ROSEN: Underinsured isn't uninsured

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 19, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

September 19, 2008

1:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

paulhsiehmd writes:

Thank you, Mike, for shedding some much-needed light onto these bad statistics.

Politicians love to quote the figure of "47 million Americans without health insurance". But there are two serious problems:

First, the "47 million" figure exaggerates the problem by a huge amount, as you mention and as discussed in the short video, "Uninsured in America" as well as in numerous articles such as "The '47 Million' Uninsured Myth" in the August 29, 2007 issue of Investors Business Daily:

http://www.freemarketcure.com/uninsur...
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArtic...

Second, it assumes the common error of equating health insurance with health care. The nature and significance of this error is covered in much more depth in the article co-author by Lin Zinser and myself, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'".

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/i...

Paul Hsieh, MD
Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM):
http://www.WeStandFIRM.org
September 19, 2008

5:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Pagen writes:

"Moral health care" now that's an oxymoron. I haven't had health insurance since the 90's. First I can't afford it and how many people have you turned away because they don't have ins. Paul? I don't nessessarily believe in socialized med. but I do believe it should be affordable and you should not be turned away or treated like a dog and left sitting there in pain or to die in an emergency room or Drs. office. I also think that the hipercratic oath has gone out the window and all Drs. care about is how rich they are getting. Don't Drs. care about people any more? Seems all they care about is the kickbacks.
September 19, 2008

5:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

gkb2008 writes:

Huge massive federal bailouts occuring regularly for mega financial corporations, and Rosen decides to talk about this ? Granted, it is a worthwhile topic, but there are far greater events occurring. Could this mean a tacit approval from Mr KOA Conservative of the actions and decisions of federal policymakers ?
September 19, 2008

6:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

Pagen: Have you been left to die in an emergency room? Has anyone you know?

Has anyone in the US?

You are setting up a straw man; in other words, you are making an outrageous statement - "left to die", then attributing it to Dr. Hsieh. You then get to call Dr. Hsieh uncaring because he leaves people to die!

Sorry. It doesn't work. Nobody is leaving anyone else to die in the ER.
September 19, 2008

6:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

suffernofools writes:

Thanks, Mike. It's always good to hear a real explanation of something rather than the sound-bite version as "Pagen" tries to pass off.
September 19, 2008

7:15 a.m.

bluejacket writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 19, 2008

7:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Whatever the number is, it's way too high. Suppose there were thousands who had no access to education, or who weren't covered by police, fire, and ambulance services - the number would be moot since clearly in those cases it should be zero. So too with any public good, which is what health care is.

Why does so-called "socialized" medical work so swimmingly for Congress and the military, but it couldn't possible work for the rest of us???
September 19, 2008

7:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

I can personally attest to this situation as I am living it right now. I recently resigned from my job and will take another position in the months to come. I am between jobs. I have no insurance - by choice at this time. I could have done the Cobra option with the health plan from my old job - at about $600 a month for a single guy. That is absurd and unaffordable. I am shopping around and looking at Blue Advantage and other plans that offer coverage starting at $100 a month. I also changed my 1 prescription medication for high blood pressure from 1 that would have cost $130/month without drug coverage to a similar generic (after consulting over the phone with my primary doctor) that I bought at WalMart for $4.00 a month. That is correct - $4.00 a month with NO prescription drug insurance coverage! WalMart has stepped in to fill a void for high cost prescription drugs - like all the liberals have been screaming for. Well guess what? The free market has done it, without the government's help. Funny we do not hear about this from the left.
September 19, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

"So too with any public good, which is what health care is."-SYB

Why do you think it is a public good? Are food, clothing, and shelter also "public goods"?

No. The responsibilities of government are to protect our borders, enforce our laws, uphold the rights of its citizens, maintain an infrastructure, etc...Not to provide you with health care, food, shelter, an education, a retirement account, day care services...at the expense of someone else.

That is your responsibility.
September 19, 2008

9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Mike; Why don't you take a walk through some of the local neighborhood bars. No, not the ones who serve good food and wine, but the ones where the blue collar workers of America visit and do a poll yourself and find out how many of them have health insurance. I believe you will find just how many don't. You are a spoiled elitist republican who is so out of touch it amazes me. These people don't have money for vacations, or cars as you suggest.

You justify that because there may be fewer without insurance than suggested it's ok. It's not ok Mike. Every time they have to go to an emergency room the cost to rest of us goes up. Not only that these people don't have the power, skills or knowledge to negotiate the bills down like an insurance company does.

Are you trying to suggest that Canada, England, France and Germany don't have the latest high tech equipment. Give me a break. Once again Posen Rosen shows how out of touch the conservative wing of this country is.

Your Napolianic little self and the out of touch doctrine you spew is ludicrous.

Mike, you are nothing but a patsy for the liars who are running this country right now.
September 19, 2008

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

"Mike; Why don't you take a walk through some of the local neighborhood bars. No, not the ones who serve good food and wine, but the ones where the blue collar workers of America visit and do a poll yourself and find out how many of them have health insurance. I believe you will find just how many don't."

Then why are they wasting their money in a bar and not purchasing health insurance?
September 19, 2008

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

robertzimmerman writes:

"We still have the finest physicians, nurses and medical technicians in the world."

I doubt you could back that up with objective statistics.

What is objectively verifiable, though, is that we spend more per capita on healthcare than any other developed country, and that we rank about 30th in life expectancy, and that we rank around 28th in infant mortality.

We're being ripped off!
September 19, 2008

9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

Marshdale: How much are those blue collar workers dropping in those neighborhood bars each night/week/month/year that they could/should spend on health insurance? How much do they spend on cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV, etc. that also could be better spent to care for themselves and their families? As is always the case, this is about choices. I know too many people - white collar, blue collar, no collar - who consistently whine about having no money for NEEDS yet I see them with camera cell phones at $40 - $60 a month, I hear them talk about the plasma TV they put on the credit card, the monthly cable bill with all the extras, I hear them talk about their car payments for cars that are way above their needs, visits to the salon/restaurants/mall/etc. and other luxuries that if better managed would free up LOTS of $$$$ for health insurance. Funny too, many of these same people are overweight, out of shape, eat poorly, and do little or nothing to care FOR THEMSELVES. Yet they want the rest of us to pick up their doctor bills when their bodies breakdown. Give me a break - to use your words.
September 19, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Dannyar writes;

"Then why are they wasting their money in a bar and not purchasing health insurance?"

I guess its ok for you to have a beer, because you have health insurance.

Have you tried to buy individual health insurance lately? Why don't you go try and see if you can even come close. You are another uninformed patsy who is out for yourself and nobody else. You are just like all conservatives I know. It's not my problem. Screw them. Why should I have to help those who have less than me?

You conservatives feel absolutely no obligation to the greater good of society. You love the Constitution when it suits your puposes, but when it gets in your way you can't stand it. I guess you never read the part about "providing for the common good," because that would get in the way of the selfish conservative nature. I often wonder how you conservatives justify your economic and social doctrine with the teachings of Jesus. It amazes me.
September 19, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_Galt writes:

Pagen complains that he has not had health insurance since 1990.

Yet, he has the money to buy a computer & pay for monthly Internet access. I'll bet he has an X-Box, a fancy car, purchases cable TV programming, parties every weekend, takes a yearly vacation out of state, and does drugs as well.

