Neo-Libs on their last legs

[rjwjr]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

Some would argue that things like health care, education, clean air, clean water, police protection ... should not be dependent on a benefit package from your employer, but rather should be a benefit of living in a civilized and intelligent culture.

Why do you draw the line at a "civilized and intelligent culture"? And by whose definition? If you truly feel that health care, education, clean air, clean water, police protection (and by your "..." I assume you mean a whole laundry list of additional "freebies") then why shouldn't your taxes be raised so we can provide these basic necessities to Sudan and Nigeria and Ethiopia ...?

The real reason is that you don't give a shit about your fellow man and their supposed "right" to these luxuries that you deem as necessities. You are only focused on what you think you should be getting for free (free in this instance meaning as a result of the taxes paid by a more productive member of society than you).

Further, as an employer, one of the many that voluntarily provides health insurance to many individuals and families, I take offense to your demonizing of the businesses that provide the jobs, benefits, and retirement savings to the vast majority of citizens of every Country. By the way, employment is voluntary. If you can get along better without your employer than you certainly have that right. You also have the right to start your own business and show the rest of us how it's really supposed to be done.

I lean more toward the thinking that society owes me nothing and it's up to me to make my way through this life as best I can. I wish you felt the same way rather than whining about your right to have someone else protect you in your neighborhood and your right to have someone else educate you and your right to have someone else provide your health insurance. Man up or move to Cuba. I hear they have everything you're whining for.

[ASH]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

Quit waving the flag to make your point.

...

I think you can see the schtick here: military service = patriotism = love of country = blah blah blah.

As a former Marine reservist, who was never mobilized, I can assure you that loudly citing one's past military service to establish authority in all rhetorical situations -- however irrelevant -- is a hallowed privilege enjoyed by fighting men since time immemorial. I mean, it's listed as a benefit in the flyer from the VA that they give you with your discharge papers! Come on!

And as a Ph.D. in a field having nothing whatsoever to do with economics or foreign policy, yet who frequently offers opinions on same, I can assure you that citing past military service is second only to academic credentialism when one wishes their ideas to be judged on the basis of who they are, rather than the ideas themselves. Those slips of paper cost a lot to procure, and they sound very official!

However, knowing that someone was once a member of my Beloved Corps (actually, that's not true -- "once a Marine; always a Marine") is a useful piece of information for me. It means I am somewhat more likely to enjoy their company and admire their values than the average person, but it also means they have a higher chance of being... "eccentric"... like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright or Lee Harvey Oswald.

[bcassill]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

LOL, what is the name of your history book of reference for that stellar piece of historical bullshit? You don't think that maybe the ending of slavery and keeping the United States united, under the leadership of one of our greatest Presidents in history, had a little more to do with earning votes for the Republicans of that era than this supposed "bloody shirt" trick? Please don't try to sway the argument with intellectual dishonesty.

rjwjr,

Actually learned about the "bloody shrit" it in high school American history class. Sorry can't quote a textbook source, but the Republican party (which at the time was very different than the one we have now) could basically count on the votes of around one million Union war veterans every election cycle. This did much to boost/cement their political power for about 40 years after the end of the Civil War. The bloody shirt trick was a tactic used to play to this base of political support. Wikipedia has a short reference to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waving_the_bloody_shirt

Other references to the practice can be found here:

http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/civilwar.html

and here:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401800486.html

While I strongly agree that Lincoln is one of the best in political AND moral leadership this country has had the opportunity to produce, he was dead before the war even ended. As I'm sure your aware, some politicians will stoop practically any measure to get a vote, and unfortunately, this was the practice used by some to gain political office after Lincoln and others managed to navigate America through one of its darkest periods.

