Meet Barack Hussein Mugabe

[rah]

I have to be insane, since I don't agree with the all knowing Oerdin. It's an opinion. I don't see you offering up anything concrete, just a insult that I'm insane. But then, that's normal. Agree or be labeled insane or a moron.

[rah]

Originally posted by Agathon


You still haven't explained how you make the inference that increased Federal spending would be bad, even when you identify the collective action problems that such spending is supposed to ameliorate.

It's my claim that the federal government is wasteful and just bad at spending. So in my opinion all federal spending is bad. But for certain things the alternative is not any better. So I'd like to limit federal spending to only things that make sense. To minimize the bad.

National defense is one of those. And as you could tell from my other post, i'm leary to put anything else in that catagory, but there are a few others that must be included.

And thanks Aggy for keeping it a discusion, instead of the typical insults that come from attempting to disagree with certain others here.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by rah
I don't want to waste my vote on a third party.

I've never understood this.

Honestly, I think that the two-party system is a heinous situation, but if we can't ban all political parties, I'd rather try to go as multi-party as possible.

So I don't think I'm throwing my vote away if my vote can count towards getting a third party enough of a share to qualify for federal funding.

Admittedly, I'm granted that flexibility to vote for my primary interest (obtaining a multiparty system) rather than my secondary interest (lesser of two evils) because in every state I've resided in has been safely red or blue.

if McCain does win, he'll act like the person he has been for decades and not the presidential candidate that we've had thrust upon us the last few months.

I do not have the same faith.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

I've never understood this.

Honestly, I think that the two-party system is a heinous situation, but if we can't ban all political parties, I'd rather try to go as multi-party as possible.

So I don't think I'm throwing my vote away if my vote can count towards getting a third party enough of a share to qualify for federal funding.

It's pretty solid political theory that any electoral system with the first past the post system, like what you Yankees have, will always inevitably produce a 2 party system. People naturally vote for one of the major 2 parties because they think its the only strategic thing to do with their vote.

So far the only exception has been Canada, but thats probably only because of the Quebec situation.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah

It's my claim that the federal government is wasteful and just bad at spending. So in my opinion all federal spending is bad. But for certain things the alternative is not any better. So I'd like to limit federal spending to only things that make sense. To minimize the bad.

National defense is one of those. And as you could tell from my other post, i'm leary to put anything else in that catagory, but there are a few others that must be included.

That's my point. If you think about it, the same principle applies to many things. For example, people typically take welfare in liberal democracies as an egalitarian institution, when it is no such thing. Welfare is mostly a way for people to buy off the poor and ameliorate social evils they don't like, but is centrally funded because of the same market failure that afflicts defence and policing.

Moving to public healthcare (Canadian style, state by state with convertibility) would probably save you about 5% of GDP (at a conservative estimate). The mind boggles at why this is not done. Who in their right mind would not take a more or less 5% pay rise? And this isn't counting the obvious benefits to employers.

Part of the irrationality that pervades contemporary politics occurs because the political right does not understand the concept of economic efficiency properly and the political left doesn't either and makes the additional mistake of introducing considerations of equality into places where it has no purchase (and I say this as a radical egalitarian myself).

Because of this, people don't really understand why we pay tax, and how pervasive the causes of market failure are.

And thanks Aggy for keeping it a discusion, instead of the typical insults that come from attempting to disagree with certain others here.

The people who get that provoke it by BSing me and repeatedly failing to answer questions and general poor standards of discourse (given that it's my job to evaluate arguments, I find it amusing that some folks think I won't notice). There are plenty of people on this site who I am diametrically opposed to, but who are capable of following an argument and adhering to the usual ethics of discussion (Ben for example - if you make a counterargument to his point, he understands that repeating his original point ad nauseam is not a sufficient response, and neither is simple denial). On the other hand, there are a bunch of posters who either can't follow an argument or who just start BSing when they can't think of a response.

I don't think people who disagree with me are necessarily idiots in a general sense. It's the bull****ters I can't stand. Most of them have made it to my ignore list by now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Moving to public healthcare (Canadian style, state by state with convertibility) would probably save you about 5% of GDP (at a conservative estimate).

On the other hand, I bet that rah probably has better health care than most people and doesn't pay all that much for it. And are frightened that national health care will not be as comprehensive. They aren't evil for wanting to keep their better health care, they are just concerned about having too little for themselves in addition to a much larger tax burden.

I think they mostly wouldn't mind a system where the poor get free health care, but beyond that start to worry.

[rah]

That's my point. If you think about it, the same principle applies to many things. For example, people typically take welfare in liberal democracies as an egalitarian institution, when it is no such thing. Welfare is mostly a way for people to buy off the poor and ameliorate social evils they don't like, but is centrally funded because of the same market failure that afflicts defence and policing.

I guess this is our biggest difference. I want fewer things taken care of by the government unless it's the only place it will work. For example, THE VERY LAST THING I want is the US goverment in charge of my health care. Despite now that I'm getting ready to retire and would benefit from it. I don't want to wait 3 months for a check up or routine procedures. I want more choices when it comes to different treatment methods. These types of things are the traditional weaknesses of socialized medicine.