We've all seen it. The majority of people without health insurance could buy it, even a minimal amount. However, they spend their money on unnecessary discretionary things when they could buy health insurance instead.
September 19, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

jbowen43 writes:

If you receive contributions to your health insurance premium from your employer be warned John McCain plans to tax those contributions because like Ronald Reagan he will increase taxes by redefining income.
September 19, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_Galt writes:

Marshdale complains that conservatives are all about themselves.

Yet, study after study shows that conservatives make larger and more frequent charitable contributions than liberals. (Example = Joe Biden $3000 in contributions over the last 6 or 7 years while making $250,000 per year in income).

He also attempts to bring Jesus' teachings into the discussion, as if he alone knows the true meaning of those teachings. Well, here's a quote I heard that he can stick in his pipe. "Give a man a fish, he will have a meal. Teach a man to fish, he can feed himself forever."

What we conservatives have learned is that people should get a good education (not one of the liberal artsy-fartsy ones), go into business, work hard, and be rewarded for that work.

One other thing we have learned is to quit complaining about life. Work hard and change your situtation if you don't like it. No one else can or should do it for you.
September 19, 2008

9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

"I guess its ok for you to have a beer, because you have health insurance."

That is correct. I buy beer and other luxuries after I have paid for all of my necessities and met all of my obligations.

"You conservatives feel absolutely no obligation to the greater good of society."

Partially correct. I personally feel a moral obligation, which is why I volunteer my time and money for charities I believe in; I, however, feel no legal obligation to give my money away.

"I guess you never read the part about 'providing for the common good'."

You and I have a different definition of the 'common good'; I outlined mine earlier.

"selfish conservative nature"

Which is worse? Being selfish with your own money, or generous with someone else's?

"I often wonder how you conservatives justify your economic and social doctrine with the teachings of Jesus".

I don't.
September 19, 2008

9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"Why should I have to help those who have less than me?"

"Have to" is the key here. It's a good question. Why should Dannyar, or myself, or you, or anybody else for that matter "have" to help those who have less?
Not simply why should they- that is a different question. Why should they "have to"?
There's a fundamental difference in thinking, here. The conservative mindset is that helping others is good, and is encouraged. FORCING one to help others against their will is not good, and is apparently how you think things should be done given that you used the words "have to".
So, a better question, rather than "Why should I have to help those who have less than me?" would be "What authority do you have to dictate to others what they must provide to other citizens?"
Where is the line drawn, Marshdale? Who decides which person is better off and who they have an obligation to support? Do you make this decision?

"I guess its ok for you to have a beer, because you have health insurance."
It's okay for anybody to have a beer, with or without insurance. What is not okay is to waste money on alcohol and demand that somebody else pay for your insurance. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Well, you can't. Grow up.

"You love the Constitution when it suits your puposes, but when it gets in your way you can't stand it"
What does a debate about health care have to do with the consitution? Is there an amendment somewhere demanding that those with more money in their checking account pay to take care of you and your family while you go have that beer in the "blue collar bar"?
September 19, 2008

9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

jbowen43 writes;

If you receive contributions to your health insurance premium from your employer be warned John McCain plans to tax those contributions because like Ronald Reagan he will increase taxes by redefining income.

You are absolutely correct. The conservative wing hates labor, has always wanted to punish the middle class in the form of lower wages and taxes on bennefits. Many conservatives don't know about this one. Thanks for pointing it out.
September 19, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

Mike, and Michael,

I am 57. I have a very severe heart condition, am in stage 4 kidney failure, have diabetes and severe neuropathy in both feet with only 4 toes left. Dialysis was discontinued because the catheter became infected even under hospital care and was removed because it was determined I was too sensitive to infection. Surgery to implant a different type of access for dialysis has been ruled out because of my heart condition.

My husband and I are raising our 9 year old grand daughter. He lost his job last month one day before he was supposed to go in for surgery at VA on his shoulder (injured while he was in the service.) Our insurance ended then.

My cardiologist is working to find substitutes for my medications, all 12 of them, that will fit the Wal-Mart 4 dollar list.

My husband is covered by VA, my grand daughter has Medicaid. We took her off of it when we got insurance for her with our policy, the state kept her on Medicaid but added her name to the uninsured list.

Medicare will soon cover me because of the dialysis.

Under the current system, we are counted as uninsured. The state sends me constant reminders about CHP+ for my grand daughter even though she was covered by both Medicaid and Kaiser. She has been listed as NOT covered for five years.

Please, those of you who want socialized medicine because you want to "help" me, don't help me. The only thing that would make my life more difficult, more complicated and give me less health care would be to allow the government to take over health care.

I can't work. My husband faces six months of rehab after his surgery and we will have to fight to get his unemployment. The man who fired him told him that he and his wife were too big a liability for the company.

Please listen to what I say and understand that all 3 of us are considered uninsured yet all have some insurance coverage. That is why the statistics are not believable. We could even keep our old insurance for $1100 a month. If the sensible changes to make insurance independent of employment had been made, we would have no problem.

Thanks for some sanity on this issue.
September 19, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

suffernofools writes:

What Marshdale is getting at (whining about) touches upon what Biden said--that it's the rich person's "patriotic duty" to give up some of their income to help those less advantaged. I'm not sure where that's stated in our Constitution or founding documents. As many of the posts have stated here, if that's the case, I'd say it's the patriotic duty of all citizens to work their butt off to better their state in life before asking for handouts so they don't have to rely on those with more means. Also, I can't agree more with the posts about all the non-essential things people pay for (thinking it's a right) and then complain they don't have money for the really essential things. What's wrong with a land-line phone, a black and white TV without cable for a while if it'll allow you to become more self-sufficient in the long run? What people used to work and save for (homes, cars, vacations) people in our entitlement age now simply expect to have handed to them or that someone else will "eat" their bills when they declare bankruptcy b/c of credit card debt or buying a house well beyond their means...as our current mortgage crisis attests to....
September 19, 2008

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

JYP3500 writes:

McCain has it right; a) let's give every American a tax credit to go purchase their own health insurance, and b) make the industry competitive. The result will be lower prices and higher quality.

Contrast that with Barack's plan to create a massive, wasteful, and bureaucratic plan, where I have to wait in line to ask a pencil necked govt bureaucrat for aspirin. No thanks.

This exact same McCain plan will work for education as well, just substitue health insurance with school vouchers.
September 19, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

p_myers: God bless you and your family. I went through the whole kidney failure/dialysis and heart failure thing with my dad for 6 years. That is tough and I know it from experience. Thank YOU for your insight and for your courage and bravery under such tough conditions - and for your stance on why you don't what the federal government even more involved in your healthcare choices and why you know that the statistics are not accurate at all on this issue. Good luck and all the best to you and your family.
September 19, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

ksells writes:

It's amazing that Mike always picks a subject that is mindless whenever there is an important issue that is negative to Republicans.

Health Care? Give me a break. Mike has always been against it.

McCain? Mike has stated over and over again that he is incompetent.

Regulation? Who needs regulation?

Bail outs? Thank God for GW because it ain't going to happen?

I could go on, but Mike makes his money by being a stooge. The RMN is the Colorado version of Pravda. KOA is the corporate version of the person who sales services of young ladies and needs men who can manage them and Mike has filled in very well.
September 19, 2008

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i ask the same question everytime we see these mythical rationalizations for the horrible state of US healthcare.

why do you folks think our country incapable of adopting some of the best practices of those countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are?

hint: willful ignorance isn't an answer.
September 19, 2008

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

There's way too many issues to cover right now, but just a couple of observations:

1. Note the theme of several posters and Rosen that an uninsured or underinsured person is in that status due to some personal character flaw (bad choices, etc.). In short, IT'S THEIR FAULT (wow, it comforts me to say that--makes me feel, well, a little superior). Oh, and nevermind children who make up a disproportinate number of the uninsured. It's their fault too.

