much about providing health care for more people as they are about control of
what doctors we can see, what treatments we can receive, etc."Really? My experience has been that it has been my insurance company that has
been doing that. Questioning my doctors order, refusing to pay for
prescriptions, telling me what Dr. and hospital I can go to, refusing to pay for
treatment when I have been traveling. Actually since being on medicare things
have been much better. My experience is that the controls of government have
been much better(there are some) than those imposed by my insurance companies
over the years. Oh, and much more efficient.
Mountanman,"The only freedom left in America is that of dissent
. . . "Come on.
@Mountanman"The only freedom left in America is that of dissent and
you want that to go away too?"Nobody is saying you can't
dissent... just that if you're going to dissent it'd be helpful to
actually provide evidence for the claims made (which the letter writer
didn't do, he just throws out agency names and leaves it to us to assume
that he wants dirtier air since he criticizes the EPA).
@procuradorfiscal"a government that "protects that right" by
using the IRS to control and stifle dissenting organizations"First off... the law forbids tax exempt status from going to organizations
that engage in political activity (this has been interpreted as
"primarily" for some reason). A lot of the organizations scrutinized
were primarily engaged in political activity and NONE of those should've
gotten tax exempt status. Secondly, it wasn't just conservative groups
either, words like "progressive" were keywords used for scrutiny. The
only groups to be denied tax exempt status were 3 (connected) liberal groups.
So... your little IRS scandal is actually not a scandal (other than the
scandalous idea that these groups on both sides of the aisle are getting tax
exempt status when they shouldn't). I guess your news sources of choice are
so slanted to the right that they didn't bother noting these details. The
truth is just too inconvenient for their purposes.So you really have
two options, get better informed, or quit lying.
You hit on the basis for the philosophy or the Left... it's that THEY are
superior to the population, and the general population is too stupid to solve
their own problems and need THEM to fix their problems for them.Conservatives trust the people to solve their own problems (and if they
don't they suffer, learn their lesson, and make changes until they do).
The Liberal trusts the Government to solve the people's problems for them
(with no suffering or learning).The right's philosophy is based
on giving people more liberty, and responsibility, and expect them to fix their
own problems. The left is based on the belief that most people are too stupid
to figure it out, so they (AKA Government) have to fix it for them.Nobody said the Federal Government "Controls" us. They just
"Regulate" us. And that's what Government is for. Some just
think we need LESS "regulation"... while others think we need MORE
regulation. It's just a difference of philosophy.
Re: ". . . get better informed, or quit lying."I could say
the same, but DN censors only permit that to left-leaning posters.But, speaking to the issue -- remember, we're talking here about groups
organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the IRS Code, NOT Section 501(c)(3). While
(c)(3)'s may not engage in partisan political activity, at all,
(c)(4)'s are different, and may, under some pretty vague rules, engage in
politics.It's funny how democrats like Max Baucus suddenly
"discovered" that there may be problems with (c)(4)'s only after
the IRS admitted it targeted conservatives for special scrutiny, while leftist
(c)(4)'s, such as the heavily partisan Move-On and Media Matters
organizations -- indeed, nearly all Soros-funded front organizations -- were and
are seen as hunky-dory.Of course Baucus tried to excuse left-leaning
(c)(4)'s, noting that the "code does not even provide a clear
definition of what qualifies as political activity."Bottom line
-- the IRS WAS used to aid the left, while disadvantaging conservatives.
To the liberals out there, here are the things that the Federal Government
(through liberal policies) has taken out of our hands:Education -
First NCLB, and now Common Core. States and local districts give up most of the
control of cirriculum in exchange for a few dollars.Retirement -
Prior to SS, if you wanted to retire and relax in you old age, you had to make a
plan for yourself, people are becoming more dependant on SS.Privacy
- It used to be that we could email or call anybody and not have to be concerned
about the government listening in. We have now lost that Constitutional
freedom.Health Insurance - Just a few years ago I had the choice to
buy insurance or pay all my medical bills with cash. Now I have no choice.Bankruptcy - just a few years ago if I could no longer afford my house,
I would lose it to bankruptcy, now the Feds have all sorts of programs to
prevent "failure". Corporations that failed were allowed to die. Now,
they get micromanaged by the Feds.There are countless ways in which
the Feds have taken control of what we do.
