SOCALHUSKER Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 As a person who mostly agress with the Repbulican business theory, I don't want socialize healthcare. But there is going to have to be some governement intervention with price controls and limiting legal judgements. Needs to be done immediately. People also need to be rewarded for taking contol of their own lives and health. Move more and eat less and don't smoke if you don't want cancer. Cigarettes are heavily taxed so that may provide for a smokers increased healthcare cost. While providing tax incentives for individuals that do just that maybe anti-republican, something has to be done to motivate each one of us to responsible for our own health. How many of us out there have adult onset diabetes? Mostly completely preventable. Don't complain about heathcare if your not doing you part What's the Republican business theory? The same one that has driven the economy straight into the ground the last 8 years. Yeah, that sounds like something I would support!! Republicans like to refer to themselves as free market economist, but their policies are anything but free. Republicans and Democrats alike, both support the same economic policies using slightly different rhetoric. It's guaranteed you won't see anything different coming from Obama than we saw from Bush and it would've been the same with McCain in office. When are people going to realize government is the problem and not the solution? Assuming government spending and intervention is the way to go is not only completely illogical, but has proven to be detrimental to both our prosperity and our freedom. Government intervention is the very reason for many of the problems we face today. To state otherwise is to have either zero knowledge of basic economics or a complete lack of rational thought. Read this article for a little background. You can't have people accepting responsibility for their actions if government policy won't let them, which is exactly what any form of intervention would entail. Let the markets work, it's the only way to ensure profits and losses and the only way for people to be held accountable for their actions. Until we realize this we are doomed!! Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 What's the Republican business theory? The same one that has driven the economy straight into the ground the last 8 years. Yeah, that sounds like something I would support!! Republicans like to refer to themselves as free market economist, but their policies are anything but free. Republicans and Democrats alike, both support the same economic policies using slightly different rhetoric. It's guaranteed you won't see anything different coming from Obama than we saw from Bush and it would've been the same with McCain in office. When are people going to realize government is the problem and not the solution? Assuming government spending and intervention is the way to go is not only completely illogical, but has proven to be detrimental to both our prosperity and our freedom. Government intervention is the very reason for many of the problems we face today. To state otherwise is to have either zero knowledge of basic economics or a complete lack of rational thought. Read this article for a little background. You can't have people accepting responsibility for their actions if government policy won't let them, which is exactly what any form of intervention would entail. Let the markets work, it's the only way to ensure profits and losses and the only way for people to be held accountable for their actions. Until we realize this we are doomed!! (Also . . . good to see the ol' "to disagree with me is to be irrational/wrong" argument. Classic.) Plus . . . your linked article is from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Surely you can find a more reputable source than a racist institution that laments the fact that the Confederacy lost the Civil War. Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 (Also . . . good to see the ol' "to disagree with me is to be irrational/wrong" argument. Classic.) Plus . . . your linked article is from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Surely you can find a more reputable source than a racist institution that laments the fact that the Confederacy lost the Civil War. OH WOW!!! Now here comes the name-calling!! Where's your proof to back up this ridiculous accusation?? Link to comment
strigori Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (Also . . . good to see the ol' "to disagree with me is to be irrational/wrong" argument. Classic.) Plus . . . your linked article is from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Surely you can find a more reputable source than a racist institution that laments the fact that the Confederacy lost the Civil War. OH WOW!!! Now here comes the name-calling!! Where's your proof to back up this ridiculous accusation?? From wikipedia Criticism from the Southern Poverty Law Center LvMI's publications have been supportive of the Confederate States of America's secession, which precipitated the American Civil War. The historical views of the Institute and of several people affiliated with it have been interpreted by some civil liberties groups, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, as sympathetic to the Confederacy. The SPLC has criticized the Institute for its "interest in neo-Confederate themes", which SPLC considers to be a form of racism. SPLC has also criticized some members of the Institute for their connections with the League of the South.[40] Lew Rockwell responded to these criticisms by writing "We have published revisionist accounts of the origins of the Civil War that demonstrate that the tariff bred more conflict between the South and the feds than slavery. For that, we were decried as a dangerous institutional proponent of “neoconfederate” ideology. Why not just plain old Confederate ideology? The addition of the prefix neo is supposed to conjure up other dangers, like those associated with the term neo-Nazi. These are desperate tactics of people who know, in their heart of hearts, that they are on the wrong side of history."[41] Another SPLC complaint[42] involves a Murray Rothbard essay called "Origins of the Welfare State in America"[43] 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. Link to comment
