Too bad they weren't there in the 1980s.
Anyone catch the signs some of those dolts were holding? One kid was calling Obama a racist communist.
Too bad they couldn't have all been fabricated signs paid by Moveon.org and the democratic party like so many of the ones we've seen for Obamacare. BTW .. who's paying for those???
I think they were behaving stupidly ... don't you.
Do I think the prez is racist .. as racist and bias as any human being can be ... if you think otherwise then you've put a this man above all others.
I did like one woman said ... "The president has warned us if we disagree with him he's going to call us out," DeMint said. "Well, Mr. President, we are out."
Not exactly what the president did say ... which I think was very unpresidential and divisive of him to do so "If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. .. like come on .. put up your Dukes .. let's get it on ... that is really bringing people together .. isn't it?
Another sign read
"Terrorists Won't Destroy America, Congress Will!"
ABC News Was Misquoted on Crowd Size actaul corwd size in DC ~ 70,000 Plus .. who's to really know. There were tea protests all over the country though and not just in DC.
I would point out that Obama did make statements during his swearing-in ceremony that the time for disagreements was past (or something like that). I remember I was extremely disturbed by his speech. The Democrats had been going on for eight years how it was patriotic to question Bush, but Obama was claiming it was no longer necessary.
Obama was elected because he wasn't a GW disciple. Obama linked McCain to GW as much as he could. Obama was not elected because he would unite people .. all though he was for change and many hoped he could unite the country - but nothing really in his political resume suggested that he really could work both sides of the aisle. To me it seems like business as usual in DC. Face it America you were hoodwinked again by the system.
It is interesting to note that Obama has done the same things that GW was supposedly a bad president for.
War in Iraq = Check .. same as it always was
Escalation of War in Afghanistan = Check
TARP 2 = Check
Wall Street Doing Great - Main Street Not = Check
Transparency - or lack of = Check
Surrounded by Wall Street advisers = Check
Special Interest Groups over the people = Check
Gitmo Still There = Check
War on Drugs = Check
Terrible Economy and Unemployment Increasing = Check .. Check ..
Jobs leaving the country = Check
Better Energy Policy = Crap and Trade .. OMG
Arrogant and Divisive = Check
Bozo Vice President = Check
Crummy Secretary of State = Check
Alienate foreign countries ... well that's a check for UK, Germany and France .. and no check for the middle east, N Korea and Venezuela.
He has 3 more years to get some of those things improved upon ... it would be nice if he did. I'm not holding my breath though based upon his priorities.
Bozo Scary MF Vice President = Check >/< Check
FIXT
Throngs of people waved U.S. flags and held signs reading "Go Green Recycle Congress" and "Obama Bin Lyin.'" Men wore colonial costumes as they listened to speakers who warned of "judgment day" 14 Election Day 2010.
*shrugs* I am getting turned off from politics again. Same old song and dance.
Sounds like a different old song and dance. At least the tune's a little different. "It's got a good beat, you can dance to it". 
Rock and roll music
Any old way you choose it
Its got a back beat, you cant lost it,
Any old time you use it
Its gotta be rock roll music
If you wanna dance with me
If you wanna dance with me
Cha cha cha
It's coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It's coming from the feel
that this ain't exactly real,
or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.
From the wars against disorder,
from the sirens night and day,
from the fires of the homeless,
from the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming through a crack in the wall;
on a visionary flood of alcohol;
from the staggering account
of the Sermon on the Mount
which I don't pretend to understand at all.
It's coming from the silence
on the dock of the bay,
from the brave, the bold, the battered
heart of Chevrolet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.
It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming from the women and the men.
O baby, we'll be making love again.
We'll be going down so deep
the river's going to weep,
and the mountain's going to shout Amen!
It's coming like the tidal flood
beneath the lunar sway,
imperial, mysterious,
in amorous array:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on ...
I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
I am not familiar with this song - who is it by?
Sounds like they are voting 3rd party ... cool
In one of these protests someone held up a sign that said;
"Keep Your Damn Government Hands Off of My Medicare"
How do you 'debate' with people like that?
Maybe it was one of the people who doesn't trust the government .. Obama 'promised' that medicare would not be touched .. but he also said that to pay for 'his' plan .. Half the money would come from tax increases, and the other half from reduced spending on Medicare.