@Ultra Bob "There is no such thing as a free society."So,
what exactly were you fighting for as a soldier? The right of a few elites to
call the shots for everyone else?"...there has to be
rules...."Of course. The rule of law, not of men. But the man in
the White House today thinks he's above the law. And too many of our laws
today leave it up to federal departments and agencies to make it up as they go.
Obamacare, for example contains numerous provisions that begin with "the
Secretary shall determine...." Furthermore, the administration is allowed to
decide who gets a waiver and who doesn't. The you-know-what panels decide
who receives expensive treatment and who doesn't. It's all so
arbitrary, no one can really call it the rule of law.
Redshirt said, "Just a few years ago I had the choice to buy insurance or
pay all my medical bills with cash. Now I have no choice."A few
years ago I had no choice. Because my 3 year old son had juvenile diabetes not
one insurance company would cover our small business group. Not one, regardless
of what premium I offered to pay them.
@ECR – “Because my 3 year old son had juvenile diabetes not one
insurance company would cover our small business group.”Tough
nookies! We live in a capitalist society based the values of Ayn
Rand and Social Darwinism. If you’re not fit enough to survive…
well… maybe the next life will be better.You don’t
actually believe this country is full of people who claim to follow some hippie
do-gooder who thinks we should love each other and help those in need, do you?
Come on man… we’re the Tea Party not the We Party!*sarcasm off*I have yet to meet anyone on the Right who truly
understands the dysfunction that is our healthcare system, let alone propose any
solutions that would do anything other than make the rich (medical industrial
complex) richer at the expense of folks like you and millions of others. Hope you son is doing OK…
@procuradorfiscalA 501c4 must be “primarily engaged in promoting in
some way the common good and general welfare of the community.” These
groups aren't following it on the left or right so they should not get tax
exempt status at all but almost all of them have received it anyway. The reports
clearly indicate that left wing groups were targeted too (funny how Issa told
the Inspector General to only look at evidence of targeting of right wing
groups, took a while to get the full story out when you intentionally leave out
details like that). So no, this isn't a matter of left wing groups gaining
any sort of advantage. Oh, and if you want the IRS to speed up the
process of dealing with these applications... don't support cuts to the IRS
budget, that would just slow things down even further.
To "Tyler D" the people on the Right understand the dysfunction in the
health insurance system. That is why they are trying to get government out of
the insurance business. Health insurance is regulated nearly as much as
banking. If you look at various sectors of the economy, the most disfunctional
sectors are also the most regulated.The problem is government, not
the lack of government oversight.I have a brother with diabetes, and
in the 1980's my parents ran their own business and were able to get
insurance to cover our entire family. Since then, there have been more
regulations added to the business, so they have reacted to keep rates
affordable. What you should be asking is why a diabetic could get insurance in
the 1980's but couldn't get it 30 years later, eventhough government
added all sorts of regulations and mandates.
Mr. Bender, I am someone that benefits greatly from the new Healthcare law. The
fact that I haven't had any insurance for about seven years, plus the fact
that I have a pre-existing condition which prevents me from getting it has made
life tough. But starting Jan 2014 that changes. Do your homework...don't
listen to the right extremists on this issue. healthcare.govAn ACA
@RedShirt – “the people on the Right… are trying to get
government out of the insurance business. If you look at various sectors of the
economy, the most disfunctional sectors are also the most regulated.”True in some cases… but you’re argument presupposes that the
market for healthcare will function just like the market for toasters and that
if we just get government out of the way, getting heart surgery (differences in
marginal cost aside) would be as simple & efficient as buying a toaster. Let’s assume you are correct and that there are not inherent
market failures within the healthcare industry (even though there are). Please
point to a 1st world (developed) country that has a purely free market
healthcare system so we can have some idea of how it will work.Surely (sorry for calling you Shirley) if the free market is the best method
for allocating the resources and benefits of healthcare, there will be one
country we can look to to see this utopia in action… just one.
