Health-care reform: Americans divided

For too long now, fire depts across the US have been SOCIALIST organizations, resulting in TAXES on the American people.

Fact: Most Americans never use teh socialized services of the fire dept. The Obama Admin has been very clear about keeping the status quo when it comes to taxpayer-funded fire depts.

It is time to open the fire dept up to private industry. We have the best fire depts in the world in the US, but that doesn't mean anyone (even ILLEGAL ALIENS) should be able to dial up and have fires put out, etc. There are private companies (Halliburton, etc.) who could step in tomorrow and take over every fire dept in America and charge the consumer directly.

This is America. NO FREE FIRE SAFETY.

This is a new political movement in America. The Birther movement and the Teabagger movement have FAILED. We are the Flamer movement and we are succeeding at tearing down Socialism-starting with our Fire Depts.

> 44,230 more people are losing health coverage each week.

> 191,670 more people are losing health coverage each month.

> 2.3 million more people are losing health coverage each year

Republicans know that a successful health care reform that achieves universal coverage will bury them electorally for a generation. Health Insurers and their Lobbyists and Big Pharma know that a powerful public option and a Medicare bargaining for prices will kick them off the gravy train permanently. Republicans and Big Insurance Company propagandists know their scare tactics aren't nearly as scary as reality for the large majority of Americans.

The Big Health Insurance Lobby-Republican Puppets, who are using aggressive, foaming at the mouth tactics to shut down the possibility of a political discussion on healthcare in this country are reminiscent of the anti-desegregation movement, a point that becomes noteworthy when you aggregate the motives of the Wingnut "birthers", who loudly deny Obama's citizenship, the Wingnut "teabaggers", who loudly declare that the same taxes they paid under Bush are tyrannical under Obama, the Wingnut "deathers", who loudly assert that healthcare reform is secret plot to euthanize seniors and others that the government deems unproductive.

None of these positions makes a damn bit of sense or has any evidence to back it up, but in large part it is the same group of hard-right nutjobs, almost entirely white conservatives that believes all three at once. If you believe the Repug shouters themselves, in their own words, the healthcare debate isn't about healthcare but about a conspiratorial government and the end of the Republic.

This is, by definition, a far-right position, and less charitably a batsh*t insane one, and that it has managed to make it so far and be featured so prominently is testament to just how completely the farthest of the far right has captured the Republican party and why they can't win elections anymore.

These people are pathetic excuses for human beings - Right-Wing Lunatic Fringe 'Protesters" In Action.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21_teAW0Zg
.

Make people get off their lazy butts find jobs and pay for their own darn healthcare! I have paid for my own since I was 19 making $8/hr and I afforded it. Reform is not giving it away to "those who can't afford it". Reform is looking why insurance companies charge so much, how come they won't let people in with pre-existing conditions. Reform is going after insurance companies and their robbing the Americans, not giving out willy nilly insurance to lazy people who refuse to buy it.

We need to focus on preventative medicine and ways to urge people to be active. Holosfitness.com has hundreds of exercises and activities listed with step-by-step instruction, all of which are posted for free. A tool like this which promotes activity and health will be invaluable in the long-run.

For 6 of the last 8 years the Republicans had complete control of everything. My insurance premiums doubled in that time span. I don't give a rats arse what the Republipuke party thinks or wants anymore. Their only motivation is to protect the insurance companies and corporate America.

Reform is looking why insurance companies charge so much, how come they won't let people in with pre-existing conditions. Reform is going after insurance companies and their robbing the Americans, not giving out willy nilly insurance to lazy people who refuse to buy it.

Posted by: Kate | September 2, 2009 3:24 PM
******************************
.

Teresa,

Yeah, because a fifty year old man who has worked all of his life can't get health insurance not because of a pre-existing condition but because he's "lazy"....Ha Ha Ha!

I had no idea that bean counters who work for the Big Insurance Lobby (you) posted here....

********************************
For too long now, fire depts across the US have been SOCIALIST organizations, resulting in TAXES on the American people.Fact: Most Americans never use teh socialized services of the fire dept. The Obama Admin has been very clear about keeping the status quo when it comes to taxpayer-funded fire depts.
Posted by: Flamers Unite | September 2, 2009 3:02 PM
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
.

I sometimes wonder if the Corporate Sponsored Republican Teabaggers/ "Flamers" like you are even smart enough to realize that when they go outside to "protest" against a black man being President (or whatever the heck they're protesting about), everything they're using is paid for with taxes?

The trees they're using as shade

The parks they're holding their stupid teabagging parties in

The sidewalks they're standing on

The traffic lights that stopped them from getting T-Boned at 40 miles an hour on the way to their teabagging party.

The public street or parking lot where they parked their car while they were out teabagging.

The public transportation system they took to the teabagging party, if they didn't drive

The street lights, so they can see what they're doing while teabagging at night

Of course the anti-American/Government Republican nuts would counter that by saying something like:

"Private enterprise would fill the gap and provide all of that stuff! And more efficiently than the government ever could! Morons!"

But whenever I hear that arguement I always think...well, why aren't they? Why isn't private enterprise stepping up to edge out the government in the creation of parks and street lights and transportation systems that operate for the public good? The answer is simple...they have no incentive to! Just like there isn't an incentive to provide all Americans access to quality health care.

Private enterprise is never going to be concerned with the public good; there is no incentive whatsoever. We're just lucky that when our houses catch on fire we don't have to pay some loan shark $6,000 to put it out. I don't know how we ever got that in this country.

Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.

In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation - and health care costs continue to soar. At $2.4 trillion dollars, and 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable both from a personal and macro-economic perspective.