How do you debate with people when they believe everything they hear in a speech .. Obama said it wasn't going to cost anything .. it must be true .. it is sort of like the internet. Gramps in your years on living in this great country, when has the government made things better with out screwing thins up royally. There is no competition or checks and balances to allow a government agency to run efficiently - they are not a private business - they are run by bureacrats.
Government works just like an other organization and is no more subject to screwing up than any other organization. One of my favorite programs was the Bureau of Reclamation's cleanup project. They would go to old mining sites that were horribly contaminated with heavy metals and such, and clean them up. Meanwhile they would research who was currently responsible (what corporation had bought the company that bought the company that made the mess to begin with) and send them a bill. (Oh yeah, Dubya shut it down.)
Other successful government projects worth noting: Social Security, Medicare (far more efficient than private insurance, BTW), World War 1, World War 2, school breakfast and lunch programs, The Tennessee Valley Authority, The Civilian Conservation Corps, The Works Progress Administration, Dust Bowl land conservation, The Apollo Project.
The point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with government action, if government fails, the failure is our own because we ARE the government. Arguing that government is inherently incompetent is simply arguing for your own inability and, as we all know, argue in favor of your limitations and, sure enough, they ARE yours.
First off, I only listened casually to the Obama speech and even I know he didn't say it wouldn't cost anything. He said it wouldn't cost more than what we are already spending, which is a bit different.
Secondly, what I know about this topic is mostly first hand. I am a practicing capitalist, in the sense that I sell medical testing services for a living. These services are paid for (reimbursed) by private insurance or Medicare/Medicaid. I don't get paid unless my services are reimbursed.
Medicare is as frustrating to deal with, and get money from, as any government organization you could think of. It is confusing, the rules are overly complicated and change frequently, if you don't follow the rules it may be a felony, if Medicare doesn't follow the rules, oh well, that happens. It is everything everyone hates about the government.
That said, Medicare is head and shoulders better in every way I can think of, than private insurance. So, the issue isn't that Medicare is so great, it is just a matter of relativity, the insurance companies suck worse, and Managed Care (HMOs) suck most of all.
For the most part our medical system is capitalistic, with some Nonprofit players in the mix too. We all want to get paid for our products and services, and that is where the real problem lies with the present system. What rules there are have been written by lobbyists, and the sensible rules that existed in the past (for example the 90's era HIPPA law abolished 'preexisting conditions) were thrown out while Bush was in office.
The bottom line here is that our system is Capitalistic, and would be regardless of who is paying the bills. The issue at hand is that somebody has to pay the bills or the system crashes. And, of course someone has to cover the millions without coverage. To me it isn't so important who pays the bills as long as they get paid.
My services can help save or prolong your life, but I can't provide them for free. Someone has to pay me, and for the uninsured right now, there is no one to pay so what do we do?
The point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with government action, if government fails, the failure is our own because we ARE the government.
So then you are going to admit fault for 9/11? The Iraq War? The overspending by Congress? The failure to balance the deficit? The Vietnam War? The Korean War? Of course not. Some of those happened clearly happened before your time. To say that all failures of government are to blame on the people of the United States is clearly insane. The people who did not vote for the politicians in office are not to blame. The people who voted for politicians that turned around and did other than what they promised are not to blame, unless they fail to then try to correct the problem by forcing those politicians out of office. By your own argument, Bush is responsible for nothing he did in office, and it is all our fault. I know based on your previous statements you clearly don't believe that.
First off, I only listened casually to the Obama speech and even I know he didn't say it wouldn't cost anything. He said it wouldn't cost more than what we are already spending, which is a bit different.
So perhaps you can explain away the trivial one trillion extra dollars his plan is going to cost?
Secondly, what I know about this topic is mostly first hand. I am a practicing capitalist, in the sense that I sell medical testing services for a living.
Then perhaps you can answer the question of why these supplies are not affordable without health insurance?
Medicare is as frustrating to deal with, and get money from, as any government organization you could think of. It is confusing, the rules are overly complicated and change frequently, if you don't follow the rules it may be a felony, if Medicare doesn't follow the rules, oh well, that happens. It is everything everyone hates about the government.
I have worked either directly for or on contract to two other government agencies, and I can tell you Medicare is not any worse than any other government agency. The government as a whole is "confusing, the rules are overly complicated and change frequently, if you don't follow the rules it may be a felony", etc. (I assumed you've filed taxes last year). If you have those issues with Medicare, then you have a problem with the government as a whole. Welcome to the club.