The point I was trying to make was that the guy in the video started his comment off about be a former Marine. While this is indeed very commendable, his service to his country has very little bearing on the issue of health care reform, whatever that might look like if anything. Get beyond the ideology and begin to look at the interests who have a dog in this fight. Whether its a bloated, inefficient hospital that has a lock on regional health care services, a health insurance company CEO whose main interest is in preserving his annual bonus, or the politicians who have been bought and paid for, there is a common denominator underlying all of them. You only have to follow the money trail. And yes, I fully believe that some of these interests would stoop low enough to "wave the bloody shirt" if they thought there was a buck to be earned from it. As pathetic it is, there are those in this country whose allegiance is not to the red, white, and blue but only to the color green.;)

[bpr]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

My perspective on that is that medical care is one of the forms of compensation our servicemembers receive. Someone who receives a benefit that is payment for services rendered is different from someone who receives a benefit gratis. Or don't you agree?

Thanks for pointing out my (il)logical leap: we have an ideological difference. Is medical care a right, or a form of compensation?

Precise language and logic is essential here, as the terms "medical care," "treatment," "health insurance," and "health care" have all been used interchangeably, but carry very different connotations. If I said that people have a right to basic medical treatment, that would be far less onerous than if I said that people have a right to health insurance.

[ASH]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

Is medical care a right, or a form of compensation?

If I said that people have a right to basic medical treatment, that would be far less onerous than if I said that people have a right to health insurance.

I agree that providing basic medical treatment is desireable. I think of that as being something closer to "public infrastructure" as opposed to a "right", but who is to say that my particular take on the semantics has merit.

But I do want to explain why I make the distinction that I do. First of all, the word "right" is closely tied to our moral ideas, which frequently are absolute. That invites one to think in absolute terms about the entitlement to a right -- what is "rightfully theirs".

Medical care, food, and other material necessities require labor and property to provide -- and the material world being finite -- cannot be provided without limit. I see some tension between providing material benefits to people as a "right" because, ideally, one should not like to skimp in according someone their rights.

On the other hand, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of conscience... these are all "rights" which involve society forebearing to do something, and come at essentially no material cost. They are rights which can be provided in almost absolute terms, and so are more satisfying to think of as "inalienable rights to be enjoyed in full measure." I personally believe it is significant that the Bill of Rights was of this character: a list of things that the government doesn't impose upon you, rather than a list of material goodies that government is obliged to provide to you.

The reason I think of public medical care as being something closer to infrastructure than a "right" is because our ability to provide it is limited, and we have to think about how much to provide, to whom, and how to pay for it. Ideally, we would provide free education to everyone, but instead we prioritize and offer free public education through high school... and you could argue that we skimp on quality. Ideally, we would provide perfect physical security (assuming that could be balanced with a desire for privacy), but instead we hire a "reasonable" force of police and emergency personnel, and accept a finite emergency response time. Ideally, we would provide medical care for everyone, to the limit of our technical ability, but instead we're going to have to prioritize to some extent.

Maybe you don't see the same neat semantic dividing line between rights and public infrastructure that I do, and that's okay. However, to the extent that the word "right" implies something inalienable -- and encourages thinking in terms of absolute entitlement -- it is tricky to talk about a "right" to something material that could be open-ended. Whether one regards medical care as a "right" or not isn't that important, but we have to remember that our ability to supply medical care is bounded my material costs.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

LOL, what is the name of your history book of reference for that stellar piece of historical bullshit?

First I've heard of it too.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6832.html

By mocking these would-be negotiators as appeasers, Giuliani was waving the “bloody shirt.”

It’s a trick Republicans first learned after the Civil War. GOP attack dogs made much of the fact that the Democratic Party had been the opposition during the war and was overrepresented in the South, snarling that Democrats were unfit for office — at best.

At a famous speech in Indianapolis in 1876, lawyer and Republican bloody-shirt-waver extraordinaire Robert Ingersoll argued, “Every ordinance of secession ... was drawn [up] by a Democrat. Every man that endeavored to tear the old flag from the heaven that it enriches was a Democrat. ... Every enemy this great republic has had for 20 years has been a Democrat. Every man that shot Union soldiers was a Democrat.”