It always makes me laugh when I hear people say they want to preserve "insurance choice" in this country. What choice do you have when you work and are nominally "insured," but your insurance coverage doesn't pay for anything you need? Are you then going to have the ability to run out and purchase extra coverage on the wages you make? Well, I guess you have the "choice" to rob a bank or maybe win the lottery to pay for it, but that's about it.

Republicans and their rich oligarchy supporters (Healthcare CEO's and Lobbyists) will do anything to kill a good healthcare bill because they know people will like it and when that happens their electoral goose will be cooked for generations - if it's not already.

To Mark Silva, when the public by a 52%-44% margin prefer current health care to ObamaCare, that shows the public is "divided."

52%-44% is a bigger margin than what Obama won by in 2008 (53-47). And Swamp media Liberals termed 53-47 a "landslide".

Guess a 6 point margin IS huge when it favors Obama, but an 8 point deficit ISN'T huge when it goes against Obama.

Bruce,
You're a better reader than that. 55 percent support on the public option is an interesting contradiction. Topline numbers split, and it's a pretty clear topline question. As for that Ed Coyle comment on the other thread, for crying out loud, no kidding, he was on the Democratic phone call, which was made quite clear. You can pick better nits.

Bruce..........63% of Americans believe Iraq was a mistake....you ready to admit that? Didn't think so....

It wasn't too long ago that, seeing their deficiencies on the compassion front, a presidential candidate named George W. Bush and his slimeball swengali Karl Rove co-opted the concept of "compassionate conservatism". They had correctly surmised that Republicans were seen as heartless, selfish, and unconcerned with the plight of the less fortunate. Understanding that winning as the part of entitlement and privilege would be tough, they set out to pain themselves as empathetic, or "compassionate" (same thing).

9-11 spared them the trouble of having to reprise that approach in 2004, when the election focused on scary terrorists under everyone's beds. But it's probably a safe assumption that without Bush's adoption of the "compassionate" label, he probably would've never come close enough to Gore to have the Supreme Court select him president.

Now that the GOP is wildly out of sync with America on compassion, and losing the youth, women, and (ethnic and sexual) minority vote because of that value, their biggest hope would be to bring back the "compassion" thing and hope people fall for it again. Yet in a stroke of good luck for our side, Republicans seem to have universally concluded that Bush failed because of his attempts at "compassionate conservatism".

The GOP's "compassion gap" has put them in an electoral hole almost impossible to dig out without radically changing its core philosophy, yet the conservative base and intelligentsia blame 'compassionate conservatism" for Bush's failures, despite the fact that Bush likely got the White House in the first place because of his "compassionate conservative" campaign.

Take a look at the small minority of right-wing lunatic fringe screamers who are shuting down rational discussion at Healthcare Townhalls all over America by yelling over everyone - that's what's left of the Republican party in 2009.

* * * * *
Posted by: Flamers Unite | September 2, 2009 3:02 PM
.
What a stupid argument. The maintenance of fire departments isn’t socialism. Socialism involves the collectivization of a people for purposes of distributing benefits or redistribution of wealth. Fire departments serve everyone, and not simply a limited group of people at the expense of others. Furthermore, maintaining these departments does not result in a redistribution of wealth. No one is stealing from Jim to feed Joe. Fire departments have existed since people moved out of caves and mud huts and into buildings made from wood. To deny government the power to maintain a fire department isn’t a blow against socialism; it is a blow for anarchy.
.
Moreover, in case you are simply some kind of snarky Democrat (which appears to be the case) - no one, and I mean NO ONE - among tea baggers, birthers, Repelicans (or the like) has ever suggested that the existence of fire departments represent some form of “socialism.” In which case, you are still making a stupid argument if your point was to mock others.

Flames Unite, now cut that out.

You're making me go into terminal belly laugh.

****************************************
In which case, you are still making a stupid argument if your point was to mock others.

Posted by: John W. | September 2, 2009 5:11 PM
****************************************
.

Johnny W Bircher,
I can see why a fringe anti anything but the bare bones gov't, right-wing whack job like you would be crying. Helping people who are in need goes against everything the black helicopter crowd that you run with, stands for.
.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/gun_toter_i_like_my_pastor_want_obama_to_die.php?ref=fpa

Kate, Are you including all the lazy seniors that don't have a job but get free healthcare from the goverment? Lets get them back to work those lazy bums. Walmart greaters now have healthcare.

Big Health Insurance Lobby/Republican Health Care Lies, get debunked:

MYTH 1: There is no health care crisis
MYTH 2: Health care reform will impose rationing
MYTH 3: Health care reform provides for euthanasia, "death panel"
MYTH 4: Health care reform legislation will cover undocumented immigrants
MYTH 5: Health care reform will raise your taxes
MYTH 6: Health proposals would tax all small businesses
MYTH 7: Health care reform would add $1 trillion-plus to deficit
MYTH 8: House bill would ban private individual insurance
MYTH 9: Obama said he didn't read House bill
MYTH 10: Co-ops are an adequate substitute for a public option
MYTH 11: Obama is pushing a system like the U.K. and Canada
MYTH 12: Obama, Dems pushing "socialized medicine"
MYTH 13: Prominent opponents of health care reform are credible
MYTH 14: Government can't run a health care program
.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908200002

Don't let the Right-Wing haters and smear merchants win this thing people!

Republicans are right about healthcare in America. Who cares if some people don't have access to healthcare?!?!

We don't need to concern ourselves with that. Poor and Middle-Class people simply do not matter. Forget about them.