2. I'm not aware of any country with socialized healthcare moving toward the "American model" of health care, certainly not England or Canada. But maybe we know something they don't know.
September 19, 2008

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

"why do you folks think our country incapable of adopting some of the best practices of those countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are?"

Jay,

First, we have to accept your statement as fact. You could have an endless debate about that.

Second, will you answer the philosophical question of 'why'?

I'll play devil's advocate and accept your statement as fact. (Although, I really don't) Why does that mean government SHOULD be involved?

Should government be involved in every area of our lives where you think it can do a better job than the private sector? Where you think it would be more 'fair'?

Based on what principle?
September 19, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

ksells writes:

I must correct myself a little in my previous post.

Usually when there is really bad news for Republicans, Mike will usually post an anti-union story about the teachers unions. And talk about how incompetent they are. But this year there are ballot issues that he does not want to discuss regarding workers rights, so I would say this is a safe subject in his mind. Like negating employers rights to fire without the employee being able to file for unemployment.

Mike and Rush make a lot of money working for the Republican party. They don't care about values. That is not to say that I dislike the people who call themselves Republicans. I respect them. But I do think that those who are in charge have twisted very good ideas to evil.
September 19, 2008

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

"1. Note the theme of several posters and Rosen that an uninsured or underinsured person is in that status due to some personal character flaw (bad choices, etc.). In short, IT'S THEIR FAULT."

Doesn't matter. Whether something is an individual's fault, or not, why does that entitle that person to the property of another?

You are telling me that I don't own anything. It can be seized and redistributed to others because they 'need' it. I have it and someone else needs it, therefore, I don't really own it.

Sickening.
September 19, 2008

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Why does that mean government SHOULD be involved?"

because other folks are having more success in healthcare than we are.

again...why wouldn't we emulate them in order to enjoy the same kind of success?

is our country too stupid?
September 19, 2008

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

dannyar - "Why do you think it is a public good? Are food, clothing, and shelter also "public goods"?"

Public goods are that which are in the general interest, and is not a strict "RESPONSIBILITY" of govt, just its interest. If someone is sick, they can spread that illness in some cases and are likely to be taken out of productive contribution while they are sick. So it is in everyone's interest that sickness and downtime be minimized. Furthermore, how do we justify not giving needed health care to a child, based on the parents' ability or choice to pay insurance?

When we work, we expect that the taxes we pay cover govt responsibilities (border control, police, defense, etc) as well as public goods (clean water, flood control, schools, etc). Health care is clearly inthe second grouping, and that's why it needs to be taken out of the business community and bundled into our basket of services that we provide to ourselves.

No one has answered my question: "Why is 'socialized' medicine so great for Congress, the President, the Supremes, etc and the US military, but not for the rest of us?" I just want what I am already buying for THEM.
September 19, 2008

11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

"Should government be involved in every area of our lives where you think it can do a better job than the private sector? Where you think it would be more 'fair'?

Based on what principle?"

First, this is a democracy, so it's neither Jay's say so, nor yours.

The principle of government involvement in healthcare or anything else is fairly simple: it steps in where the private sector cannot or will not do the job. Our current healthcare system is dysfunctional in terms of its cost, the uninsured and underinsured, and its design which places a premium on the profits of the players rather than the healthcare of American citizens.
September 19, 2008

11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Dannyer: Doesn't matter. Whether something is an individual's fault, or not, why does that entitle that person to the property of another?

You are telling me that I don't own anything. It can be seized and redistributed to others because they 'need' it. I have it and someone else needs it, therefore, I don't really own it.

Sickening."

Ah, an ideologue straight out of an Ayn Rand novel. Keep fantasizing. Maybe you can find Galt's Gulch (it's somewhere in Colorado) then you won't have to live in a real society.
September 19, 2008

11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

Jay,

I don't agree with your version of 'success' and I don't want to participate, but you won't allow that.

SYB,

If you place schools and health care in your second grouping, where does it end? Do you include welfare for able-bodied persons, day care for single mothers, school lunch programs, tax rebates for people who buy hybrid cars...?

Oh wait, we already do most of that, and there is an endless number of people who want their pet programs added to that list.
September 19, 2008

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

anderson,

Ah, 'real society'. You mean where a small group of people take the money from a slightly larger group of people and give it to an even larger group of people; pure democracy in action.

At least my ideology doesn't involve the theft of the product of one person's intellect, ambition, and risk, and the redistribution of it to another who hasn't earned it.

A 'real society' indeed.
September 19, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

danny, i'm not sure what your point is.

are you sticking to the willful ignorance that may of our global peers AREN"T having more success than we are with healthcare...or are you saying you don't want higher quality healthcare at lower cost?
September 19, 2008

11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

dannyar - "Do you include welfare for able-bodied persons, day care for single mothers, school lunch programs, tax rebates for people who buy hybrid cars...?"

You're changing the subject and muddying the waters - have you chosen that tactic because answering my post is too upsetting to your worldview?
September 19, 2008

11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

jay,

Your questions are flawed. I don't believe other countries are having more "success" than we are. I doubt I agree with your definition of success. Also, you know nothing of the quality of the health care I receive, or how much it costs.

STB,

I didn't change the subject, or muddy the waters. I took your list of areas where government is involved (and shouldn't be) and added to it. I want to see where you would stop that list. I stopped it after 'flood control'. To answer your question; it is great for THEM, not so great for those who pay for it. I don't want to increase the program by a factor of one hundred.
September 19, 2008

noon

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

Sorry, Sheik, that should have been 'SYB'.
September 19, 2008

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

If the argument is that "other" countries (Canada, Europe, etc.) have a "better" healthcare system than the US does, why do so many affluent, rich, and successful people (and even those simply with the ability to pay) come TO the USA when they need advanced care or specialized care? How many times have we all heard of a celebrity, royalty, head-of-state, rich business person who has flown from (fill in the blank here with: Canada, Great Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Norway, anywhere in the Middle East or Asia) to the Cleveland Clinic, the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins University, Cedar Sinai Hospital, Kettering Clinic, etc, etc, etc. for treatment????? The people who can afford good healthcare LEAVE the crappy one that now exists in their home country to come where???? The USA. The peasants still have to wait in line for 6 months for an MRI or a CAT scan or any advanced treatment that we all take for granted and can get in hours or days. Thank you very much but I DO NOT WANT WHAT THEY HAVE HERE.
September 19, 2008

12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Pagen writes:

John Galt,
Just to let you know, I am a she and I have a computer true but it is 5 yrs old, and I got it with a tax return one year. I am a server and I do have education, but in my field, server was always better money. I raised two kids on my own, with no support and I don't have a fancy car. I also tried my hand on my own business on the side but the smoking bans killed that, I booked bands and comics. I haven't had insurance since 1994. Yes I do know someone that almost died waiting in an emergency room, no they didn't die but they were waiting for 7 hrs with internal bleeding and had to be rushed in to surgery. I have been turned away from Drs. because of no insurance or not enough money to cover the whole visit. I don't do drugs and I rarely have a drink so before you start spouting at the mouth, maybe you should look at your self because you sound like a self absorbed jerk! Oh one more thing I know a person that did die from eternal bleeding because he went in to a coma and he was on Medicaid so they decided to pull the plug. He had been in the hospital for 4 days.
September 19, 2008

12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"I don't believe other countries are having more "success" than we are."

as i said before, willful ignorance isn't an option, danny.

simply putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to acknowlege politically inconvenient facts like our local loyal footsoldier michael isn't really a valid debate tactic.
September 19, 2008

1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

dannyar - flood control mightbe more a local than a federal matter, but it is something that neither the private sector nor individuals can address.