I can't help but get the feeling that most conservatives commenting here
don't really understand what freedom is. Way back in 1984, I spent a day in
communist East Berlin. Now, the East Germans knew something about taking
freedoms away. They were more expert than their Soviet masters. And I can still
remember how utterly ecstatic I was to return to the bright lights and bustling
optimism of socialist West Berlin. The freedom there was like breathing fresh
mountain air after sucking on the tailpipe of a Trabant.
Re: ". . . this isn't a matter of left wing groups gaining any sort of
advantage."Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?There's simply NO getting around the FACT that the IRS admitted it went
after and applied extra, time-robbing scrutiny, to conservative 501(c)(4)
groups. That comparatively few left-leaning groups may have also been dragged
into their illegal pre-election dragnet, only proves the fecklessness with which
the deed was done.And, by the way, nice attempt to divert attention
from my list of seven other patent, proven, inarguable attempts to place
controls on American freedoms by this regime. There are, of course, scores more,
but . . . so many abuses, so little time [and space].
I took the advice of someone above and looked up "liberal" in my
dictionary. Here's what it says:1) favoring progress or
reform2) free from prejudice; tolerant3) characterized by
generosity4) ample or abundant5) not strict or literal6) of
the liberal arts7) a person of liberal principles or viewsBased on that, I'm PROUD to be a liberal.
To "Tyler D" there are no countries that allow the free market to work
for health insurance. If you want to see it working, you have to look into the
past, before our politicians wanted to be like the other kids with socialized
healthcare.During the 1980's we had about 1/10 the number of
mandates and regulations that we currently have on insurance companies. During
that time the insurance companies would cover more people than they do today.
The diseases haven't change, just the regulations.Health
Insurance and Care can function like toasters. A prime example is a few years
ago one of the insurance companies set up "Grocery Store Clinics" to
take care of routine care. A person without insurance could get see a doctor
for $25. The more severe problems were referred to specialists and charitable
hospitals. The charitable hospitals took care of many poor people.The answer is less regulation, not more. If you look at the nations with
socialized health insurance, they are now backing away from that plan and are
headed towards private insurance. If socialized care was so great, why are they
now moving towards private insurance?
If that's true, Russell, then why is that conservatives don't
understand the concept of conservation; why are Republican congressmen owned by
Big Oil (not one of them voted to repeal the public tax subsidy that Big Oil
neither needs nor deserves); and why do Tea Party clowns chant "Drill, baby,
drill" while staring at the undeniable evidence of global climate change?
Liberals are far from perfect, but we're not the ones committed
to destroying the planet for money. And we're not the ones demanding
lockstep conformity to patently stupid individuals, corporations and ideologies
for the sake of profits over people and planet.
@RedShirt – “If socialized care was so great, why are they now
moving towards private insurance?”There are plenty of hybrid
systems (not pure free market) out there which use private insurance (e.g.,
Germany & Switzerland), so enough of that red herring. Speaking of which, we
could learn a lot from those two countries on how to create a healthcare system
that works remarkably well (far better than ours).And your example
(of healthcare functioning like toasters) only works for the most basic &
routine care (and Lasik). Try using that model when you’ve had a severe
accident or are suffering from a complex disease… that’s when the
market failures rear their ugly heads.As for looking to the past you
have to back to the days before the massive technology and Big Pharma driven
cost spikes… and no amount of deregulation will return us to those
days.You seem not to think so (perhaps due to ideological blinders?)
but it should be readily apparent why no developed country in the world has a
purely freely market healthcare system… it doesn’t work.Reached comment limit…
RedShirt,If we look into the distant past (that frankly, none of us
remember) before health insurance, we see markets that were drastically
underserved and folks who could not afford care.As Tyler D
indicated, there have been drastic technological changes and rising costs. No,
the diseases haven’t changed but the treatments sure have (as have the
outcomes).Do you think we can pay for an MRI with a few chickens?
Could you get heart surgery with for the price of a cow? Two cows?Please.His other point is equally cogent. No country has the
magical free market system you propose. The one country with the most free
system (ours) is the most expensive. The countries with single payer (which is
not actually my preference) are demonstrably less expensive. They may be
tweaking their systems but is anyone actually looking to mimic our system? Not
that I am aware of.Depending on charitable hospitals to reduce cost
is not indicative of a less expensive system – just one that transfers
costs to others.