We should only be concerned about what is best for the wealthy business owner. If 15% of the population don't have health insurance it only makes things better for the wealthy old Republican white guys, that's a small price to pay. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh is with me in saying that if the number of uninsured went up to 30% or even 50% that simply is nothing any of us should be bothered by. It is, in fact probably a goal we pasty white Republican rich guys should be working toward. Why should your employer pay for you to have health insurance? The big business CEO's would do better if they didn't, and that's all that matters. I'm sure those guys, like me, have demanded that their employer terminate their health insurance coverage, for the good of the company. We must all join with them in our sacred goal: healthcare for the few white rich guys, sacrifice for everyone else.

Leave Obama Alone..

* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | September 2, 2009 5:53 PM
.
JohnEEE-Boy,
.
I only want to know one thing. Were you born that stupid or did you have to work really, really hard at it?
.
You are totally impervious to anything anyone tells you. Libertarians are not black helicopter chasing people, and they are not people who believe in initiating violence. In fact, to join the national party, one has to pledge never to support the initiation of force to further a social or political goal. That’s why Libertarians (as opposed to Republicans) are anti-war and against getting involved in foreign entanglements. (And, no, it isn’t the goal of Libertarians to deprive anyone of anything they’ve got coming to them. Unlike you, we just don’t believe in the Democrat concepts of “endless money” and “the gravy train.”)
.
You have been told this, and you have been offered web sites to explain all of this to you. Yet, you continue with this brainless nonsense of yours, blabbering (or, dare I say, “foaming at the mouth”) about people who want to shoot this person, or kill that person, or who have assassinated someone - all without thinking for a single moment that such people are not Libertarians. Did you have to have your name tattooed on the back of your hand just to remember it?
.
In a way, I pity you for being so closed minded. On the other hand, I realize that it’s mostly your own fault for not being wise enough to examine your own motives or those of your handlers.

Johnny W Bircher,
Unlike others, I'm not going to stay on here forever feeding your inferiority complex and desperate need to have the last word. You and Terry are the dictionary definition of a serious mental illness: "conservatism".
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/21/idaho-deadly-weapon/

More recent poll numbers: in a generic Congressional ballot, voters prefer Republicans 43%-36% over Democrats. (Rasmussen)

Credit for that turnaround must be given to President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid et al.

"No one is stealing from Jim to feed Joe. Fire departments have existed since people moved out of caves and mud huts and into buildings made from wood."

Up until the mid- nineteeth century Fire Departments were either volunteer community organizations or private companies that indivdual building owners could contract with. In the mid-19th century the statists began to socialize the Fire Departments and assert governmental control over them. Unfortunately the people didn't have the spirt to fight this slavery and allowed the government to sieze their assets against their will to provide this service that certainly could be provided more efficiently by free market forces and local community volunteer efforts,as any good american knows any service could. John W does the libertarian cause harm when he accepts the tyranny of statist control over fire fighting services and denies the God given right of every American to control who their lives and property are protected without this tyranny of socialized state control crushing the freedoms!

"Flamers Unite": I keep seeing this silly argument coming from those who understand it merely as a talking point. It is easy to take it apart. Fire fighting service is usually offered by government becuase it is in the government's interest that Mrs. O'Leary's cow not burn down the city. It is unrealistic to have multiple fire fighting forces in competition for fee's to protect their clients. It would slow the response and put clients of other fire fighting services at risk from a fire next door. So it makes sense to have on fire department that is shared by all and considered a government service. It is the same for the police vs private security services.

Health care is substantially different. Why? We already have a system in place that satisfies about 85% of its clients. The fear is that if we take that system away and exchange it for some government provided service, those who are currently happy with their insurance would get less service. That is clearly the case in Canada and England and we have a variety of anecdotal evidence to support that. Second, most health care is not of the emergency variety. It is routine care and all that I hope for is to get in to see my doctor sometime today or tomorrow or even next week. Therefore, I can select my doctor based on my insurance. We also have a system of emergency care that works with any, or even no, insurance company.

The issue here has really been obscured. Right now, we have a system that works well for most people. There are those who uninsured, but want insurance, and there are those who have pre existing conditions that make getting insurance difficult or impossible. Those are the classes of people who are prompting this whole effort. But, somehow it has morphed into the desire for a complete take over by the single most inefficient entity in our country, government. We only need to look at Canada and England, again, to see how inefficient it is. Wait times define efficiency.

Rick

john w,
Also, Butch Otter (R-ID) claims to be a libertarian.

I am amazed at the stupidity of the many people on this post who couldn't see "Flamers Unite"'s post as an obvious attempt at sarcasm. No wonder it's darn near impossible to try to elicit honest and logical discussion from the likes of them.

"Make people get off their lazy butts find jobs and pay for their own darn healthcare! I have paid for my own since I was 19 making $8/hr and I afforded it."

Kate,
Hilarious!
If you were making $8 per hour you certainly weren't buying health insurance on the private market.
$4000 per year premiums
$2000 deductible
75/25 Co-pay

Your insurance must have been provided by your employer.

JW says:
" Fire departments serve everyone, and not simply a limited group of people at the expense of others. "

Not so fast!
The overwhelming majority of tax payers will NEVER have to call the fire department. That's why the insurance companies will insure most people.
So, I am paying taxes to support the FD, but will probably never call them. Marxism I say!!

But as a social insurance device I support the socialist fire departments. Libraries, schools, roads, parks and more, also.