A secure food and water supply (neither is in the constitution) are also public goods. However, you having the house, car, clothes etc that you want are not. There is plenty of gray area here, and that can be exploited to, as I say, muddy the matter, but health care is clearly a public good and having an accounting middleman is a net negative, and one which the President, Congress, Supremes, etc do not chose to suffer, even if it is foisted onthe rest of us.
September 19, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dixie8 writes:

How dares anyone make light of the fact that people are, indeed, dying from lack of adequate healthcare in the US. Cold war veterans from Rocky Flats here in Colorado cannot get treatment paid for by the government for which they worked so hard--all over the news lately. Go to http://www.newsweek.com/id/145870 for a story about a woman who-YES-did die in an ER waiting room because of the long, long waiting line in what Rosen & his fans call the perfect American healthcare system.
My husband & I travel often. 2 of our best friends (over 30 years of friendship) are German citizens. One of them woke up one morning unable to move her legs. To the "socialized" MD. Couldn't find the reason. The German healthcare system PAID 100% for her travel to a Swiss clinic, where a blood clot was found in her spine & removed. Her PT was paid for & (by German law) her job was waiting for her when she was able to return. Fat chance of that Ever happening in America.
My best girlfriend's brother was fired from his job when he got a cancerous brain tumor. He first was mis-diagnosed as having a cold, then a sinus infection. Too late, he was diag w/inoperable brain cancer. Hideously inept healthcare in the good old USA. Not a cold, as Rosen & his fans sneer.
My husband's father, a WWII pilot who suffered a violent brain injury, was in placed in a Veteran's hospital unfit for any human being. It took Months of wrangling by my sister in law, husband & me calling then President Bush Senior's Naval Chief of Staff & etc. to get him to a decent Veteran's hospital, where he died after years of inadequate medical treatment.
Veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan like my brother are coming home with serious brain traumas, PTSD, legs blown off & rarely do they get (unless they are stubborn like my brother & his wife) good care.
My sister, a hard working woman in the upper class, 156 IQ & seemingly great insurance died from lack of well trained MDs in America. Misdiagnosed with PMS, then IBS. It was cancer of the abdomen & she died because of poor American medical training. If only she had gone to Canada or Europe!
I have a dear friend who is a professor at a university. They do not offer a health care package unless you are tenured. So she has gone 3 years without a checkup despite some serious problems. She is a single Mom, working 2 jobs & cannot afford the absurdly high cost of health insurance on her own. Too much pressure on doctors in the US to rush patients through, increase income for clinics/hospitals. I blame hospital CEOs more than MDs. Yes, taxes are higher in countries that offer great health care for ALL citizens but it is worth it--according to all our many friends who live abroad. Don't tell us to move. We love our country & that is why we are Speaking Up on issues that are important like this. Saying "socialized medicine" over & over & over doesn't make it wrong. All citizens deserve good health care!!!
September 19, 2008

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

SYB,

I agree with you on flood control. That's why I stopped my list there; before schools.

Jay,

You never answered my question of, 'why'? Why MUST I participate if I don't want to?
September 19, 2008

2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

danny...again...are you saying that you don't want lower cost, higher quality healthcare?

is it because of spite?
September 19, 2008

2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

jay,

Try answering my question. I know from past topics, you seem to be incapable of answering direct questions, but let's try again.

"are you saying that you don't want lower cost, higher quality healthcare?"

I would love to have that, but not be FORCED to join ANY health care program. I want to choose where my money goes and I don't agree that your program would be better than the one I currently participate in. In any event, it should be my choice.

Your turn.

Why MUST I participate if I don't want to?
September 19, 2008

2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"I don't agree that your program would be better than the one I currently participate in."

so we're back to the willful ignorance.

there's little to be done with you if that's the hole in which you stick your head, danny.

let me repeat.

other countries enjoy cheaper, higher quality healthcare than we do.

why in the world wouldn't you want to adopt some of those best practices and enjoy the same kind of success?

again....is it blind political spite?
September 19, 2008

2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

jay,

You are an absolute joke. Your refusal to answer a simple, direct question makes you look like a fool; in addition to your whacked out, leftist ideas.

I'll answer it for you.

Why MUST I participate if I don't want to?

Because we need your money, Dannyar.
Because you will be a contributor and we have a lot of takers.
Because, if you don't participate, then we have to make up that shortfall somewhere else.
Because I like government control. I want government to control as much of your life as I can get the American public to swallow.
Because you can't be trusted to make decisions for yourself; you might choose something that I don't like.
Because government meddling ALWAYS makes things better.
September 19, 2008

2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

suffernofools writes:

C'mon, jay. Answer his question and quit repeating the sound-bites. Why must he or anybody else be forced to participate in a health care plan?
September 19, 2008

3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

lol...you guys stick to the willful ignorance and the political positions which you can't back up with facts.

cheaper, better quality healthcare people.

you have to wonder why you'd be against it.

maybe because rush tells you to.

sad.
September 19, 2008

3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Dannyar asked a loaded (rhetorical) question (why should I be "forced" to participate) then wonders why he doesn't get an answer?

Yes, we know how you are "forced" to pay taxes, and that is tantamount to "stealing" from you. Remember that next time you ride on "stolen" property (the streets) or the city comes by with "stolen" equipment to clean said streets.
September 19, 2008

3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Anderson, jay has a reputation for avoiding direct questions like the plague. He's absolutely terrified of an honest, straightfoward debate on any topic. And for Christ's sake, take a look at this:
"why in the world wouldn't you want to adopt some of those best practices and enjoy the same kind of success?"

Talk about a loaded question! Does the word "hypocritical" mean anything to you, anderson?
September 19, 2008

3:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Rosen: "But there's no "crisis" in the sense that there's a real health-care crisis in much of Africa."

That's true. But keep in mind that we would be much closer to such a crisis if we didn't have Medicaid and Medicare. Without those two programs, we would see a lot of people, including children, very sick and/or dying in this country. Charity programs would not be able to fill the void, just as they can't in Africa, although God bless 'em for trying.
September 19, 2008

4:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

Again, jay refuses to answer the question.

"you have to wonder why you'd be against it.

maybe because rush tells you to."

No, my first inclination is to be against it because you are for it.

Again, I am against it because it is not the role of government and I don't want to participate in another program where I am a net payer. There are already too many of those. I resist when being dragged into a program that uses my tax dollars and is not an essential function of government. It's just wrong.

"Remember that next time you ride on 'stolen' property (the streets) or the city comes by with 'stolen' equipment to clean said streets."

There is a difference, anderson, between paying for infrastructure and subsidizing someone else's housing, transportation, health care, etc.

It wasn't a rhetorical question. I really wanted an answer from jay. Answering me honestly, though, undermines his position. That is why he refused to answer.
September 19, 2008

4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

I think that's kind of a bad comparison, MTS. For example, take a look at Darfur and what happened to aid groups there. According to the account of Brian Steidle, groups like Save The Children were engaged by guerrillas.
Not saying that charity groups can or can't completely fill the void, just that in areas like Africa there are other variables to consider that we don't have here.
September 19, 2008

4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

jay writes: "other countries enjoy cheaper, higher quality healthcare than we do." Really? Other countries like... Uganda? Viet Nam? India?

How come none of these "other countries" ever have names? Because it isn't true. People come from around the world to get to US doctors and US hospitals.