@procuradorfiscalI have 800 words at the most between four posts on this
thread, that's not enough to come up with thorough explanations to refute
your 8 soundbite length assertions about liberal control so I picked the first
one and gave a more thorough response.@Redshirt"The answer
is less regulation, not more. If you look at the nations with socialized health
insurance, they are now backing away from that plan and are headed towards
private insurance. If socialized care was so great, why are they now moving
towards private insurance?"They're all still way more
socialist than we have and cheaper as a percent of GDP than what we have.
There's some private insurance incorporation into systems like Germany but
it's heavily regulated by the gov't.
@atl134The first amendment guarantees protection of political
activity.Is that not main purpose of the first amendment?Any law against political activity in unconstitutional.You've
simply proved the assertion of the writer:'Liberal leaders want
to control what we think and do’and by extension not just the
liberal leaders but all liberals.
Hard to argue with Tyler D and Twin Lights. I think what scares me
most is the thought of the GOP taking control of both halves of Congress and the
White House. In order to preserve the version of reality they have concocted in
recent years, they would have to exert extreme control over thinking people in
society. Sort of like, well, Nazi Germany.
Kimber, redshirt tells us: "According to the HIPPA laws, all states must
either have a state insurance pool or direct you to a federal program that
provides insurance to uninsurable people. . . "So, obviously,
you are mistaken when you say: "I have a pre-existing condition which
prevents me from getting [insurance]."Clearly you have
insurance. Just like a close friend of mine that claims he can't get
insurance because of preexisting conditions. All these years he has obviously
been deluding himself (just like you) because the insurance has been there
available for him. Just ask Redshirt. So if we kill the ACA you will
be just fine, Kimber. Don't worry. Right, Redshirt?
to 2 bits 12:30p today...Yet, A large segment conservatives march
hand-in-hand with the most thought controlling, guilt motivating, blind
conformity required entity around. The entity I refer to is... Wait
for it... organized religion.
It's sad that people want to go back to pre-PPACA...- canceling
coverage for pre-existing conditions- rescission- a lifetime or
annual benefit maximum- no limits on administrative costs of for-profit
Theoretically being liberal means being open minded - but as with all things
theoretical, the reality is much different. The term "politically
correct" is used to mock those who think they are tolerant merely because
they hate for all the fashionable reasons. Liberal posts on these threads prove
daily that the left is often far more dogmatic, intolerant and rigid than any
conservative I know. A truly open minded person would actually be able to
consider that racialism has supplanted racism as the greatest threat to black
America; misogynist feminists who passive aggressively manipulate victim power
are not pro women, nor are those who empower abortion policies of Kermit
Gosnell; or that homosexuality is defined by feelings and behavior, which is
vastly different than physical character traits - and people have the right to
disagree regarding behavior (the left does it all the time).The
"I am tolerant and anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot" mentality of
ideologically rigid leftists merely proves that they are wrong on both countsThe actual dogmatic intolerant oppressive and spectacularly hypocritical
actions of political liberalism speaks much louder than any words
Okay counter inteligence lets look at what you are saying: "A
truly open minded person would actually be able to consider that . . . "And you give three things that open minded people should consider
dealing with racism, feminism and abortion, and homosexuality. Okay, I, being an
open minded person, considered what you were saying, and then I dismissed it as
being nothing more then hogwash. Then you say leftist believe this:
"I am tolerant and anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot" Well, I, for one, don't believe that anyone that disagrees with me is a
bigot, I believe that bigots are bigots. And what is this with conservatives
claiming that liberals are supposed to be tolerant? I'm very intolerant of
bigots, and racists, and homophobes, and religious extremists, and all such
manner of people. I'm also very intolerant of people that refuse to think.
- But we were talking about freedom, or rather the lack if it in
this country. Someone mentioned East Germany. And they are right, that is what
no freedom looks like. That conservatives think that what the USA has in anyway
resembles that shows why conservatives cannot be taken serious.
To "Tyler D" so then you agree that Socialized care does not work since
the nations that have socialized medicine are going towards private insurance.