* * * * *
JW says:
" Fire departments serve everyone, and not simply a limited group of people at the expense of others. "
.
Not so fast!
The overwhelming majority of tax payers will NEVER have to call the fire department. That's why the insurance companies will insure most people.
So, I am paying taxes to support the FD, but will probably never call them. Marxism I say!!
* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | September 3, 2009 1:22 PM
.
Rubbish, Morris. A lot of people will never have to call the insurance company to file a claim based on their homeowner’s policy. That doesn’t mean they are currently provided protection against loss in the event a claim arises. The same kind of protection - i.e., the readiness to move and extinguish fires - is provided to everyone with a roof over their head in a town where a fire department exists.
.
In addition, socialism has as its core the function of distributive justice - i.e. the means of insuring some evening-up among all members of society. How exactly does a fire department do that? I suppose, in your case, you could always head down to the station with a bar of soap and a rubber ducky and ask for a bath from the fire pump. It’s not very realistic aside from that.
.
Oh, and what’s this stuff about Marxism?!?! Marxism is socialism in the context of a class war, the conflict of history and the resulting evolution of society and man. You know, “the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie” and all that nonsense? You can forget about that stuff. You’re still struggling against sanity.

JW,
I guess you didn't get the irony in my posting. I meant it wasn't Marxism.

'Libertarians know no irony'.

John W, should the Fire Department provide rescue assistance to those who do not own property and who do not pay taxes due to low income? Is that socialist "evening up" to you?

Is the ambulance coming to pick up a sick poor person socialism?
Is the Emergency Room providing services to the sick poor person socialism?
Is the the government paying for wellness care for the sick poor person socialism?

Where's the great "socialist" boundry in those things? It seems to be if you want to cling to your libertarian orthodoxy, you shouldn't want the ambulance to pick up anyone who doesn't pay enough in taxes.

* * * * *
Posted by: More Libertarian than thou | September 3, 2009 10:23 AM
.
It seems that you’re struggling against sanity too.
.
First of all, your history is way off. The first government funded and operated fire department was in Paris in the 1700s. It was provided (e-hem) “free” by the government because the market based system had failed miserably. That because people would wait until the last second to call for the fire department for fear of the cost, by which time the fire was too far gone to extinguish. The powers that be decided that this scenario left too much at risk to everyone to allow that to continue.
.
The Cities of New York and London also experimented with fire departments for private hire, and they failed. In New York, the competing fire departments would literally fight for the right to extinguish the fire so they could collect the insurance money. Also, in both New York and London, the for-hire fire departments wouldn’t extinguish any fire not covered by insurance. In London, they knew which buildings to save because they had insurance company markings on them. The drawback to that system was that many buildings were too close together to safely extinguish the fire of only one building, and not others, without still endangering the buildings covered by insurance. The system proved to be too inefficient.
.
In short, it was the obvious inefficiency of private, for-hire fire departments that caused larger metropolitan areas to establish government-run fire departments. In the meantime, there has been no empirical data to suggest that private fire-fighting services could be “provided more efficiently by free market forces and local community volunteer efforts ...” - as you claim. With a private fire-fighting system, one would invariably encounter the same historical inefficiencies of multiple fire fighting units responding to the same area, people’s hesitance in calling the fire department out of fear that their premium will go up, and lack of motive on the part of fire fighting units to put out fires not immediately threatening the property of their own subscribers. Thus, the factual predicate for your argument is a non-starter.
.
In the second place, there is also no evidence that privately run fire departments would be cost effective. The cost to individual households for government operated fire fighting services is de minimis because the cost is spread over everyone within a given demographic area. A privately run system, on the other hand, would depend upon payment from less that everyone within the same pool, while still requiring the fire-fighting unit to respond to anyplace within the same demographic area. Under those circumstances, a fire fighting unit would not be able to sustain itself without requiring more money from each subscriber for the same service.
.
In the third place, the minarchist view of government (as opposed to your anarchist/ objectivist viewpoint) is to allow government to function as a protector of people in the private enjoyment of their rights. You know: keep the playing field level, clean, free of debris, violence and danger (and then stop)? You would even deprive government of that basic protective function. If what you are saying is true, then we could also do better with private, for-hire armies and police forces. (Our enemies would love you for that one.) De minimis government is truly a worthy goal, but not at the expense of common sense and reason.

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | September 3, 2009 6:10 PM
.
Oh, I got it all right, Morris. I simply pretended to ignore it to get my own funnies in. (You mean, you didn’t think the imagery of showing up to the fire station for a bath with soap and rubber ducky was funny?)

* * * * *
Posted by: Rod Serling ♫♫ | September 3, 2009 11:36 AM
.
Actually, Butch Otter doesn’t claim to be a Libertarian. He claims to be a Republican, and he sometimes has his “libertarian” leanings. That’s why he opposed the Patriot Act initially, and then learned to love it.
.
Real Libertarians continue to dislike the Patriot Act and the unconstitutional practices carried out in the name of defending the country. At some point, a government that turns into a police state isn’t worth protecting any more. I would rather live with a little more freedom even if it supposedly means I must also live with a little more danger. Governor Otter (apparently) doesn’t agree.

JW,
OK, ha ha

Now now, John W if the failure of the private fire fighting establishments justifies the tyranny of state takeover, then you open yourself to the claim that the failure of the current healthcare system to provide for all could justify the statist tyrannical take over of healthcare. You must remember that we libertarians really don't care about failure. If you fail, too bad, it is not the government's role to steal money from others to deal with the failure of the free market and individual citizens. So a few houses burn that shouldn't have, so a few people die that shouldn''t have. That's a small price to pay to avoid the tyranny of statist control of our lives. If we care about people waiting to long to call the fire department because of cost, then we would have to care about people waiting too long to call the doctor because of cost in the case of infectious disease, and we libertarians know that any intrusion of the government into healthcare would be the true end of freedom. A major fire is a smaller price to pay for freedom than a major pandemic, don't you agree John? It saddens me John to see that you don't have the spirit or fortitude to fight against that slavery, to see that you meekly give up your freedom to this forced non-consentual arrangement. If you want to be truly a free man, you should be out there selecting the fire protection service that suits you best, or , if you so choose, to not have a fire protection service at all. To force a free man to pay for fire protection is no less a tyranny than to force him to pay for health protection, and as we all know, being forced to pay for health protection is as tyrannical as it gets. Real Libertarians would never depend upon that state to protect them from fire, we all know that is merely a slippery slope to having the state protect them from all danger. Don't you want the same freedom to select your firefighter as you do to selct your doctor? I'm beginning to think you aren't a true libertarian, but a statist slave in disguise!