[bpr]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

I agree that providing basic medical treatment is desireable. I think of that as being something closer to "public infrastructure" as opposed to a "right", but who is to say that my particular take on the semantics has merit.

But I do want to explain why I make the distinction that I do. First of all, the word "right" is closely tied to our moral ideas, which frequently are absolute. That invites one to think in absolute terms about the entitlement to a right -- what is "rightfully theirs".

Medical care, food, and other material necessities require labor and property to provide -- and the material world being finite -- cannot be provided without limit. I see some tension between providing material benefits to people as a "right" because, ideally, one should not like to skimp in according someone their rights.

On the other hand, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of conscience... these are all "rights" which involve society forebearing to do something, and come at essentially no material cost. They are rights which can be provided in almost absolute terms, and so are more satisfying to think of as "inalienable rights to be enjoyed in full measure." I personally believe it is significant that the Bill of Rights was of this character: a list of things that the government doesn't impose upon you, rather than a list of material goodies that government is obliged to provide to you.

The reason I think of public medical care as being something closer to infrastructure than a "right" is because our ability to provide it is limited, and we have to think about how much to provide, to whom, and how to pay for it. Ideally, we would provide free education to everyone, but instead we prioritize and offer free public education through high school... and you could argue that we skimp on quality. Ideally, we would provide perfect physical security (assuming that could be balanced with a desire for privacy), but instead we hire a "reasonable" force of police and emergency personnel, and accept a finite emergency response time. Ideally, we would provide medical care for everyone, to the limit of our technical ability, but instead we're going to have to prioritize to some extent.

Maybe you don't see the same neat semantic dividing line between rights and public infrastructure that I do, and that's okay. However, to the extent that the word "right" implies something inalienable -- and encourages thinking in terms of absolute entitlement -- it is tricky to talk about a "right" to something material that could be open-ended. Whether one regards medical care as a "right" or not isn't that important, but we have to remember that our ability to supply medical care is bounded my material costs.

No, excellent post. It can be very constructive to see health care as infrastructure, as opposed to a right. The question turns to one of access, then. Turns out there already is a public option, but the only ones with access to it are employed by the government.

EDIT: I still don't know why that guy is so angry. May be PTSD.

[flintlock]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

As a former Marine reservist, who was never mobilized, I can assure you that loudly citing one's past military service to establish authority in all rhetorical situations -- however irrelevant -- is a hallowed privilege enjoyed by fighting men since time immemorial. I mean, it's listed as a benefit in the flyer from the VA that they give you with your discharge papers! Come on!

And as a Ph.D. in a field having nothing whatsoever to do with economics or foreign policy, yet who frequently offers opinions on same, I can assure you that citing past military service is second only to academic credentialism when one wishes their ideas to be judged on the basis of who they are, rather than the ideas themselves. Those slips of paper cost a lot to procure, and they sound very official!

However, knowing that someone was once a member of my Beloved Corps (actually, that's not true -- "once a Marine; always a Marine") is a useful piece of information for me. It means I am somewhat more likely to enjoy their company and admire their values than the average person, but it also means they have a higher chance of being... "eccentric"... like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright or Lee Harvey Oswald.

Great use of font size! I'm still laughing.

[jheis]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

Somebody please explain to me what the message title "Neo-Libs on their last legs" has to do with a protestor against health care reform.

[rjwjr]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

Somebody please explain to me what the message title "Neo-Libs on their last legs" has to do with a protestor against health care reform.

I'd say because individuals that would be considered "liberal" are more apt to see health care as a right that should be provided by the government (meaning paid for out of the taxes of their more productive fellow citizens). Whereas individuals that would be considered non-liberal are more apt to see health care as a luxury that must be paid for by the individual, either directly with the provider or by protecting oneself with insurance, like we do for our homes, autos, and extended warranties on our plasma TV's. In this thread, the non-liberal Marine has just tore the assumed neo-liberal politician a new asshole, thus placing him, and all like him, on his last legs.

That's my take.

