Molly Ivins -- RIP

"If left to my own devices, I'd spend all my time pointing out that [Bill Clinton]'s weaker than bus-station chili."

"The next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please, pay attention."

"We are the deciders."

WikiQuote

image iron fist

Michael Brecker -- RIP

A jazz saxophonist; very cool.

"Among the generation of jazz musicians that saw rock music not as the enemy but as a viable musical option . . . WikiPedia article on Michael Brecker.

Official Web Site

Another reason why big government is not necessary -- more

Kilgore Forelle
"It was in 1949 that Rothbard first concluded that the free market could provide all services, including police, courts, and defense services better than could the State."

Link: The Myth of Lighthouses

BigBlueBrew
I believe that the free market does do a better job than government at just about everything but police, fire, courts, and defense. We already had a period where fire companies were the rule and that was disasterous.

Politics may not be the oldest profession, but the results are the same.

ukisgr8
All that is listed above should be the ONLY role of government, a necessary role. The free market can't be held accountable, which is important in matters of state. These 3 items are too vital of a public service to be handed over to the free market, imo



backbeatcat
I would only add healthcare to that. The idea that I support is that healthcare should not be limited to those who can afford it. VERY UNPOPULAR: It should be rationed...pure and simple. There shouldn't be any consideration of the financial means of the patient (i.e. charges) but rather, the appropriateness (efficacy, risk, etc.) of care should be the only consideration.

Like the justice system is SUPPOSED to be, healthcare should be blind to the social status of the patient.

It's gotta be string music...if you wanna dance with me.


tls
Do not agree on healthcare .. Only a very small percentage of health problems are of genetic origin .. the rest are within our control .. It is abundantly clear that our diet is the chief culprit here and IMO does not fall into the same category as accidents/crime/state aggression. I guess you could argue that our free enterprise system has created the poor diet and you would be correct .. but it still is our choice .. We can eat the right things if we want to

Or we can just continue to indulge ourselves and expect the government to pay for the chemicals/procedures we need as a result .. sort of like businesses wanting cheap labor thru the use of illegal aliens and now wanting the govt to overlook it and make it OK

Or sort of like not wanting to be accountable for our behavior and making up religious systems that do not hold us accountable

Or sort of like being selfish

As to the original premise .. "That government is best which governs least"

CatPatrick
Why stop at healthcare? Why not include housing, food, water, and clothing? Oh, and a comfy retirement package and free dental. Transportation would be great to provide as well!

TexasCat
Hell, let's just all quit working, start taking year round vacations, and let the govt pay us 6 figures every year. And then we have Hillary's new share the prosperity message. Maybe she should read a few journals on William Bradford.

rqarnold

Originally posted by tls:
Do not agree on healthcare .. Only a very small percentage of health problems are of genetic origin .. the rest are within our control .. It is abundantly clear that our diet is the chief culprit here and IMO does not fall into the same category as accidents/crime/state aggression. I guess you could argue that our free enterprise system has created the poor diet and you would be correct .. but it still is our choice .. We can eat the right things if we want to

Or we can just continue to indulge ourselves and expect the government to pay for the chemicals/procedures we need as a result .. sort of like businesses wanting cheap labor thru the use of illegal aliens and now wanting the govt to overlook it and make it OK

Or sort of like not wanting to be accountable for our behavior and making up religious systems that do not hold us accountable

Or sort of like being selfish

As to the original premise .. "That government is best which governs least"

I will not argue that obesity and its problems and problems related to tobacco use aren't within "our control"...but to characterize all other problems as "a small percentage" is ludicris. Problems that are not genetic are real. Tuberculosis isn't genetic, the flu, pnemonia, strep, infections of numerous sorts...not genetic. Yet should treatment for said illnesses be based on ability to pay? What about those who are injured...should they only seek treatment if they are able to pay?

backbeatcat

Originally posted by backbeatcat:
I would only add healthcare to that. The idea that I support is that healthcare should not be limited to those who can afford it. VERY UNPOPULAR: It should be rationed...pure and simple. There shouldn't be any consideration of the financial means of the patient (i.e. charges) but rather, the appropriateness (efficacy, risk, etc.) of care should be the only consideration.