More Libertarian,
Wow, funny stuff. Can't wait to hear JW's reply.

* * * * *
“You must remember that we libertarians really don't care about failure.”
* * * * *
Posted by: More Libertarian than thou | September 3, 2009 10:03 PM
.
You’re a very clever phony, but a phony all the same. No real or self-respecting Libertarian would ever claim “we Libertarians really don’t care about failure.” Only an idiot would say such a thing, and Libertarians are neither idiots nor people shorn of common sense. Libertarians first seek free market solutions precisely because we expect them to succeed. We expect this success because we believe the free market is the most efficient means of allocating resources and delivering goods and services. Historically, this has proven true when there hasn’t been undue governmental intervention to skew the natural allocation of resources (like there is today).
.
But this doesn’t mean that we believe everything can be delivered by the market. We have governments because individuals and society as a whole cannot always deliver what is needed. Thus, if a particular service - i.e. police, fire fighting, etc. - proves to be a dismal failure on a continuous basis when provided by private sector, and regardless of whatever innovations are applied, then one might rationally conclude that the subject matter is appropriate for governmental involvement. If we expected the market to deliver all of our needs despite its infrequent shortcomings, then we would hope for no government at all apart from free market forces. That would be anarchy.
.
Mainstream Libertarianism isn’t based on anarchy. It is based on the idea that self-government is vastly preferable to external government (because the latter is naturally at odds with liberty), yet recognizing that external governments are sometimes a necessary evil. The preference is for minimal government (Minarchism) rather than no government (Anarchy), because the latter is simply not feasible. As Madison put it, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” And we know that men are hardly angels.
.
The dividing line for determining the appropriate roles of the individual from government is necessity. If the private sector cannot provide what is necessary to society, despite optimal conditions and its best effort, then it is more than likely a proper subject for organized, external government. Protecting people from fire (and particularly arson) is a necessity, the delivery of which has historically proven too difficult and inefficient in the hands of the private sector to benefit anyone. You didn’t dispute this the first time I stated it, so I accept it as an admission on your part that it’s true. In which case, fire fighting is an appropriate governmental “protective” function - like that provided by the police and military. (In fact, some cities combine fire and police functions in a single department.)
.
But now we see that fire fighting isn’t really your battle after all. Fire fighting and fire departments are, to you, really nothing more than a metaphor for health care. That is where your heart lies (in all senses of the word). I thought this was coming, and I was right. We see this now in the midst of your blabbering where you falsely claim that “if the failure of the private fire fighting establishments justifies the tyranny of state takeover, then you open yourself to the claim that the failure of the current healthcare system to provide for all could justify the statist tyrannical take over of healthcare.” You couldn’t be further from the truth if you tried.
.
Your argument would be valid only if the free market system of delivering medical services was so irremediably flawed that the majority of people lacked access to health care services. (This being the only way that inefficiency would make government intervention a necessity.) But that is a far cry from the truth - and you know it. The free market system of medical care delivery is an overwhelming success to those who can afford it; and the vast majority of people can (and do) afford it. The fact that a minority of the people can’t afford it or choose not to seek medical services does not mean that it is so inefficient that a government takeover is either necessary or desirable. The mere lack of affordability has never been a good reason (or pretext) to warrant a government takeover. Some people, for example, can’t afford to buy houses or cars, but no one is suggesting that the government buy up cars or houses and give them away to those who can’t afford them. So, no, the lack of affordability of medical care is not the same kind of irremediable inefficiency that required governments to take over fire fighting services. The inefficiencies in private fire-fighting services were such that they were unworkable for everyone at any cost. Thus, you analogy falls flat on its face.
.
Your supporting arguments aren’t simply false, they’re silly too. If a person waits too long to call a doctor for an ailment for fear of paying (whether or not it is an infectious disease) that person will either die or recover at a much slower rate than under a doctor’s care. That is not something that will be cured by government controlled health care, because no one is claiming that government controlled health care will be “free” (i.e. paid for entirely out of other people’s tax contributions) or that rates won’t be subject to change. In which case, the failure to make the call would still be the individual’s fault, and something for which the individual is responsible. In addition, a person who hesitates in reporting a fire risks not only his or her life and property, but the imminent loss of life and property of everyone else in the immediate vicinity as well. The same is not true of a person with an infectious disease. The danger exists only if the person elects to venture into public and engage in behavior that puts the public at risk (rather than stay at home). A person who would knowingly do so is evil, regardless of whether he or she can afford medical care. A person who would do so unwittingly wouldn’t necessarily be deterred by having access to government controlled health care. In short, your point is no point at all.
.
Furthermore, contrary to your snarky assertions, government controlled fire fighting is nowhere near the kind of governmental intrusion upon an individual’s privacy and autonomy that would occur if the government forced everyone into a government run health care system. If you really were a Libertarian (or even an intelligent Democrat), the differences would be so obvious that I wouldn’t have to explain them to you.
.