Actually, the free market does quite well when it comes to complex diseases.
The Shriner's Charity hospital now accepts insurance. They treat complex
diseases, and are now doing it for cheaper.The free market system
worked in the US up until 1980's, why wouldn't it work again?To "Twin Lights" I don't know how old you are, but the
1980's were not that long ago. I know for a fact that insurance companies
covered more people back then. You complain about the costs in the US, but no
other country has the availability of medical procedures that we have here. We
have better outcomes and faster response times to nearly every disease.To "atl134" so then you agree that socialized medicine doesn't
work.To "mark" just because somebody doesn't know about
a health insurance program that would have fit their needs that does not mean I
was wrong. It is sad when people push through redundant regulations because the
they are too lazy to find what they need.
Redshirt,I was raising a family in the 1980s. That was not before
health insurance (which my comment was targeted at). But to say the free market
was working back then is disingenuous. First, if you think it worked - great.
Please acknowledge that it was highly regulated even back then. But, I
don't think it did work that well. There were significant gaps and
problems with coverage back then.So, back to my original points:NO country has the free market system you propose. WE have the most free
market oriented system and the most expensive. Other countries may be tweaking
their systems but they are not looking to mimic us. Why?Shriners
are great folks. But they depend on charity to make it run that way. This is
not a more efficient system. Just one that transfers certain costs.
Mark (and others thinking I have insurance) lol...you are very mistaken! I
decided to become self employed seven years ago due to my health and my family
situation. I applied for a private insurance. I was denied for a pre-existing
condition. I have been paying cash to go to the doctor and for medicine. I was
told that I could apply for a state coverage for high risk individuals, but I
could not afford it. As of January 2014 I have seen that I qualify for a reduced
cost plan with no pre-existing conditions. Also, I am a previous health
technician and know many of the "ins and outs" of insurance....so please
don't try and tell me you know more.AN ACA VolunteerAnd former
Nate.Exactly. All wars are fought for commercial economic reasons.
Either to get an economic advantage or to hold on to the ones you have now. The
war with Japan was all about sources of raw materials in the far east. The war
with Germany was the revolt against the extreme punitive economic conditions
imposed from WWI. Actually I was a sailor on a submarine and the
only real fights I remember was in the White Hat club in Yokosuka. As for the rule of law, all laws are made by men. And every law, program or
rule that comes out of government of any venue has the number one attribute of
being financially profitable for the businessmen who control the government.
I believe that most of what you hear about President Obama is the
same kind of thing. Obama was making promises to working people that the
businessmen didn’t like.
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo "atl134" so then you
agree that socialized medicine doesn't work.========= I was a LDS Missionary and US serviceman.LDS Missionaries are
socialists.They all pay the same price regardless of where in the world
they served.[that's called a redistribution of the cost/wealth].In the U.S. military -- I was a Socialist.I was given a
house, a vehicle, clothes, chow, and HEALTHCARE.and for the record -- the
Government Healthcare I got in the US Military was hands-down, without a doubt
the BEST healthcare I have ever experienced in the world.No out of
pocket, No co-pay, No-deductible, No maximum, No
percentage, NO INSURANCE COMPANIES,No appointments, No
questions, No problems whatsoever!Speaking from actual,
real-life experience [and not AM radio or your opinions], Socialist
medicine was the Best Healthcare I have ever had in my life!
To "airnaut" actually, you were not a socialist. First of all, the pay
was not equal. An enlisted soldier makes much less than a General. Even
between locations soldiers are paid differently. Wealth is not redistributed
equally.You were not "given a house, a vehicle, clothes, chow,
and HEALTHCARE". You worked for those. I know servicemen, and they have to
buy their uniforms, pay rent (or else not get aa housing allowance), buy food,
and they pay for healthcare. Back when you were in the military, it was common
for private businesses to pay for healthcare.There are businesses
that do the same thing for some employees, that does not make them socialist, it
just really good benefits.Back when you were in the military it may
have been top notch (it was equal to the average hospitals of the day), but
healthcare in the military system isn't so great any more.But
that is just a digression.If socialized healthcare are so great, why
is it that the nations with socialized healthcare are moving more towards
"Liberal leaders want to control what we think and what we do...."______________________________And conservative leaders don't?