Added after reading the cross post.
Yes, since I'm insured I have a great health plan that is quite inexpensive. If I was unemployed or retired, it's a whole different ball game.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by rah
I have to be insane, since I don't agree with the all knowing Oerdin. It's an opinion. I don't see you offering up anything concrete, just a insult that I'm insane. But then, that's normal. Agree or be labeled insane or a moron.

There are lots of things people can disagree on but saying you'd vote again for Bush knowing how he'd turn out....

Somebody get a straight jacket!

[rah]

I'm sure there are quite a few poeple that would agree with me. Granted some of them would be insane, but that would be a small percentage.

Again, not knowing how the alternatives would have done, it all comes down to a personal opinion that can not be substantiated.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Moving to public healthcare (Canadian style, state by state with convertibility) would probably save you about 5% of GDP (at a conservative estimate).

On the other hand, I bet that rah probably has better health care than most people and doesn't pay all that much for it. And are frightened that national health care will not be as comprehensive. They aren't evil for wanting to keep their better health care, they are just concerned about having too little for themselves in addition to a much larger tax burden.

I think they mostly wouldn't mind a system where the poor get free health care, but beyond that start to worry.

National health care doesn't have to be like that. In New Zealand, people like rah (and lots of other people not like him at all) buy private insurance to supplement their public entitlements (that actually works pretty well in NZ, since insurance companies find it easier to focus on providing more expensive stuff than on trying to be everything to everyone).

But thinking of it in individualistic terms is self-defeating. The US suffers a massive productivity hit because small ailments are allowed to grow into big ones because people can't afford treatment. Corporations waste cash and resources administering health insurance for their employees instead of focusing on their core competencies. Billions of dollars are paid to people to organize useless insurance schemes when they would be more productive doing something else. Add to that you pay much more as a percentage of GDP for crappier healthcare. It is insane.

Public healthcare would make the US a much more efficient society. Alone it would likely catapult the US to the top of the UNHDI.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah

I guess this is our biggest difference. I want fewer things taken care of by the government unless it's the only place it will work.

It is. Once you accept the existence of market failure, some form of compulsory taxation is the only way to fund things (market failure is in essence the failure of all voluntary funding schemes).

For example, THE VERY LAST THING I want is the US goverment in charge of my health care. Despite now that I'm getting ready to retire and would benefit from it. I don't want to wait 3 months for a check up or routine procedures. I want more choices when it comes to different treatment methods. These types of things are the traditional weaknesses of socialized medicine.

Which you can remedy by paying for additional insurance, or by funding the public system properly. In practice, you would double dip, by only invoking your private insurance when necessary and letting the public system pick up the tab for the rest. It works very well in practice.

Socialized healthcare is not monolithic. On the only system the US would be likely to adopt, the state would merely be your insurer. In Canada, when you go to a doctor, you are visiting a private business, and if you don't like him or what he recommends, you can go elsewhere.

Added after reading the cross post.
Yes, since I'm insured I have a great health plan that is quite inexpensive. If I was unemployed or retired, it's a whole different ball game.

A problem is that you already pay for their lack of healthcare. You pay more than you should to buy products from companies that lose productivity due to failure to deal with preventable illnesses. You end up paying taxes to support welfare payments to people who are too sick to work because they didn't get treatment which would have prevented them being invalided out. You also spend more than you should on private insurance, because it is hard for insurance companies to maintain adequate oversight of spending (the state actually turns out to be really good at this in the context of healthcare).

If you see the costs of healthcare to you as being the amount on your monthly premium or your tax bill, then you are failing to realize that there are hidden costs to not having public healthcare every time you go shopping or purchase a service. These things become more expensive, because someone has to pay for the inefficient private healthcare system you have (which uses far more of your GDP than Canada's public system). Just as the customers of your company are paying for your insurance, so you are paying for that of the people whose products and services you buy, and you are in addition bearing the costs of the uninsured whether you like it or not.

[Ramo]

Patroklos, Obama has seen the errors of his ways and is starting to listen to your arguements. I saw a speach he gave recently and he's now talking about using more nuclear power and drilling offshore. Give him a bit more time and the Chameleon in him will be preaching the glory of the atom. He is the ONE.

He has been pro-nuclear since the beginning of the campaign. Anyone who has bothered to pay attention would know that.

[Ramo]

Maybe if he actually attended congress and voted, we might know where he actually stands on some of these issues instead of having to trust what is spewed from, "THE ONE"

I don't know why you keep saying this. McCain's absenteeism has been ~50% higher than Obama's during the current Congress.

[Patroklos]

Then why is it not even mentioned on his own website? Do you understand what that means? Its not just an aside, its not just not a priotiry, its not just of limited importance, IT IS NOT THERE AT ALL!!!

[Ramo]

It is. It's two clicks away instead of one. Teh horror.