Paying taxes for social welfare programs and government “gimmes” is hardly a Libertarian’s favorite pastime. However, being coerced by the government to enter into and pay for contracted services is far worse than taxation. Taxation, unlike forced contractual relations, doesn’t involve the outright confiscation of property for the benefit of a private third party. (In contrast, the government is required to spend money taken in taxes for the general welfare of the entire population, rather than for specific individuals.) In addition, by coercing contractual relations, the government is effectively directing how an individual must allocate the product of his or her own labor. Having control over another man’s labor is the essence of involuntary servitude condemned by the Thirteenth Amendment. And, indeed, if the government has the capacity to order a person to enter into a contract with a private party for health care services, there is no principle to prevent the government from ordering people into any other kind of private contract. The government wants to increase automobile sales? No problem. Just order everyone making more than a given sum of money to buy a new car every few years. Is the grain market in a slump? No problem. Just order everyone to buy bread, rice, oats or whatever commodity needs a boost. Regardless of whatever you wish to call it - that is certainly not freedom. And did I ever mention that the forced confiscation of property (not taken in taxes) for the benefit of a private third party also violates the Fifth Amendment’s “due process” and “taking” clauses (at least when it doesn’t involve urban renewal)?
.
Even apart from considerations of labor and money, forced participation in any health care system would necessarily involve an invasion of privacy in at least two different ways. If, today, the government decided that it wanted to know what’s going on in your body (say, for example, whether you are using illegal drugs), the Fourth Amendment would normally require it to get a search warrant. Similarly, compelling personal information from an individual’s own mouth would violate the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. All bets are off, though, when we start talking about a compelled government controlled health care plan. Under HIPAA (which is the standard of privacy incorporated into the House health care bill), the government has access to otherwise protected medical records of patients. Government agencies and some employers also have access to such records under certain conditions. (See CFR Title 45 Subtitle A, §§ 164-502-512.) A number of other entities have access to such records, without a patient’s consent, for purposes of research, treatment or anything else the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services find equally compelling. (That was made the law as part of the 2009 stimulus bill.) And, furthermore, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to private entities that collect and use private health information. Thus, that which was once entirely private information, accessible to no one other than the patient, becomes accessible to many governmental and health organizations by compulsion. So much for privacy under a compelled federal medical system.
.
It also involves an invasion of privacy in another fundamental way. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973), the United States Supreme Court acknowledged “that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution,” whose roots exist “in the First Amendment, … ; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, …; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, …; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The first case cited by the Court in Roe as an example of those “rights to personal privacy” was Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), in which the Court stated: “No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.” The Court further stated that this right is violated by “compel[ling] anyone, … to lay bare the body or to submit it to the touch of a stranger without lawful authority ...” (Id., at 252.) “Thus, freedom from unwanted medical attention is unquestionably among those principles ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’” (Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497 U.S. 261, 305(1990), quoting, Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934).) I don’t suppose it dawned upon you that compelled participation in a government controlled health care system stomps this right into the ground. The constitutional right to refuse medical treatment includes the right to refuse even the slightest examination. But you can’t get health care insurance without consensually submitting to such an examination. If compelled, that examination would be the kind condemned in Botsford, infra, and its progeny.
.
And does anyone care to wager on whether the government will try to pass personal behavior laws (i.e. no drinking, no smoking, etc) pursuant to its power to regulate the health care industry? It’s never beneath progressive legislators with too much time on their hands to micromanage people’s lives. Just go look up Congressman Waxman (D- Calif.) and his record as an example of one such would be tin-horn dictator.
.
But of course, NON-Libertarians among you - like “More Libertarian than thou” wouldn’t have a stinking clue that any of the above was really involved. It’s just the same as being compelled to pay taxes to support a fire department. Is it?
.
Let’s examine again: what tyranny and slavery is involved in requiring people to pay for fire fighting services in comparison to a compelled health care plan? Does the law require the confiscation of property for the benefit if a third party to pay for fire fighting services? No. They are paid for out of local taxes - which are required to be paid for the public’s general welfare. Does the precedent of paying taxes for fire fighting services arrogate to any government the power to control a citizen’s choices over his or her property and economic power? No. It says nothing about government control over private spending. Does having public fire fighting services involve any invasion of privacy? No. The government does not force into the open any private information in order to maintain a fire department, and it doesn’t require anyone to undergo any physical intrusion or examination. In which case, it is simply a fatuous lie to suggest that “[t]o force a man to pay for fire protection is no less a tyranny than to force him to pay for health protection.”
.
The rest of the BS in your post is hardly worthy of comment. Of course I can’t choose between competing fire fighting services (or none) - you twit - because there are no private fire protection services to choose from. The government is going to respond to a fire whether I like it or not. Furthermore, I can apparently tell the difference between a genuine invasion of rights and an imaginary one. Apparently, you can’t.