Give me a break.
Interesting discussion.Healthcare isn't like any other product
or service and the normal assumptions and behaviors about "free
markets' don't apply. If I want to buy a car or hire some
other service, I can do price and quality research, I can choose when I buy, I
can inform myself about various options. Healthcare doesn't work like
that. In any given year, 1% of the population consumes 22% of healthcare
spending. 5% of the population consumes 50% of healthcare spending. Those
people are there because of cancern, trauma, pulmonary disease, mood disorders
and heart disease. IOW, major and usually unpredictable circumstances. 50% of
the population accounts for 3% of healthcare spending. To put it simply, when I
most need healthcare is also when I'm least able to research it - in a
crisis or some sort or another. Healthcare is highly technical.
There's a huge information imbalance between doctors and patients. As
patients we lack the information to make informed decisions. This applies to
routine and preventive care as well. Free market assumptions
don't help with either providers or consumers in providing or purchasing
To "glendenbg" but healthcare does work exactly like buying a car.For example, if I need to have a tooth replaced with an implant I can
search around for the best doctor that I can afford. I can go to Grantsville
and pay an oral surgeon there $1800 for the implant, or I can go to a doctor in
Layton and pay $3000 for the same procedure. I would have to educate my self on
why they charge different amounts and so forth. The same can be said for Cancer
Treatments. Just by adding robotic surgery or genetic tests, the cost of
treatment can change by $20,000 or more from one treatment center to another.
According to the SL Tribune if chemo can be administered in an office visit it
can save 24% of the cost over a hospital.Apparently health care is
like buying a car, assuming you do your homework for either purchase.
Redshirt1701,So when your wife or child is sick you go shopping?
Compare prices? Wait and see if there is a better deal elsewhere?If
your are wrong about the less expensive car, you suffer a financial setback. If
you are wrong about the cheaper doctor, it may be the last choice you make.Where is the Consumer Reports or Edmunds data to help you shop?Who is the Sales Manager that you can negotiate your price with?I
have bought a ton of healthcare and a bunch of cars. Not a lot alike.
@Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, Ut========= I hope it
doesn't take a heart attack, automobile accident or cancer for you to learn
some compassion RedShirt.
@Counter IntelligenceYou could that the term "political;y
correct" came from the far left, the communist (and the Nazis), as way to
control political thought, they even had political officers whose job was
control all political thought (That was one of the principle jobs of KGB and
the SS and the secret police). They even used the children and indoctrinated
them to report on their parents and others, a similar tactic employed by the
liberals and left here. PC is now used by liberals to control all
thoughts and words of the people.
Anyone who tries to equate socialism to religion, missionary work, the military,
the anything the government does, or any communal or group activity,clearly demonstrates they do NOT know what socialism is.True
Christianity does not exercise thought control, it teaches agency and
individual choice, and activity.And there are plenty non-religious
organizations that exercise thought control.So trying to falsely
attack religion rather than bad men or bad organizations is silly indeed.
To "airnaut" I have lots of compassion. You should ask the elderly
neighbors that I am helping out right now. What sort of compassion do you want
me to learn about? Do you want me to learn forced "compassion" by using
the tax code to force you to pay for my medical needs?To "Twin
Lights" usually with emergencies or urgent needs I have already found
doctors and care facilities. With non-urgent medical needs, you have the time
to find the best deal. Since I have some idea what things cost, I can negociate
the price myself, just like when buying a car. Do you hire somebody to
negociate the price of a car when you buy one?Since you don't
like to negociate price or find the best deal in town, do you typically pay
asking price for homes, cars, and things at garage sales? If you clip coupons
or shop sales, you have the skills to get less expensive care. You probably
don't look for deals on healthcare because for most things you just pay
your co-pay and the insurance company takes care of you.
controlling what you think and do?? It's called being a
"Progressive". Hilary has proclaimed openly to being a progressive and
Obama has shown to be the poster child for progressivism. America today is just
dummed-down enough as a majority to follow along.