That said, Medicare is head and shoulders better in every way I can think of, than private insurance. So, the issue isn't that Medicare is so great, it is just a matter of relativity, the insurance companies suck worse, and Managed Care (HMOs) suck most of all.
Are you honestly going to sit there and say that nowhere in the world is a person that private medical insurance could possibly be better than Medicare? And if not, then what does it matter that Medicare is generally better than private insurance? Why should those that prefer private insurance pay for those who don't prefer it?
And, of course someone has to cover the millions without coverage.
Why? If a person chooses (truly chooses, not is forced into that by unemployment) to live without medical insurance, what gives the government the right to force them to have some? What gives the government the right to force them to pay for someone else's medical insurance?
and for some of the uninsured right now, there is no one to pay so what do we do?
There, fixed that for ya.
Frankly, while I think health insurance does have severe problems, I have yet to see anything from the government that suggests to me they would do a better job, or that the proposed "fixes" would actually fix the problems. I also know that ultimately I want capitalistic forces to drive the market for doctors, because the government is clearly incapable of getting rid of dead weight. It seems to me that if the people of the country are dead set on government getting involved in health care, the government should go straight to the source and subsidized the development of new treatments, drugs, and equipment to lower those costs, and let doctor competence drive that part of the market.
If an organization's failures are due to the poor efforts of those who comprise the organization, and WE comprise the US, then yes, the failures ARE ours collectively. Remember, in a republic, the people ARE the government since republics have no noble class that rules by decree. And yes, Bush's failure are also ours.
Um, have you ever taken a class on governments? Here is the definition of a republic, and here is the definition of a democracy. The people are a portion of the government, not the whole government. We bear the responsibility to elect good leaders, and remove those leaders when they get out of control. We as a whole are not to blame for the actions of portions or the whole of our government. Those that work against the government when it is out of control have done their duty. People who allow the status quo to continue are those that have failed their duty, and are to blame.
Everyone is responsible for the action of their leaders. Without followers who support their decisions, nothing would get done.
Everyone is responsible for the action of their leaders.
Responsibility is different than fault. Those of us who work against the bad decisions of their leaders have met our responsibilities. Again, people who allow the status quo to continue are those that have failed their responsibilities.
Without followers who support their decisions, nothing would get done.
That is exactly what is suppose to happen. That is part of the whole checks and balances.
You somehow managed to miss the main point again, which is this; we have a system which is driven by capitalistic forces, but which only works when there is a reliable payer system. What we have now is a patchwork of private indemnity insurance, PPOs, HMOs PHOs, and various government payer systems such as CMS, VA, military, government employee, etc. With all these players, there is still such a huge gap in payers that over 40 million Americans have no coverage. There is NO ONE, ANYWHERE in this capitalistic system that wants an uninsured person to go without medical care. It isn't an option. You get shot, get cancer, get in a car accident, and you have to get care, BUT there has to be a payer to make sure everyone gets reimbursed for their time, their product and or service. Otherwise, it isn't sustainable.
So here is the bottom line, there has to be a payer for everyone. I don't care if it is government, or private, or whatever. I code CPT codes, and I need to get payment. That is where the rubber meets the road for our capitalistic system. Don't feed it and it dies.
And you again fail to actually answer any of my questions. You should be a politician, because you clearly have raised dodging questions to an art form. Why don't you quit changing the subject and actually respond to the questions being asked, rather than making up some other subject and answering that?
I think your questions are beside the point.
Why are these products and services beyond the ability of people to pay without insurance? Uh, because they are. It is common for a cancer drug to cost $100,000 just for one drug. (Multiple drug treatments are common)
Why does it cost that much? I don't know the complete answer so I can't really answer that. I do know that some of them do cost that much. I also know that the average person can't afford that cost without insurance.
The real point, again, is that everyone in the system wants you to get that product if it fits your disease. It is how we get paid for our efforts. Withholding it because you have no insurance does us no good, we only get paid when reimbursement takes place.
If you break your arm, you will need an X-Ray and a cast and so on. If you don't get it, no one gets paid and it is bad for society in general because you won't be as productive with a bum arm as you would be if you got appropriate care.
The reform we need is to get everyone who needs it into a payer play that will cover whatever that person needs to treat their illnesses. At its most fundamental level, that is the real issue.
Why are these products and services beyond the ability of people to pay without insurance? Uh, because they are. It is common for a cancer drug to cost $100,000 just for one drug.