[rjwjr]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

rjwjr,

Actually learned about the "bloody shrit" it in high school American history class. Sorry can't quote a textbook source, but the Republican party (which at the time was very different than the one we have now) could basically count on the votes of around one million Union war veterans every election cycle. This did much to boost/cement their political power for about 40 years after the end of the Civil War. The bloody shirt trick was a tactic used to play to this base of political support. Wikipedia has a short reference to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waving_the_bloody_shirt

Other references to the practice can be found here:

http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/civilwar.html

and here:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401800486.html

While I strongly agree that Lincoln is one of the best in political AND moral leadership this country has had the opportunity to produce, he was dead before the war even ended. As I'm sure your aware, some politicians will stoop practically any measure to get a vote, and unfortunately, this was the practice used by some to gain political office after Lincoln and others managed to navigate America through one of its darkest periods.

The point I was trying to make was that the guy in the video started his comment off about be a former Marine. While this is indeed very commendable, his service to his country has very little bearing on the issue of health care reform, whatever that might look like if anything. Get beyond the ideology and begin to look at the interests who have a dog in this fight. Whether its a bloated, inefficient hospital that has a lock on regional health care services, a health insurance company CEO whose main interest is in preserving his annual bonus, or the politicians who have been bought and paid for, there is a common denominator underlying all of them. You only have to follow the money trail. And yes, I fully believe that some of these interests would stoop low enough to "wave the bloody shirt" if they thought there was a buck to be earned from it. As pathetic it is, there are those in this country whose allegiance is not to the red, white, and blue but only to the color green.;)

bcassill,

I'm not saying that the "bloody shirt" episodes didn't occur, I'm saying that they don't come close to explaining the popularity of the Republican party of that time when compared to the fact that the Republican President and leadership of that time was primarily responsible for abolishing slavery and keeping the United States of America from becoming the Divided States of America.

I happen to disagree with those of you that believe that this Marine was a plant by the "powers that be" to espouse the "talking points" of the medical industry. MSM and liberal politicians keep dismissing these angry, independent citizens as some vast right-wing conspiracy. What if they are simply and truly angry, independent citizens?

Look, you currently have the freedom to provide your own medical care (prevention, healthy living, Ma's "home remedies"), or to pay for medical services directly from the provider (clinic, physician, drug store, warehouse club), or to procure insurance for your medical bills and/or to protect against catastrophic illnesses or injuries. You can even go to medical school if you wish (or EMT training or nursing school). It's up to you to take care of yourself and your family.

On the other hand, we can demand that health care is a right that should be provided by the government, however, the only way that your government can afford to provide this service for all citizens is by taking money from a small percentage of individuals and redistributing it to other individuals. I simply do not believe this is fair. I simply don't believe that someone who is more successful than me should be responsible for my health care as a result.

The "government" doesn't pay for shit. The government takes money from all citizens, a hell of a lot of money from a relatively small percentage of our fellow citiznes, then redistributes it in an inefficient and politcally skewed manner. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government and health care ain't in there. Any Federal health care program is simply taking by force from the successful minority to provide a "free" hand-out to the majority. It's unfair and it weakens our society at both ends; making the minority more callous and less motivated and the majority more dependent and less motivated.

Health care is NOT a right, it is a personal responsibility.

[c1ue]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

The "government" doesn't pay for shit. The government takes money from all citizens, a hell of a lot of money from a relatively small percentage of our fellow citiznes, then redistributes it in an inefficient and politcally skewed manner. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government and health care ain't in there. Any Federal health care program is simply taking by force from the successful minority to provide a "free" hand-out to the majority. It's unfair and it weakens our society at both ends; making the minority more callous and less motivated and the majority more dependent and less motivated.

Health care is NOT a right, it is a personal responsibility.

Have you read the thread I posted with an Atlantic article on health care from a businessman's perspective?

I think the problem you're experiencing is the inability to distinguish between a government mandated program and a handout. They can be the same, but don't have to be.

As I noted in the 'Select' area, there are absolutely parts of the health care equation which can benefit from government intervention.