Remember the guy from Georgia with the bad TB who wound up in Denver about a year ago? He fought his way back here THROUGH Italy, THROUGH France, and THROUGH Canada to get back to the US because he rightfully knew that if he relied on the medical attention outside the US - he was as good as dead.

Insurance is a CHOICE. Nobody owes it to you. How many guys are standing in line for a $500 iPhone right now with no insurance? People put their money where their priorities are. Don't come crying to society to cover your tabs when your priorities don't pan out the way you thought they should.
September 19, 2008

4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Oh, and I watched "Sicko" a week or so ago, MTS. Don't want to drive the thread off in that direction...just wanted to let you know since I said I while back that I would.
September 19, 2008

4:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"It's just wrong"

bingo.

you, danny...just like eli, our favorite pouting troll...can't back up your position with logic and facts...but rather rely on "feelings" like the one you expressed above. the problem is...when cornered...you folks rely on willful ignorance to try to keep up.

as usual...ain't gonna happen.

i'll ask again....

why do you folks think our country incapable of adopting the best practices of those countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are?
September 19, 2008

4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

jay,

It is laughable that you accuse me of relying on "feelings" and not logic when you refuse to tell me why I should be REQUIRED to participate when I don't want to. Based on what principle? Why should my money be taken from me when I am fully capable of providing for myself? Because YOU think it is a better system? Then YOU support it and leave me out of it.

"i'll ask again....

why do you folks think our country incapable of adopting the best practices of those countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are?"

Nope. No more answers to your questions until you answer the one I have been asking you.
September 19, 2008

4:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

lol...you can try to say that you don't want cheaper, better quality healthcare because "it's just wrong"...but we know that you're simply marching to the drum like a good little rushian footsoldier, danny.

unless you have anything to add besides willful ignorance and blindered political loyalty...i think we're done here.

and by the way...i'm pretty sure i asked my question first.

nice try though.

thanks for playing.
September 19, 2008

4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"you can try to say that you don't want cheaper, better quality healthcare because "it's just wrong"...but we know that you're simply marching to the drum like a good little rushian footsoldier, danny."

Fine straw man argument, jay.
September 19, 2008

4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Hi Eli. What did you think of "Sicko"?
September 19, 2008

5:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

It should be taken for what it's worth, MTS. That being highly biased and one-sided. That in itself is not bad, so long as people remember that when watching it.
The only real problem I had with it is that it doesn't so much make a case for universal health care as it does whine about how much better everything is pretty much everywhere outside of the U.S. It just appeals to emotion, basically saying, "Look how wonderful life is in France, Cuba, and Canada! Go to hell America!"...and that's pretty much it.
The more reasonable liberals on Rocky Mountain News make better arguments.
I did like the part where he's talking to the Coast Guard with the bullhorn, though. The looks on their faces are priceless.
September 19, 2008

5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

To be fair, I think people on my end of the political spectrum are too hard on Moore. He makes one-sided propaganda pieces, to be sure, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Especially considering he will openly admit that his movies are simply opinion pieces...in his words, "Like op-eds in a newspaper" and "very subjective". For that, he's a lot more respectable than many so-called unbiased journalists.
If you want to see a great interview, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGKl_X...
September 19, 2008

5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

jay,

I asked this question at 2:08 P.M. today after originally asking it at 11:13 A.M.

"You never answered my question of, 'why'? Why MUST I participate if I don't want to?"

You asked this one at 2:12 P.M.

"danny...again...are you saying that you don't want lower cost, higher quality healthcare?"

And I answered this at 2:18 P.M.

"I would love to have that, but not be FORCED to join ANY health care program. I want to choose where my money goes and I don't agree that your program would be better than the one I currently participate in. In any event, it should be my choice."

Would you like to answer mine now?
September 19, 2008

5:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

jay,

I know you won't answer my question because you can't be honest about it. You NEED my money, so you won't let me opt out.

So, keep spewing the same old twisted questions where you assume that your system will be wonderful and ask why I wouldn't want to be a part of it.

But, don't answer my question of why I should be FORCED to be a part of it if I don't want to. Saying that it's wonderful doesn't answer my question.

I hope you will finally stand up and answer it, but I really don't think you will.
September 19, 2008

6:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

carryBIGstick writes:

Why not health care for people, not health care for profit? End pay or die healthcare! Why Mr Rosen,do you want all of us to get sick and die? Fidel Castro gives his Cuban people free health care, and anyone else who needs it. Why can't Rosen and the Nazi/republican/KKK members be more like Castro? Soon however, we wil have fair, affordable health care when LORD JESUS OBAMA, THE GREAT, DIVINE, ALMIGHTY, THE TRUTH, THE LIGHT, AND THE WAY is President.
September 19, 2008

6:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

jjez writes:

Jay, my question: Who decides what PARTS of those heathcare plans are best? The government? The lawyers? The hospital administrators? The doctors? The public? YOU? As evidenced by the posts here, nobody can agree on ANYTHING, so how could all of these disparate groups come a decision about what parts of other countries health care systems would be best? In my opinion, health insurance is unaffordable for so many because of greedy high-up muckety mucks who think it's their privilege to earn several million dollars a year at the expense of the working person. Hospital admins, Insurance co CEOs, etc. And if the "socialized" medical coverage for the gov't is so great, why did Ted Kennedy pay for his own treatment for his brain tumor? Because it's not all it's cracked-up to be.
September 19, 2008

6:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Fine straw man argument, jay."

still struggling with the definition of a strawman argument, eli. for someone who uses them so often, you sure seem to have a blindspot in actually identifying their use by others.

see danny's post above where he said, "it's just wrong" in response to why he believes we shouldn't move towards a uhc.

danny...please see my initial question above...

hint: "it's just wrong" doesn't really qualify as an intelligent response.

would you like to explain to us why you wouldn't want higher quality, cheaper healthcare? you see...since you can't answer this question...it means your question is completely and utterly ridiculous. it is based upon willful ignorance. no surprises there.

hint: because rush said so isn't a valid answer either...just to cut you off at the pass
September 19, 2008

7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

Fresh,

Thank you. I'm sure you've seen in the past that jay refuses to answer questions when he thinks an honest answer will hurt his argument. That was evidenced here. What he doesn't realize, is that a non-answer is the same as the honest answer he is unwilling to offer up. His argument is undermined just the same.

He should just be honest and save himself the dancing.
September 19, 2008

7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

jay and anderson

Socialized medicine better. How?

England:
a man is denied orthopedic care because he refuses to stop smoking.
Ambulances are lined up outside hospitals so that the mandated waiting time can be met.
Epidurals for normal deliveries are ruled out due to low funds

Canada:
end stage breast cancer gets no treatment.
Waiting for an MRI averages 5 months
Waiting for treatment for orthopedic issues can be up to a year before any treatment is started.

France:
The majority of French workers buy extra insurance so they can be assured of treatment.

Got another country in mind?
In the United States, an individual can purchase insurance or pay for treatment as they choose.
The major failure of our health care services stems from governmental interference via Medicare and Medicaid. That was the beginning of ignorance of medical costs and medical alternatives.

What is needed is a means to take the government out of the equation while fulfilling our responsibilities to our elderly and our poor. Those responsibilities are not solely the government's. The individuals have a responsibility to do things right.