sarge87 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (Also . . . good to see the ol' "to disagree with me is to be irrational/wrong" argument. Classic.) Plus . . . your linked article is from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Surely you can find a more reputable source than a racist institution that laments the fact that the Confederacy lost the Civil War. OH WOW!!! Now here comes the name-calling!! Where's your proof to back up this ridiculous accusation?? From wikipedia Criticism from the Southern Poverty Law Center LvMI's publications have been supportive of the Confederate States of America's secession, which precipitated the American Civil War. The historical views of the Institute and of several people affiliated with it have been interpreted by some civil liberties groups, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, as sympathetic to the Confederacy. The SPLC has criticized the Institute for its "interest in neo-Confederate themes", which SPLC considers to be a form of racism. SPLC has also criticized some members of the Institute for their connections with the League of the South.[40] Lew Rockwell responded to these criticisms by writing "We have published revisionist accounts of the origins of the Civil War that demonstrate that the tariff bred more conflict between the South and the feds than slavery. For that, we were decried as a dangerous institutional proponent of “neoconfederate” ideology. Why not just plain old Confederate ideology? The addition of the prefix neo is supposed to conjure up other dangers, like those associated with the term neo-Nazi. These are desperate tactics of people who know, in their heart of hearts, that they are on the wrong side of history."[41] Another SPLC complaint[42] involves a Murray Rothbard essay called "Origins of the Welfare State in America"[43] 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. The SLPC's reputation is one of race hustling for profit masquerading as a charity according to Ken Silverstein of Harpers. In 1987, Dees won a $7 million judgment against the United Klans of America on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, whose son was lynched by two Klansmen. The UKA's total assets amounted to a warehouse whose sale netted Mrs. Donald $51,875. According to a groundbreaking series of newspaper stories in the Montgomery Advertiser, the SPLC, meanwhile, made $9 million from fund-raising solicitations featuring the case, including one containing a photo of Michael Donald's corpse. About the author... Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 (Also . . . good to see the ol' "to disagree with me is to be irrational/wrong" argument. Classic.) Plus . . . your linked article is from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Surely you can find a more reputable source than a racist institution that laments the fact that the Confederacy lost the Civil War. OH WOW!!! Now here comes the name-calling!! Where's your proof to back up this ridiculous accusation?? From wikipedia Criticism from the Southern Poverty Law Center LvMI's publications have been supportive of the Confederate States of America's secession, which precipitated the American Civil War. The historical views of the Institute and of several people affiliated with it have been interpreted by some civil liberties groups, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, as sympathetic to the Confederacy. The SPLC has criticized the Institute for its "interest in neo-Confederate themes", which SPLC considers to be a form of racism. SPLC has also criticized some members of the Institute for their connections with the League of the South.[40] Lew Rockwell responded to these criticisms by writing "We have published revisionist accounts of the origins of the Civil War that demonstrate that the tariff bred more conflict between the South and the feds than slavery. For that, we were decried as a dangerous institutional proponent of “neoconfederate” ideology. Why not just plain old Confederate ideology? The addition of the prefix neo is supposed to conjure up other dangers, like those associated with the term neo-Nazi. These are desperate tactics of people who know, in their heart of hearts, that they are on the wrong side of history."[41] Another SPLC complaint[42] involves a Murray Rothbard essay called "Origins of the Welfare State in America"[43] 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. So this is proof that the Mises Institute is racist? A wikipedia post by a civil rights organization that profits from drumming up racial tension. Besides, in what way does that have to do with the Mises Institute being racist?? Is supporting secession racist? Is dissecting history to see what actually occured considered racist? Is one man's opinion of another man's work proof that a whole institution is racist? Link to comment