A requirement forcing all Americans into a single catastrophic health insurance program could be one of them. Catastrophic being arbitrarily defined - for me it would be equal to 1 year's pretax income for the average family or perhaps 3 year's post tax income.

In this case the actuarial costs of the entire population can be equally shared among everyone thus reaping the lowest possible insurance cost.

You might argue that this would be higher than your existing insurance cost, but the problem is that existing insurance payments for medical service are already distorted by the amount of unpaid medical care given to the uninsured.

Thus the actual cost of your insurance is not only distorted by the insurance companies' gaming of their actuarial population (i.e. excluding anyone and everything possible which threatens profitability) but also by the higher fees charged to the insurance entity to make up for the 'free loaders'.

The principle would be very similar to that of a public utility like for water or power. In this case the government might not even have to pay extra money as government already pays significant amounts of health care to those without insurance both via direct programs like Medicare and child health programs as well as indirectly via subsidies to hospitals and other health organizations.

So again, the hand of government in health care does not have to be a handout. Nor in this example is health care a right - though affordable catastrophic health care should be available and it is not right now.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

So again, the hand of government in health care does not have to be a handout.

In theory perhaps, and even in the possible examples of some other nations or more limited health care programs the U.S. has now, such as for veterans and seniors.

However, here and now, in these United States, any massive new program, no matter how constituted, will be formulated as or soon become another example of regulatory and government capture by some powerful interests, leading to (1) less service, (2) higher taxes, (3) more regulations and (4) less personal liberty.

P.S. See confirming evidence in Jim's post at Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes -- Post #52. He links to an LATimes article reporting that healthcare insurers have gained control of this proposed healthcare legislation.

[bcassill]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

bcassill,

I'm not saying that the "bloody shirt" episodes didn't occur, I'm saying that they don't come close to explaining the popularity of the Republican party of that time when compared to the fact that the Republican President and leadership of that time was primarily responsible for abolishing slavery and keeping the United States of America from becoming the Divided States of America.

I happen to disagree with those of you that believe that this Marine was a plant by the "powers that be" to espouse the "talking points" of the medical industry. MSM and liberal politicians keep dismissing these angry, independent citizens as some vast right-wing conspiracy. What if they are simply and truly angry, independent citizens?

Look, you currently have the freedom to provide your own medical care (prevention, healthy living, Ma's "home remedies"), or to pay for medical services directly from the provider (clinic, physician, drug store, warehouse club), or to procure insurance for your medical bills and/or to protect against catastrophic illnesses or injuries. You can even go to medical school if you wish (or EMT training or nursing school). It's up to you to take care of yourself and your family.

On the other hand, we can demand that health care is a right that should be provided by the government, however, the only way that your government can afford to provide this service for all citizens is by taking money from a small percentage of individuals and redistributing it to other individuals. I simply do not believe this is fair. I simply don't believe that someone who is more successful than me should be responsible for my health care as a result.

The "government" doesn't pay for shit. The government takes money from all citizens, a hell of a lot of money from a relatively small percentage of our fellow citiznes, then redistributes it in an inefficient and politcally skewed manner. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government and health care ain't in there. Any Federal health care program is simply taking by force from the successful minority to provide a "free" hand-out to the majority. It's unfair and it weakens our society at both ends; making the minority more callous and less motivated and the majority more dependent and less motivated.

Health care is NOT a right, it is a personal responsibility.

I agree with you that health care is a personal responsibility. The only exception I make with this is kids. Personally, I think that anyone under the age of 18 should be covered whether it's mandatory private insurance or some publicly funded source like medicare. They don't vote, and they do not have the economic means to look after their own interests.