@Redshirt1701 - I agree healthcare consumers have to do our homework.But, as consumers, most of us cannot rely on our own experience when making
healthcare comparisons. If I get crappy service at one grocery store, I go to
another. If someone tells me the old store has improved, I can check it out
again. That's not the case for bypass surgery.Bear in mind
that we can't predict when we'll need healthcare. And when we need
it, it will very likely be ruiniously expensive. In an emergency, we won't
have a choice about which hospital or doctor.When dealing with
critical illnesses, most persons are so overwhelmed by the emotional demands of
the illness that they cannot make choices. No matter how hungry I am, I can
choose not to eat drive through. Not so when I'm sick. I need my care and
I need it work.I'm not criticizing the free market as a
concept. I'm arguing that healthcare is uniquely not amenable to normal
free market behaviors and assumptions. That's not a function of insurance
companies or hospitals or economics - it's the nature of healthcare itself.
@the truthHolladay, UTAnyone who tries to equate socialism to
religion, missionary work, the military, the anything the government does, or
any communal or group activity,clearly demonstrates they do NOT know what
socialism is.======= Yet someone who has NEVER served a
LDS Mission, served in the U.S. Military, gone to college, or worked for the
Government but listens to AM radio does?
To "LDS Liberal" it doesn't take experience in those fields to know
and understand what socialism is.You have the wrong idea that
socialism is equal to the United Order.I don't think you really
know what socialism is, just like so many of your ilk.I have served
a mission, and serve the military, and I can tell you that neither is like
socialism. The biggest difference is choice. Nobody is forced into a mission
or is forced into military service (in the US). Socialism forces you to do
service for others regardless of your desires. Socialism is the Devil's
counterfit plan to Celestial Laws. Socialism is designed to oppress and
requires tyrants for it to be implemented. The United Order allows people to
decide for themselves how much they can contribute. The biggest difference is
ownership. God's plan is for us to maintain private ownership, socialism
does not do that.
RedShirt1701,Twin Lights here.For the easy (cheap)
stuff, it matters less who I go to and price might be a consideration. For the
harder stuff and emergencies it is not.I have had several important
health issues in my family. Shopping for price was simply not an option. Even
if I could have shopped, it would have been for the quality of the outcome. I
was fortunate to have good insurance.You say you can negotiate.
Your wife needs heart surgery and you go to the best (I assume) surgeon you can
find and then begin to negotiate cost? If he is too high do you go to the
number two guy? Down to number ten (until you get your price)? Do you given
them a “not to exceed” figure (as in don't do more than $20,000
worth of operation)? Then there is the hospital, the anesthesiologist, etc.
With cars and other purchases, I have time. I can walk away and
wait for a week or maybe a month. Not true for much of healthcare. That and
the absolutely critical nature of the decisions are the differences.It’s just not like buying a car.
To "Semi-Strong" you are funny. You say that it isn't like buying
a car, then you described looking for a surgeon exactly like buying a car.If I go to a surgeon or car dealer and want the the best I can begin to
negociate the price. If the price is too high, I go to the next surgeon or car
dealer (I wouldn't call him the number 2 guy because it could be an equally
skilled doctor), and so on until I either get the price I want or else find that
the market price for the surgeon or car is higher than what I thought.Outside of life or death emergencies (rare exception), when do you not have at
least a few days to do your research?
RedShirtMIT,I described it that way to show how unworkable it would
be. You didn't pick up on that?I wish such circumstances were
rare. Not so in my family. I would love to just deal with broken bones or
whatever other relatively minor things.When I get billed for a
single procedure, I get it from the surgeon, the hospital, the anesthesiologist,
and some others. If I negotiate with surgeon X, I then have to take Hospital X
(because he is not admitted to practice at hospital Y). Same with the
Anesthesiologist. He doesn't work everywhere or with every surgeon. It
would be like negotiating under huge time pressure for a car with four different
firms each of which only work with some of the others (and only some of the
time) and that only begins the process.Health insurance provides
much of that negotiation.Your analogy here simply fails. Please
To "Semi-Strong" actually, the analogy does not fail here either.Replace "insurance company" with "auto broker", and you
have the same thing.You are paying somebody to pre-negociate costs
to benefit you the most.Admit it, buying goods and services is the
same no matter what you are looking for.