Like the justice system is SUPPOSED to be, healthcare should be blind to the social status of the patient.

Originally posted by CatPatrick:

Why stop at healthcare? Why not include housing, food, water, and clothing? Oh, and a comfy retirement package and free dental. Transportation would be great to provide as well!

ummm...the government does help to provide transportation. Highways, roads, busses, subways etc. etc. etc.

I get it. You don't think government has any role except to secure the borders. The rest should be free enterprise.

I disagree on healthcare. Free enterprise got us where we are on healthcare (healthcare used to be largely charitable care) and free enterprise will not get us out.

backbeatcat

Originally posted by tls:
Do not agree on healthcare .. Only a very small percentage of health problems are of genetic origin .. the rest are within our control .. It is abundantly clear that our diet is the chief culprit here and IMO does not fall into the same category as accidents/crime/state aggression. I guess you could argue that our free enterprise system has created the poor diet and you would be correct .. but it still is our choice .. We can eat the right things if we want to

Or we can just continue to indulge ourselves and expect the government to pay for the chemicals/procedures we need as a result .. sort of like businesses wanting cheap labor thru the use of illegal aliens and now wanting the govt to overlook it and make it OK

Or sort of like not wanting to be accountable for our behavior and making up religious systems that do not hold us accountable

Or sort of like being selfish

As to the original premise .. "That government is best which governs least"

We will have to disagree here. There are myriad causes of illness and injury that are beyond our control.


ganner918
I always thought of you as a libertarian, but not an anarchist. If police, courts, and defense are privatized... there is no government left.




rqarnold

Originally posted by Kilgore Forelle:
"It was in 1949 that Rothbard first concluded that the free market could provide all services, including police, courts, and defense services better than could the State."

KF...surely you don't think that private police, courts and defense (military) would be better than what we have??? And just who would they be working for...the people or their employer??? Just how many competitors would be in the national defense/military market...who owns the hardware? Do they control the nuclear arsenal??? Does the private company have veto powers over what conflicts they fight?

There are just so many things wrong with that suggestion...I consider myself more libertarian than most...but I wouldn't go that far.

kyindc
Here's my case for universal health care coverage, including dental:

WASHINGTON - Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.

A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

If his family had not lost its Medicaid.

If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.

If his mother hadn't been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth.

By the time Deamonte's own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of hospital care, the Prince George's County boy died.



Link: Article in Wash Post


fredmanthecatfan
That is a sad story. However, most dentists will work out payment plans for a service.

My dental insurance only covers 50% for extractions. Would having dental insurance that covers 50% made a difference?

A new era has begun!

kyindc
I'm not sure of the answer -- she had two kids with multiple rotten teeth. Cost of living out here is astronomical and there are a lot of poor people. Even at 50%, it's going to be too expensive for some. There's gotta be a better way, and I agree with the poster above who said that free enterprise isn't going to get us out of this.

It's a very sad story, you're right, and I wish there was an easy solution. I just get tired of hearing people say that most health problems are the fault of the sick person.

Maybe all preventative care (one check up a year?) should be covered. Then 50% for extractions would be reasonable. When I lived in KY I can't tell you how many kids I knew who had never been to the dentist. It's downright expensive, and you often don't see the need to go until a problem arises. My own insurance which is pretty great otherwise covers eight dollars -- yeah you heard that right -- eight dollars -- of my yearly cleaning. I paid $200 last time.


fredmanthecatfan
Should vet bills be paid by the govt. I dropped about 2k last year in vet bills. I think Uncle Sam should have helped me out.


NDlouisvillian
That is one case in a country of 300 million. Healthcare ranging from bad to mediocre for all? Or top-notch healthcare for the 5/6 of the nation with healthcare ranging from none to mediocre for the other 1/6? As cruel as it sounds, I'll take the second option.

kyindc

Originally posted by fredmanthecatfan:
Should vet bills be paid by the govt. I dropped about 2k last year in vet bills. I think Uncle Sam should have helped me out.

My dad always used to say that if treatment for our dog was more than it cost to put the dog down, then we could just say goodbye to the dog.