Again you ignore the question. "Because they are" is not an answer. I know it is common for a cancer drug to cost $100,000. WHY? Even simpler, why do I need to involve an insurance company when I go to the doctor to get a head cold or the flu checked out? What about a sprained wrist or ankle? Those are cheap things that I should easily be able to pay for out of pocket.
Why does it cost that much? I don't know the complete answer so I can't really answer that.
Sadly that is the most truthful answer I have seen anyone give regarding health care. Honestly, I don't really expect you to be able to answer that; however, if Congress and Obama want my support for any health care reform, then they damn well better know, and they need to explain it first. Otherwise they need to keep their fucking hands off of it.
The real point, again, is that everyone in the system wants you to get that product if it fits your disease.
...
The reform we need is to get everyone who needs it into a payer play that will cover whatever that person needs to treat their illnesses. At its most fundamental level, that is the real issue.
No, that is just the only point you want to address. You use that like a mantra to try to push this bullshit through the system, because you don't care about the other effects of this system. Getting health care to those who need it is a good intention, but if you don't consider the other aspects of the proposal, you are merely paving the road to hell.
Someone has to pay .. and the only ones that can pay are those that have a job.
I've said I am in favor of a national health care plan if ALL the people are covered and not just a few. I would be ecstatic if congress and civil service used the service too. I am in favor if this was all paid for by taxes. It would be even more wonderful if the government and it's bureaucracy did not run it but it was run by some contractors so that we wouldn't have to deal with govt insufficiency .. I see that as difficult to do though. Mac .. you have no idea what you're talking about when you say the govt is as efficient as private companies. Have you ever been a civil servant, known a civil servant .. ask them how things are run around their office. You can't fire ineffective civil servants - they only go to anohter job - it is bad as a union when it protects crummy workers.
Besides national health care not being in the bill or rights or constitution - a minor sticking point for many - what gives the govt authority to tax everyone for the health care of a few??? That is why I would be in favor of a national health care system for all.
My biggest problem with this that I don't see this as the nations #1 priority right now .. why is it Obama's and the Dems #1 priority??? Shouldn't it be reducing the debt and finding jobs for people? This health care paln might help gain a few jobs in the health care sector - good for Mac ... but again this is not a service that pays for itself .. taxpayers have to pay for it .. and who has money to pay taxes if no one has a job???? We are feeding the govt machine but we are running out of fuel. Can anyone explain to me why this is the number one priority of the WH right now? There would be some benefit and would make some companies more competitive world wide if they did not have to worry about costs for their workers ... that is about the only plus financially I can see ... and the negatives are the huge costs especially when started up.
Having a discussion with someone who thinks, as a matter of fact, that government is inherently less "efficient" (whatever that means) than any private company is not possible. And to top off that hilarious point, you offer anecdotes that civil servants hate their jobs and can't be fired, etc.
Government is very big and so is the White House staff. They can concentrate on many different things at once, such as healthcare and the economy. But as someone who professes an unyielding love for the free market, why do you think it's government's job to find you a job?
Your postings on this site underscores my point that we need an IQ test before allowing people to vote.
Well, the government taxed everyone to pay for nuclear weapons that many people didn't want. People sued to try to stop involuntary taxation for nuclear weapon programs unsuccessfully. Nuclear deterrence was a common good that HAD to be paid for by all, and by "all" we mean people with money, since people without money don't and can't pay much in taxes. But look at it this way: poor people subsidize the rest of us simply by working on the cheap, so effectively they ARE paying taxes, just through labor instead of cash.
I get very frustrated by these conversations because your question refers to a hypothetical world where the government was going to cover everyone, the Single Payer Plan.
I wouldn't mind engaging in that discussion if it was relevant to the world we actually live in, but it isn't. No such possibility exists at this time for Single Payer.
What we are actually talking about is a serious crisis that comes from escalating medical costs combined with increasing reluctance of payers to pay for medical products and services. This squeeze has to be resolved. The insurance industry shot down reform (screaming 'socialism' by the way)in the 1990's when there were 27 million uninsured, and the industry has been left to its own devices since then, with the number of uninsured nearly doubling. Since hospitals can't turn people away based on ability to pay, this is a crisis.
I don't know what kind of crap Congress is likely to come up with, but I know what we need, a way to control costs, and a way to get everyone into a payer plan.
There is no danger of socialism in my mind because capitalists don't care who pays, the government or private companies, as long as we get paid. The rest is debatable.