RedShirtMIT,Please reread my post. You don't negotiate four
essential parts of the same car with four different suppliers under time
pressure and with life or death consequences should you not be able to make the
negotiations all work out.I have bought cars with autobrokers and
myself. I buy one car. I deal with one person (at least for that one car) and
I can walk away and take my sweet time. If it's not perfect, no biggie.
There is always another car. For healthcare, I get ONE body and often just one
chance for a procedure. The pressures, complexity, varying suppliers needed to
create one operation, and the necessity of getting it perfect are simply not the
same as buying anything else.Really.
To "Semi-Strong" you don't see that it is like cars and healthcare
use the same negociating techniques. When you go to the mechanic shop, you may
have 3 peopel work on your car, but you can still find the best deal in town to
get the work done at a price you find acceptable.Now you are getting
things confused. Auto brokers are like insurance companies, they are the ones
who take care of the pressures, complexity, and suppliers.You
don't seem to understand the similarities between the two.
@Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, Ut12:59 p.m. Sept. 11, 2013To
"LDS Liberal" it doesn't take experience in those fields to know
and understand what socialism is.You have the wrong idea that
socialism is equal to the United Order.I don't think you really
know what socialism is, just like so many of your ilk.I have served
a mission, and serve the military...The biggest difference is
ownership. God's plan is for us to maintain private ownership, socialism
does not do that.======= ???What?5
years now you've been commenting, and NOW - suddenly - you claim to be a RM
and veteran?So What LDS Mission, and what branch.[BTW - I'm calling you on this one as a bluff, So, you can expect
to be quizzed.]And if God's plan is for us to have
"ownership" and not Him "owning everything", then someone
better explain that to Jesus -- because what you are saying was Lucifer's
plan.BTW - Families are Socialist, if not outright Communist.
To "LDS Liberal" Air Force, Argentina.Now, your favorite
quotes, to once again remind us that Socialism and Communism are contrary to
God's laws:"Remember that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not
compatible with radicalism or communism or any other of the “isms.”
There could be those who would profess to be your saviors." Our Paths Have
Met Again – President Spencer W. KimballD&C 134:2 "We
believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and
held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of
conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."
Communism and socialism do not allow private control ov property or the
protection of life."There are those in the Church who speak of
themselves as liberals who, as one of our former presidents has said,
“read by the lamp of their own conceit." Joseph F. Smith"Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial
resemblance thereto." First Presidency 1942.Do you know
something that the Prophets don't? They condemn communism and socialism,
why don't you?
-Health care is the same as buying a car, or going to a mechanic? Nonsense. -The United Order was communism, pure and simple. From each according to
their abilities, to each according to their needs. . . . thou wilt
remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which
thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be
broken. . .And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop
of my church. . . that they cannot be taken from the church. . . every man shall
be made . . . a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by
consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family. . . And again, if
there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it,
more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is
a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to
those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply
supplied and receive according to his wants.Communism.
RedshirtMIT,Negotiating techniques are similar because we are
humans. But the scenarios in which you negotiate are not similar at all.
Principles of marksmanship are the same on the range or the battlefield but one
is a whole lot more complex and messy.The mechanic’s shop is
not an appropriate analogy. My mechanic gives me ONE bill no matter who works
on it. He coordinates it (and it is far less complex).For
healthcare you need one procedure but it is supplied by several unrelated
entities. For a car, this would be like buying the chassis from one supplier,
the motor from another, the transmission from another, and the interior from
still another. And some only do Fords, others Chevys, etc. Then add HUGE time
pressure and life or death circumstances. See? Not the same.As to
insurance companies being the negotiators – that was my point. Healthcare
is too complex for standard free market negotiation to work well.Auto brokerage is unlike insurance companies. Far less complex, little time
pressure and no life/death pressure.I don't "understand the
similarities between the two" because I have dealt extensively with both and
know they are not the same.
Haven't read any posts, but by the number I'd guess a lot of objection
by liberals to this piece. I'll say one thing that makes the assertion
true. The Fairness Doctrine. Thankfully it hasn't been passed by
Congress, but if many liberals had their way, it would be.