We need to expand the governmental role in one way only: more low cost clinics in more areas. These clinics need longer hours and weekend hours. We also need to do away with a "blank check" Medicaid system and institute a sliding scale HSA for the working poor. I'll discuss the non-working poor, since I'm in that group, in a separate post. Start with a flat amount in each account and then add extras for people who need it, like mothers with diabetic children, people born with physical disabilities that have costly treatments and others who will stand out as deserving extra help. Let the people get the tax breaks companies now get for insurance. I'd include an Insurance Credit in the income tax to allow people to buy insurance of their choice to meet their needs. That would include free access to HSAs that would make health care a part of young workers' plans without them paying into a sinkhole.

When this happens, the market will take over and costs will go down. It has already happened in sectors of health care where people spend their own money. Right now, those who have a HSA are able to negotiate lower costs with doctors and discover lower cost alternatives to some tests.

When the market takes over from the current system, people will quickly adapt. Medicare and Medicaid will have to be reformed with only Medicare being left as it is for current "customers" who seek to keep it.

Don't sell the American people short. They want to solve the problems of those who need medical care and can't afford it under the current system. Most realize that other countries taxes are increased by this.
See the next post for an explanation of how the entire system could work and all would be covered without the government needing to pay for or control it.
September 19, 2008

7:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"where he said, "it's just wrong" in response to why he believes we shouldn't move towards a uhc."

Actually, Dannyr said he resists being dragged into a program that uses his money and isn't an essential function of government because "it's just wrong".
You twisted this into ".you can try to say that you don't want cheaper, better quality healthcare because "it's just wrong" which is not what was said.
Let's see...what was that definition of a straw man you used again....ah, here it is:
"setting up an imaginary argument (the strawman) that can more easily be refuted than an opponent's actual argument (knocking down the strawman instead of the real thing)."
You said that at 1:43 on this thread:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

Your 4:35 post here is an absolutely perfect example of this. You distorted Dannyar's comments into something that was not said and then offered a rebuttal to your own made-up argument.
Dannyar did not at all say he "doesn't want cheaper, better care because it's wrong". In fact, his exact words were "I'd love to have that."

Yep, straw man. Not only did you use a straw man, your subsequent denial further proves your pathological liar tendencies. Absolutely pathetic.
September 19, 2008

7:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

jay,

I'll save everyone the trouble of looking back through the posts. Here is where I said it is just wrong:

"Again, I am against it because it is not the role of government and I don't want to participate in another program where I am a net payer. There are already too many of those. I resist when being dragged into a program that uses my tax dollars and is not an essential function of government. It's just wrong."

"would you like to explain to us why you wouldn't want higher quality, cheaper healthcare? you see...since you can't answer this question.."

I did answer the question, jay.

Here:

"are you saying that you don't want lower cost, higher quality healthcare?"

I would love to have that, but not be FORCED to join ANY health care program. I want to choose where my money goes and I don't agree that your program would be better than the one I currently participate in. In any event, it should be my choice.

Your turn again.

Why should I be FORCED to participate in your program if I don't want to?
September 19, 2008

7:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

Remember that the government does not produce anything. Every dime they spend comes from taxpayers. Nearly half of all citizens don't pay income tax. My family is in this group.

Two obstacles to health care:
Insurance companies and the regulations imposed upon them
Government programs that offer health care without knowledge of cost or alternatives.

Problems of health care:
A diverse population with many genetic weaknesses and illnesses that require expensive treatments or medications.
Treatments and cures for conditions that were formerly fatal or untreatable.
Cost ignorance.
My solution:
Eliminate the barriers erected by the insurance companies and Congress between the people HSAs.
Permit insurance companies to sell catastrophic coverage policies which pay for major injuries or illnesses.
Eliminate all special insurance mandates. In exchange for this, any company exempted shall offer coverage to all without regard to pre-existing conditions.
The tax benefit/credit now given to companies shall go to the individual.

Under this plan, all medical care providers shall make available a list of charges for every procedure.

Those who receive welfare benefits shall have a HSA into which a base amount of cash is deposited with adjustments. This plan shall be available to low income people as well but with the addition of a sliding scale of contributions that the participant shall make on a regular basis.
Both plans include a catastrophic coverage policy in case of major disease or injury.

Government clinics shall be built in areas and have hours in evenings and on weekends. It might be better to sub-let this function to Wal-Mart style clinics.

Use of the HSA in such clinics costs one dollar per person per visit. Those who have used up their entire account may use these clinics without charge. Those who manage to build their accounts up to three times the base amount, may, at the end of the year, remove half of those excess funds and use them at will. Adjustments to the amounts deposited to accounts may be made should the health of the participant change. It shall be possible for those working poor to use the HSA to purchase an insurance policy to cover their families and make co-payments. Those policies shall meet conditions that ensure coverage and have a maximum for out of pocket expenses.

Medicare recipients may choose to continue with their current benefit program or change to a special HSA set up for them. They may change back anytime within five years without penalty. Those who are 47 years of age or older may choose the current system of benefits or a HSA which they may combine with their private HSA amounts that they bring with them.
September 19, 2008

8:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

carryBIGstick writes:

P_meyers661
You left out the example of CUBA, you know, the country that treated victims of 9/11, which they were unable to get cared for here in the states. Maybe it was because they were poor and under our current system and occupant of the Office wants poor people to be sick and die.
Vote Obama!!!
September 19, 2008

10:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

ReallyJustCurious writes:

Dannyar -

A joy to read your posts. Please continue the good fight, your logic in process is a pleasure to watch.
September 19, 2008

11:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

It's hard for some, like jay, to answer with an intelligent response when their position is undefensible. Getting government involved isn't a good idea considering their problems with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Part of that is due to the large bureacracy of running those programs. Michael's post at 12:01 is dead on. I've heard several people from Canada tell me that they have to buy health insurance to get their quality healthcare here in America if they want it quicker and done right. Otherwise, they can wait 6 months to a year or more for help that Americans don't wait long for, and some people end up dying from it who might not have if they got the help in a timely manner. Canadians pay a much higher percentage of their income to taxes than Americans.

Here's a few examples of why healthcare costs are high in the United States:

Mandates in coverage. Why is it mandated to have breast cancer exam coverage in insurance for men and prostate cancer exams in insurance for women? Those are only a few, and Colorado is among the states with the most mandates in coverage. Governor Ritter just signed 6 more mandates into law, and those add up to higher costs to get insured. Another reason is with illegals and the uninsured using resources that are paid for by higher costs for healthcare on everyone. A few years ago, Los Angeles County had 64 hospitals close due to the strain of helping illegals with medical help and not getting paid. That ultimately falls upon most of us to make up for it.

Sheik, to answer your question about the healthcare the military and Congress and so on recieves at our expense........ they are the government and us, as taxpayers, pay for their healthcare as a part of their "compensation package". We're the employer and they're the employee.

jay, feel free to mention in detail those best practices that other countries employ, in your opinion.
September 20, 2008

8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

Really,

Thank you. Debating with jay is fun and aggravating at the same time. He has a long history of using the tactics that Eli and I have exposed here.

When pressed for a direct answer, he falls back to the same, "why do you folks think our country incapable of adopting the best practices of those countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are?" question.

He doesn't want to answer my question, so he keeps repeating that same line over and over. He, apparently, doesn't realize that he loses any credibility he might have had when he does that.

The unwillingness to answer someone's direct question, not only reveals your answer, but also shows that you are afraid, or ashamed, to reveal it.
September 20, 2008

11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Patron_Drinker writes:

Fresh,
jay is an idiot. sometimes I feel sorry for him, and want to help him. but then I read one of his posts, and the fact that he doesn't want help becomes painfully obvious yet again.
if Rosen wrote about what a nice person jay is and what a good job jay's parents did raising him, jay would call Rosen a stooge and write about how we are obligated to increase our tax burden to pay for decreased quality of health care for people who don't want it or how increased consumption of finite resources has no bearing on the price of the resource. and then he'd call us limbaugh-holics because we use logic and facts to refute his arguments.
September 21, 2008

5:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Right on danny and patron, you both hit the target dead on.