WRONG! Gramps, the Nationalist and others will be happy to cover the check.
It's not hypothetical .. there is this system in several countries in the world. You can get frustrated at your party that can't get it together and actually put something like this on the table.
Nationalist and Mac .. I doubt that you guys have ever worked in the government or with the government .. in fact you have no clue if you think the government is efficient. I'm not saying that all companies are efficient .. but I am saying that the government is not efficient in the things they do. How could they be with some many bureaucrats and red tape they have to go through.
Actually, as a couple of people here know, I have worked for the government. You see, I used to be one of those "inefficient" civil servants that responded to your domestic disputes and transported your 13 year old daughter to the rape crisis center after she was raped.
A single payer system eliminates competition among payers. It ain't happening, so why bother?
A public option, which is a possibility, would do the opposite, increase competition.
One of the many problems with the private insurance industry as it exists right now, for real, in our country is that there isn't enough competition, and what there is, is directed at finding and insuring the least sick people.
Note that I never said that Medicare is tremendously efficient, just that the private companies are worse, as presently configured, and a little healthy capitalistic competition might correct that. We need to build more competition into a system which has been weeded out by the industry lobbyists who have been writing the legislation that regulates them for years.
A very fundamental issue here is that a corporation only wants profit, which is a good thing, unless that company isn't contributing to the overall social goal, which is to have coverage for everyone. And again, we want that not because we want to keep Karl Marx happy, but because all of us that deliver products and services to the medical profession need to get paid. The more people covered, the more efficient the system, the more productive we are as a people, the healthier we are as a nation.
As someone who currently works for the government, I can tell you without question that government is most definitely less efficient than private companies. It is actually very simple. Private companies are beholden to either their shareholders or their private owners as well as market forces. Companies that are inefficient fail as other companies overtake them. That is part of the reason for competition. Who does the government compete with? No one. Who are the politicians in charge of the government beholden to? Tenuously the voters, because they only need to make sure they have enough votes to get back in, and that all the other guys simply look worse.
Your postings on this site underscores my point that we need an IQ test before allowing people to vote.
As, so, clearly you are no supporter of free speech then? Someone disagrees with you, therefore clearly they can not be intelligent, therefore they clearly have no right to talk? You are exactly why the founders wrote the First Amendment.
Your comment has two flaws. First, it presupposes what it sets out to prove by stating "government is less efficient than private companies." We don't know that. Second, it presupposes that most companies actually compete in a true free market, when many (if not most) do not; they exist in a monopoly/oligopoly or are heavily regulated.
Many government programs are efficiently run and have career professionals running them. Medicare has less overhead costs than private insurers. Plus there's lots of other examples.
Your comment has two flaws. First, it presupposes what it sets out to prove by stating "government is less efficient than private companies." We don't know that.
No, you don't know that government is less efficient than private companies. I do know. You have nothing to go on but my word, and if you don't trust my word (and I certainly don't blame you for being suspicious of an anonymous voice over the internet), then fair enough. However, it presupposes nothing.
Second, it presupposes that most companies actually compete in a true free market, when many (if not most) do not; they exist in a monopoly/oligopoly or are heavily regulated.
No, it does not presuppose that. In fact, I stated nothing about the impacts of the free market. Therefore you are putting words into my mouth to support your point, and I'm calling you out on it.
Many government programs are efficiently run and have career professionals running them. Medicare has less overhead costs than private insurers. Plus there's lots of other examples.
I never said there were no efficient government programs, I merely pointed out the government lacks the natural pressures to be efficient that exist for private companies. You did nothing to refute those facts. You also merely compared Medicare to private insurers. Assuming you believe that private insurers are inefficient, that merely means that Medicare is not as inefficient as private insurers (not that it is efficient), and you did it with no proof, and you made it a blanket statement. Are you really going to claim, without proof, that Medicare has less overhead than every single private insurer in America?
FWIW, that is the precise definition of presupposing what you set out to prove; "Oh just take my word for it." You setup a conclusion that attempts to prove itself as if it's some self-evident fact, when it's not.
Second, the fact that monopolies/oligopolies and highly regulated industries do not respond to "natural free market pressures" punches a hole in your logic, which I explained above. It presupposes that the "natural pressures" you refer to actually exist and that such "natural pressures" are more effective than whatever "pressures" government responds to (political, regulatory, etc).