John W, you have exceeded even your own records for long winded, self-important. pontificating with this one.

* * * * *
Posted by: John W needs to get a humor transplant | September 5, 2009 7:15 PM
.
That’s right, go ahead and attack the person when you can’t challenge their ideas.
.
I answered the criticism, and the answer had nothing to do with me. No reply would have been a concession. Your response simply proves I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t. I think I prefer to answer and set things straight and suffer the slings and arrows from smug jerks like you. Besides, I don’t see a response to the merits of my comments from the anonymous critics of Libertarianism.

"Does the precedent of paying taxes for fire fighting services arrogate to any government the power to control a citizen’s choices over his or her property and economic power? No. It says nothing about government control over private spending. Does having public fire fighting services involve any invasion of privacy? No. The government does not force into the open any private information in order to maintain a fire department, and it doesn’t require anyone to undergo any physical intrusion or examination."

I hestitate to respond to this for fear of setting off another marathon length filibuster from Senator Foghorn Leghorn, but I do feel the need to correct his errors in the passage quoted above. Forgive me in advance if I set off another post from him of the length of his above. I hope The Trib servers can handle the traffic.

The truth is that the government does use it's contol over firefighting services to do all those things. Building regulations, often administered at least in part by The Fire Department through a Fire Prevention Bureau, does control what you can do with your private property. Regulations are set for what you can build on yout property, what materials are used, how those materials are used, what fire protection systems must be insatlled, how those fire protection systems are monitored, and how they are maintained. The Fire Department has the ability to inspect private property to ensure that it meets the fire prevention codes, and to require alterations to be made if the codes are not properly being met. This could go as far as ordering the structure to be condemned and demolished, if the code violations are serious enough. Non-Residential and multi-family properties are generally inspected at least once per year, often with no prior notice. The Fire Prevention Bureau will also review all building plans as part of the building permit process, and can require alterations to plans as required by the Fire Prevention Codes. Those plans remain on file, for review and consultation in the future, and can, under certain circumstances, be made available to the public. The Fire Department retains the right to enter your property without your permission, as required for the public safety. In most cases non-residential, and multi family properties are required to make a key available to the Fire Department, to allow their entry whenever needed. In the case of single family residential properties, the Fire Department generally does not require a key, not out of a greater regard for privacy, but because it is generally assumed that the doors and windows of a residence would be easily opened by the Fire mens axes.
So, contrary to the Staement above, the Fire Department has substantial authority to determine what individual property owners do with there property, they retain substantial rights to require spending by individual property owners, they retain the right to invasions of privacy through the inspection of privately owned properties, including physical intrusion and examination. On those points the poster is quite incorrect.

* * * * *
Posted by: An Architect | September 6, 2009 1:57 PM
.
Fire departments set negative limits - i.e., if you want to build a house or building, you must comply with specification X, Y, Z or risk sanctions, condemnation, etc. It’s a take it or leave it proposition. If you don’t want to comply, you don’t have to - but you don’t get to build either. But fire departments don’t affirmatively mandate that you build or buy a house. So, perhaps, it is better to say that fire departments and building codes tell you what to do with your property IF you choose to engage in certain conduct. That’s not the same as arrogating to the government “the power to control a citizen’s choices over his or her property and economic power.” The citizen must first make certain fundamental choices about their property and economic power before the building codes kick in. The latter choices are made in light of the building codes, not the other way around. A change in building codes that would require condemnation of property would also be a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment and, thus, require just compensation.
.
As for privacy, the government is generally required by the Fourth Amendment to get a search warrant to inspect any area in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy - unless consent is granted or there exists exigent circumstances. This is true even if the government seeks to search a commercial establishment. (See Marshall v. Barlows, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978).) So your suggestion that a fire department (or OSHA, etc.) can simply barge in to inspect business premises or a home whenever they feel like it is simply incorrect.
.
And - BTW - if you don’t like the length of my writing, don’t complain or moan. Just don’t read it. It’s not mandatory. Also, as your reply demonstrates, I had to make some choices not to explain things in a way that left ambiguities open to disputation. I would have to write a book to keep little bits like yours from cropping up. So be glad it’s as short as it was.

John W, you are just plain wrong about the ability of Fire Departments to inspect without a warrant. It happens all the time. I've worked in towns where it is required to provide a permanent reserved parking spot for the Fire Marshall, so that they can inspect at any time without even worrying about where to park. I've also been on enough construction sites to know that the OSHA inspector can walk through at any time. In addition, the powers of the Fire Department do not stop at negative limits. The Fire Department can require certain maintenance. They can require changes be made to an existing building, for example, requiring sprinklers be retrofited. In some jurisdictions they can require brush clearance on undeveloped properties where brush fire sare a concern. That's the simple reality. Obviously you are deeply emotional about not admitting these things, I'm not sure why, but I presume that this correction will bring another long windeded, angry, post from you. I don't really cxare to hear it. I offered my professional knowledge to those who would care to listen and to learn. Whether or not that includes you, is not my concern.

The real problem with fire departments is that they are locally operated, usually quite efficiently and often with volunteer labor. The proper way to handle fire departments is for the federal government to establish a Department of Inflammable Products Serving Homes In The Suburbs (DIPSHITS). Then, they could produce volumes of regulations, hire thousands of administrative personnel and appoint a federal Czar (Chief DIPSHIT) to oversee the new regime. They could then threaten local governments with the loss of federal grants if they don't conform to all federal regulations, including EEO, and OSHA. A commission would be appointed to study why the cost of fire fighting is more in Los Angeles than Keokuk Iowa, and to determine a new tax structure to more evenly spread the cost across all persons who might be at risk of fire. Communities thought to be at high risk of arson (e.g. Detroit suburbs) would be brought under total federal control, with local administrators reporting to higher federal authorities.

There is no end to the new thinking that could occur. Perhaps, the federal guys could hire ACORN run the new programs in the affected comminities.

* * * * *
Posted by: An Architect | September 6, 2009 6:52 PM
.
1. If you don’t want to read what is written here, then don’t read it.
.
2. I am not angry, and neither is this response.
.
3. I am sure that fire departments make warrantless inspections all the time. With consent, fire personnel have no need for a warrant, and it’s very likely that many property owners find it in their best interests to consent to routine inspections. However, if an owner does not consent, fire department personnel do not have the right to conduct a warrantless inspection of areas not open to the public. This has been true since the U.S. Supreme Court decided See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 545-546 (1967). In See, the Court stated that a non-consensual fire inspection of commercial premises could not be conducted without a warrant in areas that are not open to the public. The companion case to See - Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) - similarly prohibited non-consensual warrantless inspections /searches of residential homes for building code violations.