We kids were horrified at the time, but I guess because of that upbringing I don't think the situations are comparable.

kritikalcat

Originally posted by NDlouisvillian:
That is one case in a country of 300 million. Healthcare ranging from bad to mediocre for all? Or top-notch healthcare for the 5/6 of the nation with healthcare ranging from none to mediocre for the other 1/6? As cruel as it sounds, I'll take the second option.

You're not alone. I think this - as much as the efforts of the medical, insurance, and business lobbies - is what stops any major healthcare reform in the U.S. 5/6 of us have good healthcare and insurance, and don't want to risk what we have to provide it to the 1/6 who don't. Further, the 1/6 is somewhat transitory. Many drop into the category only temporarily.

fredmanthecatfan

Originally posted by kyindc:

Originally posted by fredmanthecatfan:
Should vet bills be paid by the govt. I dropped about 2k last year in vet bills. I think Uncle Sam should have helped me out.

My dad always used to say that if treatment for our dog was more than it cost to put the dog down, then we could just say goodbye to the dog.

We kids were horrified at the time, but I guess because of that upbringing I don't think the situations are comparable.

Check your sarcasm detector. I don't think it's working.


MurdererofCrows
People that worship solely at the altar of the unabridged free market scare the holy living hell out of me.

Privatization is a slippery slope. If you want to advocate anarcho-capatialism then why not just tear up the Social Contract and go full bore into the dissolution of any/every type of government?

JRowland
The only thing the government does better than the market is kill people.


fredmanthecatfan
As much as I appreciate the free market, I would suggest that if prohibitions against murder were removed, the market could be very efficient in killing people. In fact, we don't even have to guess in that area--all we have to do is look at abortion rates.


BigBlueBrew

Originally posted by kyindc:
Here's my case for universal health care coverage, including dental:

WASHINGTON - Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.

A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

If his family had not lost its Medicaid.

If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.

If his mother hadn't been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth.

By the time Deamonte's own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of hospital care, the Prince George's County boy died.

How much does a toothbrush and toothpaste cost?

Kilgore Forelle

Originally posted by ganner918:
I always thought of you as a libertarian, but not an anarchist. If police, courts, and defense are privatized... there is no government left.

I am not an anarchist. My point in this thread is that the assumptions underlying any specific gov service should be analyzed. As tempting as ". . . there is no government left" may sound, I suggest rather that there is a great deal of government based on unexamined presumptions.

So, macroeconomocally, less goverment is good, microeconomically, every presumption of governemnt needs to be reconsidered often.

btw, anarchy appeals to me more than monarchy , but since we are much closer to the latter, I would be happy with progress toward the middle.


Kilgore Forelle
wtf does health care have to do with the main thread here. We already have pretty much overall coverage under a market driven health system. There is a difference between full choice and overall coverage -- those who can afford it have almost full choice, and those who can't have other avenues -- all market provided, some by government involvement.

We do not have "1 size fits all" or "one stop shopping" in health care, or even "equal access" to health care -- but these are political issues that are essentially congressional/lobbyist/beancounter full employment programs.

Now, let's get back to the issue. Are there current government activities that would be better shared or assumed by markets.

Remember, perfection is the enemy of good.


ukisgr8
Kilgore, the ones you mentioned, no but the rest, yes. The three you mentioned are the primary need for government


Kilgore Forelle
I didn't specifically mention those, they were listed in a quote from the link. That was to establish a floor -- there are some people like rothbard who think it can all be done. The point made at the link was that even the purists' argument, that some unselfish services, like aids to navigation (marine traffic lights) can only be supplied by government, can be controverted. In fact, the brit lighthouse service is, and has been for a couple of centuries, administered by a non-government agency, trinity house.

If defense cannot be farmed out to the private sector than wtf are we doing sending all those bucks to halliburton, blackwater, and custer battles?

I also believe that major activities of the court system such as disputes between individuals can be offloaded to the private sector. Furthermore, why wouldn't police work be improved by applying performance measures, so that bidders may have some incentive to actually reduce crime and bring order.

Why do we assume that police government workers, court government workers, and military government workers are somehow more dedicated than regular government workers?