There's a saying........ you can get it cheap, quick and good. Pick two of the three because you're not getting all three. Healthcare options: cheap and quick, but not good; cheap and good, but not quick; good and quick, but not cheap. Most examples of those plans "we should adopt" fall in with the first two options.
September 22, 2008

6:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Eli, yes, Moore sometimes uses theatrics to make his larger overall points. I think the latter often get overlooked in debates about his use of the former. Anyway, I laughed at the part with the bullhorn and the Coast Guard, too, and also when he was shouting to the guards at Gitmo: "We just want the same treatment as the evildoers!"

There were parts in the documentary that were obviously just harsh reality, though. Truthfully, I cried a little at the part where the hospital had the homeless woman dropped off on Skid Row, and she was just wandering around, people were walking by ignoring her, and finally someone came out from the shelter and put their arm around her and led inside. I thought Moore appropriately asked at that point, "Who are we?"

Whether we go single payer one day or remain privatized in our healthcare system, surely we can do better than that.
September 22, 2008

9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

As soon as Oprah and Michael Moore give up all of their fortunes except what they need for a modest subsistance, I will open up to socialized healthcare. Until they pony up for the cause, they have no right to ask me to pony up for the cause.
September 22, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Good morning MTS,

How are you and your family these days?

The kiddo should be close to his first B-day now, eh?
September 22, 2008

11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'll ask again folks...and will remind you that willful ignorance and far right wing talking points aren't adequate answers.

why do you folks think our country incapable of adopting the best practices of those countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are?

remember...unless you can make the case that you're "forced" into accepting protection from police and fire depts or "forced" into driving on roads maintained by city and state road crews...that ol' rushian talking point isn't going to help you win this debate either.

and eli...remember my little favorite pouting troll...you have yet to answer this pesky question and months of avoiding it either.

like playing dodgeball with children.
September 22, 2008

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, thanks for remembering. He just turned a year old last week! We had a fun little party for him to celebrate. Can't believe a year has gone by already. Hope your own family is happy and well!
September 22, 2008

11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay,

"...Like playing dodgeball with children."

Yeah, and you're "intellectual" arguments are about on pace with Billy Madison's "Suntan lotion" song too.

"Suntan lotion is good for me. It protects me, tee hee hee."
September 22, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Hey, MTS,

Trying like crazy to get out of my job and into something else. I can't stand the commute. I almost perished in a bad car accident on my way to work last week, the reason that I wasn't the first to pick a fight with a lib in the Rosen column this week.

The kid is getting better...finally. She is a really happy baby when her stomach isn't in pain.
September 22, 2008

11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

I'll take that as your concession regarding the straw man argument, jay. Glad I'm your "favorite pouting troll", though. I'm flattered.

Happy birthday to your son, MTS! Good luck with the "terrible twos"...not too far off now :)
September 22, 2008

12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

jay,

I copied my post from Friday night to give you another chance to answer the question. You must have had a great weekend and simply forgot to answer it.

Here you go:

jay,

I'll save everyone the trouble of looking back through the posts. Here is where I said it is just wrong:

"Again, I am against it because it is not the role of government and I don't want to participate in another program where I am a net payer. There are already too many of those. I resist when being dragged into a program that uses my tax dollars and is not an essential function of government. It's just wrong."

"would you like to explain to us why you wouldn't want higher quality, cheaper healthcare? you see...since you can't answer this question.."

I did answer the question, jay.

Here:

"are you saying that you don't want lower cost, higher quality healthcare?"

I would love to have that, but not be FORCED to join ANY health care program. I want to choose where my money goes and I don't agree that your program would be better than the one I currently participate in. In any event, it should be my choice.

Your turn again.

Why should I be FORCED to participate in your program if I don't want to?
September 22, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, I've been there. Take heart, wanting badly to get out of the rat race is the crucial first step to actually doing so.

Eli, looks like the "terrible twos" are arriving a bit early. He just said his first "sentence" the other day as my husband was trying to put him in his highchair: "NO DADA!!"

eeks. i'm scared.
September 22, 2008

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

What I can't figure out is why Rosen has any credibility on any issue (maybe I've answered my own question: he doesn't, for thinking people). He's been wrong on practically every issue that he's pontificated on in his career. In 2000, he was devoting whole shows to why Enron was being "falsely accused" of conspiring to set energy prices in California. We all know how that turned out. In 2002-3, of course, he was busy telling us what a threat Iraq and its WMDs were to our national security. Same result. No more than 2 years ago, he was touting the Bush economy and pooh-poohing the idea of an imminent collapse in the housing market. Is there anything this guy has been right on?
September 22, 2008

1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

jay: "why do you folks think our country incapable of adopting the best practices of those countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are?"

Here's a thought jay..... name the countries, tell us how it's better and cheaper (and still as quick as the healthcare we receive in America), and why we should adopt them. Are you capable of that?
September 22, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

MTS,
Would you mind if I ask what your business is and how you got into it? I've been doing a ton of reading about home businesses, entrepreneurship, etc. recently so I was a bit curious.
September 22, 2008

1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

I'd prefer not to get into specifics on the Internet. Call me paranoid, but you never know if someone could track you down based on one little piece of information. I do have a website and a few key words could lead someone pretty easily to who I am and what I do.

I don't consider you such a risk, but let's face it, some of the posters on this forum come across as rather unstable.
September 22, 2008

1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Cwillyrun1 and Dannyar,

I have noticed that you are involved in an ongoing smackdown of jay. While Eli has his reasons for endlessly arguing with jay, I just wanted to quickly warn you about what you are getting into.

You will almost always win your arguments with jay, but not necessarily because your side's arguments are correct and his are wrong. He does not argue based on the strengths of American liberalism. He thinks that it has no weaknesses, so he will never concede your points.

Instead of arguing, like MTS (who is my favorite liberal on here), about his side's strengths, he uses unfair tactics; namecalling, declaring victory, ignoring valid arguments and sometimes entire conversations, citing links that do not help his cause (although he spins them to) or that are already spun by people who are openly liberals or even socialists, and spinning your own words either out of context or even misquoting.

You will always win, but he will almost always get in the last word. No matter how stupid you make him look, the last thing your random reader will read is him making fun of you...so in a sense, you always lose.

It is a complete waste of time. I think RMN pays him to post so that irked conservatives keep hitting their site.

Don't argue with jay. Others to avoid; Wassicka (spelling) and Holierthanthou (who I think is a flaming commy). Good, hearty liberal arguers include MTS, Malis, and Anderson (if you don't mind getting into minute details about nearly irrelevant crap). They fight fair most of the time. There are a few other good ones, but most libs on here are just hating on republicans and don't listen to or even care about arguments, although to be fair to them, at least, unlike jay, they usually go away after they realize they don't know their ears from their armpits.
September 22, 2008

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

Is your business a niche that the market missed (and you are filling), a franchise, or are you in a specific industry that is fairly competitive and has plenty of players? Is it something you enjoy, or did you pick it because you saw potential? How did you go about the brainstorming process on what and how to do it? Did you have all your bases covered (via a business plan), or did you have a lot of stumbles in the beginning? Large startup costs or easy entry? How did you raise capital?