4. Similarly, in Marshall v. Barlow's Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 311-315 (1978), citing See and Camara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that OSHA cannot conduct warrantless, non-consensual safety inspections in areas not open to the public. (Here is the online version of the Marshall case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/436/307/ Please read it this time.) The U.S. Supreme Court had never overruled or modified the decision in Marshall, and it is still the law today. (See United States v. Wen, 471 F.3d 777 (7th Cir. 2006), citing Marshall as controlling law.) Also, the remedy for refusing a valid OSHA inspection is through a contempt citation, rather than to force entry. (See In re Establishment Inspection of Skil Corp., 846 F.2d 1127, 1132 (7th Cir. 1988).) Thus, property owners subject to OSHA inspections actually have more protection against unwanted government intrusions than in a criminal investigation (because police get to force entry to search for evidence and fruits of crime.)
.
As is true in the case of fire or building code inspections, a property owner may waive the protection of a warrant and simply consent to OSHA inspections. Also, any violation OSHA personnel can detect in plain view or in any public area of a job site is subject to citation even without consent or a warrant. However, this does not mean, as you suggest, that an OSHA inspector can simply stride right onto a site and inspect anywhere at any time, with or without a warrant, if the inspection is against the will of the property owner. If it’s happened, as you say, it means that the job site supervisor consented to it or was too ignorant to object. If you still don’t agree, don’t bother me with your contrariness. Go tell the Supreme Court, the federal appellate courts (or anyone else who will listen), that the See, Camara and Marshall cases were decided incorrectly.
.
5. I am pleased to tell you - and in a very non-angry way - that you are 0 for 2 (out of a possible 2) on search and seizure issues. I get this sneaky feeling that you are operating out of your league as well as out of your area of expertise with regard to these issues.
.
6. Contrary to our previous discussions, it is incorrect to say that a “fire department” makes any determination about a persons property rights. A fire department is an “enforcement” agency tasked to carry out legislative mandates of state or local governments. A fire department does not itself make these regulations. Thus, both you and I misspoke about the powers of a fire department to set limitations. The limitations are in the laws, not an individual’s arbitrary discretion.
.
7. In a similar manner, you entirely misunderstood my original point. The question wasn’t whether the regulatory framework enforced by fire departments imposes duties on landowners or requires them to make changes in their property from time to time. The original question is whether “THE PRECEDENT OF PAYING TAXES for fire fighting services arrogate[es] to any government the power to control a citizen’s choices over his or her property and economic power.” Thus, it was a red herring on your part to draw into the discussion the regulatory scheme for which fire departments are tasked to enforce.
.
8. As such, I don’t have to go down the gopher hole of trying to explain to you (or anyone else) the finer points of the law concerning constitutional protections of property rights, the corresponding limitations on building ordinances, or the problems and presumptions against retroactive application of such ordinances. They are irrelevant. Isn’t it nice that I can find ways to shorten the discussion?
.
Have a nice Labor Day.

Well, it looks like John W lost this one too.

there isn't enough time in the day to bother responding to jw's self-serving screeds.

looks like somebody needs a job.

plus, as the reamer noted, another disheartening loss for jw. must hurt after all that effort.

It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious.

It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour.

I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of monsters.

Looks like John W loses another one.

* * * * *
Posted by: TheReamer | September 10, 2009 11:42 AM
.
You'll have to explain yourself, parrot boy. The Architect was clearly out to lunch. Of course, with your idiocy, illiteracy and status as a partisan hack, we could always expect you to offer a one liner that takes a position opposite mine.

I don't understand why seemingly coherent Republicans and Libertarians continue to attack Obama's death panels while ignoring Bush's actual 1999 Texas death panel law?

**********************************************
the finer points of the law concerning constitutional protections of property rights, the corresponding limitations on building ordinances, or the problems and presumptions against retroactive application of such ordinances. They are irrelevant. Isn’t it nice that I can find ways to shorten the discussion?
.Posted by: John W. | September 7, 2009 5:39 PM
************************************************
.

Reamer,

You have to understand where right wing anti gov't psycho's like John W Bircher are coming from before you can even begin to understand them. Being a Ron Paulite involves purposely ignoring or denying reality.
.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/mythbusting-right-wing-domestic-terr

* * * * *
Posted by: Neutral Lady | September 12, 2009 8:29 PM
.
In the first place, you don't know what you are talking about. Libertarians don't give a flying fig about George Bush and his death panels OR Barack Obama and his health care plan. To Libertarians, all of them are equally bad - although for different reasons.
.
In the second place, George W. Bush's "death panels" are not under serious consideration for nationwide use like Obama’s health care reform initiative is. As a matter of fact, no one is considering any of Duh'ba's stuff for current use. In which case, there is no need to complain about it. Intelligent people deal with what is here and now, rather than wring their hands over historical mistakes that have no current impact.
.
In the third place, the fact that George W. Bush was capable of facilitating evil with so-called "death panels" is no reason to give Barack Obama a pass on this current push for so-called health care reform. It's a simple truth that Obamabots and worshippers of "the One" don't get: Two wrongs don't make a right. Try reasoning sometime instead of trying to cloud the rational debate with an idiot's dirty laundry.

JE,
Oh yeah; check out;

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/09/healthcare_reform_americans_di.html#comments

Go there every couple days and put anything in, then see if he bites.
Hilarious.
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | September 12, 2009 8:26 PM

"I don't even bother reading crazy Johnny W's chapter long screeds anymore, I treat him and his fellow Wingnut sociopath friend (Terry) the exact same way - insult them and then move on."
-
Posted by: John E | July 4, 2009 7:25 PM
-
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/i_believe_ill_dust_my_broom.html