huskerjack23 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 (Also . . . good to see the ol' "to disagree with me is to be irrational/wrong" argument. Classic.) Plus . . . your linked article is from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Surely you can find a more reputable source than a racist institution that laments the fact that the Confederacy lost the Civil War. OH WOW!!! Now here comes the name-calling!! Where's your proof to back up this ridiculous accusation?? From wikipedia Criticism from the Southern Poverty Law Center LvMI's publications have been supportive of the Confederate States of America's secession, which precipitated the American Civil War. The historical views of the Institute and of several people affiliated with it have been interpreted by some civil liberties groups, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, as sympathetic to the Confederacy. The SPLC has criticized the Institute for its "interest in neo-Confederate themes", which SPLC considers to be a form of racism. SPLC has also criticized some members of the Institute for their connections with the League of the South.[40] Lew Rockwell responded to these criticisms by writing "We have published revisionist accounts of the origins of the Civil War that demonstrate that the tariff bred more conflict between the South and the feds than slavery. For that, we were decried as a dangerous institutional proponent of “neoconfederate” ideology. Why not just plain old Confederate ideology? The addition of the prefix neo is supposed to conjure up other dangers, like those associated with the term neo-Nazi. These are desperate tactics of people who know, in their heart of hearts, that they are on the wrong side of history."[41] Another SPLC complaint[42] involves a Murray Rothbard essay called "Origins of the Welfare State in America"[43] 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. So this is proof that the Mises Institute is racist? A wikipedia post by a civil rights organization that profits from drumming up racial tension. Besides, in what way does that have to do with the Mises Institute being racist?? Is supporting secession racist? Is dissecting history to see what actually occured considered racist? Is one man's opinion of another man's work proof that a whole institution is racist? i like how instead of coming to the conclusion of the Mises Institute being racist, which is in fact the correct one, you go to the defense of your A/C worldview like it's being attacked. hey, it's hard not to judge a book by the cover when it says, "i was written by a bigot" Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 (Also . . . good to see the ol' "to disagree with me is to be irrational/wrong" argument. Classic.) Plus . . . your linked article is from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Surely you can find a more reputable source than a racist institution that laments the fact that the Confederacy lost the Civil War. OH WOW!!! Now here comes the name-calling!! Where's your proof to back up this ridiculous accusation?? What name calling? Please bold it for me. I'm not seeing it. And thanks to other posters I don't have to provide links. Looks like they've done so. Link to comment
huskertim Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 This thread has become way to esoteric. Rather than endlessly persue the upside of A/C and the evils of the Republicrats, let's ask ourselves one simple question: Why is our healthcare so dammed expensive? Answer that and the solutions become obvious. Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 (Also . . . good to see the ol' "to disagree with me is to be irrational/wrong" argument. Classic.) Plus . . . your linked article is from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Surely you can find a more reputable source than a racist institution that laments the fact that the Confederacy lost the Civil War. OH WOW!!! Now here comes the name-calling!! Where's your proof to back up this ridiculous accusation?? What name calling? Please bold it for me. I'm not seeing it. And thanks to other posters I don't have to provide links. Looks like they've done so. What????? Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 i like how instead of coming to the conclusion of the Mises Institute being racist, which is in fact the correct one, you go to the defense of your A/C worldview like it's being attacked. hey, it's hard not to judge a book by the cover when it says, "i was written by a bigot" What??? How is the Mises Institute racist? And what are you referring to with the rest of your "judge a book by it's cover" rant? Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 This thread has become way to esoteric. Rather than endlessly persue the upside of A/C and the evils of the Republicrats, let's ask ourselves one simple question: Why is our healthcare so dammed expensive? Answer that and the solutions become obvious. Because the government intervenes in it. Simple as that. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 This thread has become way to esoteric. Rather than endlessly persue the upside of A/C and the evils of the Republicrats, let's ask ourselves one simple question: Why is our healthcare so dammed expensive? Answer that and the solutions become obvious. Because the government intervenes in it. Simple as that. Seriously? You seem to really believe in what you are pitching. However, I'm not sure anyone besides Oz Husker is buying. I know of one area where governmental regulation in hospitals is guaranteed to lower costs: complicated and pricey equipment and procedures such as PET scans and gamma knives. Every hospital in Omaha thinks that they have to have the latest and greatest equipment and procedures so that they can advertise this fact to a somewhat ignorant public. The problem is that this equipment is hugely expensive, and each hospital only uses it a few times a day. Why not have a designated hospital (per given number of people) where patients from other hospitals can have these procedures? This would save (literally) millions of dollars. However, without intervention of some sort, this hospital arms race will result in more and more of this type of waste. (this is discussed about halfway down in this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1720822322.html (the paragraph I am referring to starts with "Poor McAllen, Texas.")) Link to comment
Recommended Posts