Third, Medicare's average overhead costs are far lower than the average overhead cost of the private health insurance industry. That is the only real way to compare the two. Cherry picking insurers would be absurd.
Lastly, I've learned long ago that discussions like this are worthless when you're dealing with an ideologue. You believe that the "free market" (which has never existed anywhere) is more efficient than "government" (which is a catch-all term that could include anything from federal to local government sponsored co-ops). Fine. That's what you believe. It's a faith like the bible. I don't live my life on faith. I took to other countries for examples of how well things work. I don't resort to philosophies of how things ought to be. That's the main difference here. I'm arguing concrete examples, and you are arguing philosophy. We're not on the same page.
FWIW, that is the precise definition of presupposing what you set out to prove; "Oh just take my word for it."
It is not worth anything. For the record, here is the definition of presupposition. The difference is I am not saying "let us assume the government is inefficient". I am saying I know that the government is inefficient. That is why your claims of presupposition do not apply.
You setup a conclusion that attempts to prove itself as if it's some self-evident fact, when it's not.
Actually, I make no proof in my statement that the government is inefficient. In fact, I explicitly stated I had no proof other than personal experience. Are you even bother to read what I wrote?
Second, the fact that monopolies/oligopolies and highly regulated industries do not respond to "natural free market pressures" punches a hole in your logic, which I explained above. It presupposes that the "natural pressures" you refer to actually exist and that such "natural pressures" are more effective than whatever "pressures" government responds to (political, regulatory, etc).
No, they don't punch any holes, and no, you didn't make a single explanation. Here are you words exactly:
...that most companies actually compete in a true free market, when many (if not most) do not; they exist in a monopoly/oligopoly or are heavily regulated.
There is no explanation there. If you want to claim those words make some point, then actually bother to back it up with proof. Prove that those free market pressures do not exist, and provide some for the government. So far, you have backed up none of your claims, you have simply pathetically attacked mine (I know it is actually impossible for your claims to be proven, but again I am calling your bullshit out).
Third, Medicare's average overhead costs are far lower than the average overhead cost of the private health insurance industry. That is the only real way to compare the two. Cherry picking insurers would be absurd.
Then you again have zero proof that Medicare is actually efficiently run. All of your arguments so far are completely logically fallacious.
Lastly, I've learned long ago that discussions like this are worthless when you're dealing with an ideologue. You believe that the "free market" (which has never existed anywhere) is more efficient than "government" (which is a catch-all term that could include anything from federal to local government sponsored co-ops). Fine. That's what you believe. It's a faith like the bible. I don't live my life on faith.
Oh, so because you fail on every level to actually provide any proof, suddenly your opponent is an ideologue? That sounds like a condition alright, it is called self-delusion. Your arguments actually completely work on faith, as you haven't provided a single shred of proof to support your claims.
I took to other countries for examples of how well things work. I don't resort to philosophies of how things ought to be. That's the main difference here. I'm arguing concrete examples, and you are arguing philosophy. We're not on the same page.
You haven't made a single reference to another country in your discussions with me. Even if you did, those arguments would be equally as flawed as no other country has America's form of government. You can't plucked some small portion of another country's government and drop it wholesale in America and expect it to work. That is incredibly naive, and is as much an ideologue as you accuse me of having. You are correct, until you learn what a fact is, further conversation with you is pointless.
It is not worth anything. For the record, here is the definition of presupposition. The difference is I am not saying "let us assume the government is inefficient". I am saying I know that the government is inefficient. That is why your claims of presupposition do not apply.
Stating that a conclusion is self-evident (that you are only using your own personal experience is irrelevant) is the exact definition of "presupposing what you are setting out to prove." Logically speaking, presupposing what you set out to prove involves positing a conclusion as a premise without any other statements. That you state you "know it to be true" only further illustrates the point. You are presupposing (making an assumption that the following statement is self-evidently true) what you are setting out to prove (that the government is less efficient than the market). That you are stating that you KNOW it to be true only further illustrates the point I am trying to make here.
There is no explanation there. If you want to claim those words make some point, then actually bother to back it up with proof. Prove that those free market pressures do not exist, and provide some for the government. So far, you have backed up none of your claims, you have simply pathetically attacked mine (I know it is actually impossible for your claims to be proven, but again I am calling your bullshit out).
Likewise. You state that government is less efficient than the market. Period. You know it to be true. Don't believe me? Well then you will just have to take my word for it. We're even.
ou haven't made a single reference to another country in your discussions with me. Even if you did, those arguments would be equally as flawed as no other country has America's form of government.