Now having said that, I'll give you a little perspective from my own experience on this. For a little over three years, I was a small business owner with a small consulting practice in data analytics (until the economy basically destroyed my cash flow and I had to go back and work for someone else). During this time, I paid for a private insurance policy to cover me and my family. I saw my monthly premiums go from around $700 to over $1100 in that 3 year period. Late this year, I got a statement from the insurance company showing how much I had paid them vs. what they had paid out in medical expenses on my behalf. Of the in excess of $30K I paid them in monthly premiums, they paid out about $15K in medical procedures including hospital visits for one of my children. Where did the other half of my premiums go? It went to fund someone else's medical procedure (whose payouts exceeded their premiums) and to the company's bottom line.

The problem is, even under the current system, you are still stuck paying for someone else whether you like it or not. In most cases private insurers, unfortunately, are really just glorified billing agencies: they collect your money and just pass it along to your provider. Please explain to me where the value add is in that? Occasionally, someone has a really catastrophic illness/accident, and this is when the insurance pays for itself. But the catastrophic events are rare in comparison to normal doctor visits. Insurance, as it is normally designed for other catastrophic events like accidents, floods, house fires, etc., is supposed to cover off on things like result in some large financial loss. Unfortunately, most plans are not geared this way.

On a different note, I remember seeing in the news several years ago primary care physicians who had kicked the insurance habit and were only taking direct payment for services. One doctor in Mississippi charged $40 per visit compared to the $100+ he charged when he was taking payments from insurers. When he fired the insurance company, he still made more money at the $40 price point since he was able to cut out the administrative overhead of dealing with multiple insurers.

Finally, here where I live. Around the corner from my house, a local medical group is in the process of building a new hospital. This has been a multi-year process for them in that competitor hospitals in the area have sued them and have resorted to taking their case to the state medical board in an effort to prevent construction from even beginning (is someone maybe trying to protect a monopoly here?). This is completely against what a would consider fair market practice and/or competition. Fortunately, it looks as it the new hospital will be built after all.

The problem we have is a system with huge cost inefficiencies whether we are talking about the way we pay for our healthcare, the administrative costs associated with juggling the maze of insurers each with their own pay out structure, or the continued efforts by hospitals to kill real competition. Vitriolic speeches (for or against a public option) by former service members, senior citizens, or other members of the voting public does absolutely nothing to address any of these problems. Rants against Obamacare do nothing to solve the health care mess while deflecting the discussion away from the real issues. While there are those who decry the country going down the socialist path, our health care system was largely socialized several decades ago by the creation of Medicare which now pays for a larger percentage of health care expenditures than all the payouts by private insurers combined.

No, the issue is that we spend almost twice as much per person on health care in our country vs. other developed countries for very little incremental benefit. And it continues to sap a lot of the productive capital that could be used and reinvested elsewhere to grow the economy.

And for those who are truly committed to eliminating government handouts/limiting the size of government/being a strict constructionist etc, don't get me started. There are so many government handouts from social security, medicare, VA benefits (for non-combat related medical care), government pensions, farm subsidies, tax breaks for businesses, etc. that were never intended or envisioned by the original framers of the constitution. The problem is that I do not see anyone standing up and decrying these other publicly funded handouts. Where's the outrage?

[jheis]

Re: Neo-Libs on their last legs

According to Wikipedia:

"Neoliberalism (shorthand for neoclassical liberalism^[1][2]) is a label for the resurgence or reformulation of classical economic liberalism. The term was coined 1938 at the Colloque Walter Lippmann by the German sociologist and economist Alexander Rüstow, one of the fathers of Social market economy.^[3] The label is referring to a redefinition of classical liberalism, influenced by the neoclassical theories of economics. The term "neoliberalism" is used a pejorative by progressives^[4]; Pinochet was among the first to use it as a pejorative.^[5]

In the United States, neoliberalism can also refer to a political movement in which members of the American left and right endorse free market positions, such as free market economics, globalized free-trade and welfare reform.^[6][7] This term should not be confused with Social liberalism, for which the term new liberalism or neoliberalism is also used in the United States."

I don't think Mega's post topic matches the video, unless he is using neo-libs to mean social liberals, and he sees social liberalism being defeated by the force of protestors at town hall meetings. I would have to disagree with that conclusion.