A country doesn't need to have our form of government to have more effectively run government programs.
EDIT: almost left out this:
Then you again have zero proof that Medicare is actually efficiently run. All of your arguments so far are completely logically fallacious.
Efficiency is a term of relativity. Medicare has less overhead costs than the insurance industry average despite the fact that Medicare often has all of the private insurance rejects (sick, elderly, poor, etc). That they are able to get their overhead costs lower than the industry average is a feat in and of itself.
The reason it is not a presupposition is that it is not being use to prove something else! That is why is it not a presupposition. I also cleanly admitted twice it is my personal experience that gives me my insight, and it is not a proof! I even gave you the damn link to show you what a presupposition is, read it!
Likewise. You state that government is less efficient than the market. Period.
No, I didn't leave it at period. Are you incapable of reading? I point out pressures that exist on private companies (whether those companies exist in a free market or not) that do not exist in governments. That is my evidence. You provided nothing in response. You even responded to my proof, so your claim that I left it as "period" is a flat out lie.
A country doesn't need to have our form of government to have more effectively run government programs.
I never said a country needs our form of government to have effectively run government programs. In fact, I was implying the exact opposite, that regardless of how efficient a program is in another country, there is no guarantee it will work here!
I'm assuming you don't know much about formal logic here (or at least that portion that exists on standardized tests). "Presupposing what it sets out to prove/establish" equates roughly to the logical fallacy petitio principii. It's a term used on many standardized tests to state in plain english the aforementioned logical fallacy. In other words, presupposing what you set out to prove is merely begging the question; or rather, it forming a self-evident statement. For example:
A: Bob is hungry.
B: Why?
A: Because I think he's hungry.
I stated that you were presupposing what you set out to prove (btw, I think the ambiguity here is that you are misunderstanding what the word prove means here) when you stated above that "No, you don't know that government is less efficient than private companies. I do know. You have nothing to go on but my word, and if you don't trust my word (and I certainly don't blame you for being suspicious of an anonymous voice over the internet), then fair enough." That is called begging the question (aka petitio principii; aka presupposing what you set out to establish).
Now, your last post stated that you did, in fact, offer a "proof" for this statement. You said in the first post that since private companies are beholden to share holders and profits, they are subject to market pressures. Since government is not subject to those pressures, government is therefore less efficient than the market.
That argument is hugely flawed and assumes a lot. It assumes a well functioning market. It also assumes that government is not beholden to a stronger pressure, or at least one as strong as the one you posit exists.
First, I stated that the existence of monopolies/oligopolies and heavily regulated markets do not succumb to such pressures as easily, which is absolutely true. I'm not going to type out a 200 page treatise on the market dynamics of heavy market regulation (as was seen in the securities market that collapsed) or monopolies/oligopolies (like we see in health care).
Second, as to whether political and regulatory pressures on government are stronger than what market pressures exist on private companies, it's difficult to quantify in a post on this website; that you state emphatically that private companies are more efficient than government agencies based on a tenuous 2 or 3 sentence treatment is ridiculous.
Kudos to you for your work in the crisis center ... are you telling me that you didn't see a lot of ineffective people where you worked?
I worked for the civil service for two stints ... one for 6 months in a CO OP and then after I graduated for a year ... I've worked for contractors for over 20 years. There are slackers certainly everywhere - but there were a lot more in the civil service. I worked in a store as well and had to join a union for that ... there was terrible amount of union slackers - protected by the union. There are some people where I work now that are slackers - that unfortunately is human nature for some.
My dad was a director in the civil service and would constantly complain on how he couldn't get rid of bad workers in the civil service.
chart produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Cato Institute
There are 22.5 million US government employees at the federal, state and local levels.
There are only about 20 million jobs in the nation 19s manufacturing and construction sectors combined.
The average annual salary on the federal government payroll is $US 75,419 this year, according to Econwatch.
The story is much the same at the state and local levels.
In Pennsylvania, the average state employee has an annual salary of about $US 68,000 while the state 19s average household income is $US 48,576.
The US private sector has a per capita income of $US 39,751 and a per household income of $US 50,740."
How can 155 million productive workers support themselves, nearly 100 million federal and state workers endless list of government endeavors most of which could be done more economically and more effectively by the private sector?
Big_T
Maybe it's more like 1.5 Million people