Just asking for tips. I am thinking about pulling the trigger, but it would be fruitless to do so without an inspired and well-researched idea.
September 22, 2008

2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

eli, one piece of advice I could give to you about striking out on your own is to capitalize on what you already know.

For example, if you're coming from a particular industry, you could advise a targeted demographic of consumers or businesses who deal with that industry.

Let's say you're coming from the mortgage industry. Despite the housing crunch, people are still buying. They could use an adviser to walk them through all the legalese. You could even post an ad on Craigslist advertising such services.

In my opinion, there is a real need there. Realtors are working for the seller, I don't care how much they try to position themselves as representing the buyer. So, house-hunters really could use an advocate of some sort.

That's just one example, no matter the industry you come from, if you market yourself right you can be a bona fide consultant. A good start in terms of introducing yourself could be to grab a speaking engagement at a local chamber of commerce get-together. Or any applicable community venue and event.
September 22, 2008

2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, what I do has a couple of key advantages. First and foremost, it has an incredibly broad market. I've chosen the B2B sector, but I could easily do what I do in the consumer and B2G arenas, too.

The second advantage is that it required very little start-up cash, HOWEVER, it got off the ground slower than it would have if I had invested more in targeted advertising at the get-go.

But regardless, my desire to work for myself was so keen, that pretty much is what drove my eventual ability to actually do so. All the preparations in the world won't help unless you have the true and unwavering desire to never work for another employer again.

What I do is very competitive in terms of both individual players and established agencies competing for the same clients. However, some of the agencies do hire individual contractors from time to time, so that takes some of the competitive edge off, too.

Pretty much every space is competitive. That doesn't matter, because most people drop out of the game. There is an old saying: "Most people would score a knockout if they would only manage to stay in the game for a few more rounds." Remember that.

Speaking of which, I've had lots of dead ends, disappointments, and required new starts. The key is to always keep every pot boiling on the stove. NEVER depend on one opportunity that hasn't happened yet, I don't care how surefire it seems. That is the fist lesson I learned. Until you have a signed deal, it isn't real yet. Always keep a lot of different tactics and plans in play. Keep working your leads and different markets. The law of numbers will eventually pan out in your favor.

Another very important lesson: People tend to value you as much as you value yourself. If you charge too little, they won't take you seriously. (Of course, no one should feel comfortable charging a significant rate if they're not actually good at what they do.)
September 22, 2008

2:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

oops, meant to address eli, not spencerr in my last post.
September 22, 2008

2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Thanks MTS,

Sounds like good advice. Good luck with your business. And congrats again on the tyke's birthday.
September 22, 2008

2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

MTS,
Have you ever read "The Four Hour Workweek"?
September 22, 2008

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

still running i see.

let's try again...and remember conspiracy theories about "strawman arguments", willful ignorance and rushian rhetoric about being "forced" into things like being protected by police, firefighters and those evil folks at parks and rec aren't valid answers.

why do you folks think our country incapable of adopting some of the best practices of those countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are?

i've been asking the same question of you folks on the far right for months...and will continue to do so until someone has the intelligence and honesty to answer it.

i never thought someone could flee a politically inconvenient fact as long as you have, eli.
September 22, 2008

3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

"why do you folks think our country incapable of adopting some of the best practices of those countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are?"

jay,

Your question assumes too many things.

Best practices according to whom?
Better and cheaper than we are? Measured how?
Is the program financed by those who pay a lot in taxes? Then I don't want any part of it.

Now, YOU quit running and answer MY question.

Why should I be FORCED to participate in your program if I don't want to?
September 22, 2008

3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

spencerr,

Thanks, but I already knew that about jay. This isn't the first time I've seen him do his dance. He is an idiot and I enjoy exposing that to all who read these exchanges.
September 22, 2008

5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Eli writes: "MTS, Have you ever read "The Four Hour Workweek"?"

No, but I already like the title! :) I'll look it up on Amazon and check out the synapsis and reviews. You recommend it?
September 22, 2008

5:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Yeah, especially for you since you're already running your own business. You should be able to find it at the library, but you'll probably have to put a copy on hold online.
It has a lot of really good ideas regarding time management and things you can do as far as automation and outsourcing, and some pretty good advice for managing your financial goals.

I agree with you on the mortgage business, I could see how someone guiding a buyer through everything could get a lot of customers. Definitely not my area of expertise at all though, so that's probably a no-go for me. My work history is military, banking and IT...I have a handful of ideas that are IT related but it'll take a lot more research on my part before I could implement anything.
September 22, 2008

6:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

Dannyar: Thanks, but I already knew that about jay. This isn't the first time I've seen him do his dance. He is an idiot and I enjoy exposing that to all who read these exchanges.

Compared to you, Jay is a genius.

Case in point:
Why should I be FORCED to participate in your program if I don't want to?

Because we live in a society, and in a society we sometimes have to do what we, as individuals, don't want to. "Promote the common good"- look it up, it's in the Declaration of Independence.
September 22, 2008

7:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

WestminsterJ,

So, as long as the majority wants it, it must be good and we all have to go along with it? And, even though it is NOT my responsibility to help others pay for their health care, I must...because we live in a 'society'?

That's brilliant.

At least that is better than jay's refusal to answer; it's idiotic, but better than refusing to answer.
September 22, 2008

10:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

what did i tell you about the willful ignorance, danny?

better.

cheaper.

any questions?
September 22, 2008

11:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

Dannyar: it is NOT my responsibility to help others pay for their health care,

That's the point, it *is* your responsibility, or, rather, it is the collective responsibility of our society, of which you are a voluntary member.
The amazing thing is you probably have no problem with paying taxes to pay for bad debts acquired by a bunch of high-living a-holes on Wall Street.
September 22, 2008

11:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

I find it amusing how jay will refuse to answer a direct question, and then end his post with "any questions?"
September 23, 2008

6:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

WestminsterJ,

That is the answer that I have been trying to get from jay, so thank you for that.

The "collective" responsibility of our society to pay for health care. Where is that written?

How about for housing too; and food, transportation, clothing...?

"any questions?"- jay

Yes, the one I have asked you about 10 times.
September 23, 2008

7:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Dannyar,

Not to mention, we are not voluntary members of society. We were born into it, and we do the best for ourselves. Whether fortunate or unfortunate, America happens to be the least collectivist, nannyist nation in the world, so here is the obvious choice to live, given that one has a choice. Relative to the rest of the modernized world, we still live in the land of opportunity. Unfortunately Westminsterhippysocialist and his ilk would like to re-cast our nation in their kumbaya mold. They don't even realize that what is good for the whole is to let individuals have their freedoms and receive the fruits of their own toils. Nobless oblige has turned from a voluntary act by the very well off into a compulsary function of the government.

You Rushian footsoldier! :)
September 23, 2008

8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

Dannyar- It isn't written anywhere, anymore than it's written anywhere that we have to have laws against rape. It's just part of being a civilized society. Although, actually, you could imply a right to basic health care from "right to *life*, liberty and pursuit of happiness". And, to clarify, that's what I'm talking about, *basic* health care, not to Mike Rosen-style plastic surgery or any procedure that we think we're entitled to. And I'm talking about health care for those who have met their responsibilities for living in a society, i.e. not criminals.
And yes, a good society will provide basic public transportation (ie buses along main routes, not door-to-door limousine service) and food (soup kitchens) and clothing where those are not available by private charities. As to housing, a functional society would have small apartments and "starter homes" within the means of those who work full-time for minimum wage; if the private sector cannot provide them, because home builders are too busy building luxury homes for the welathy, then, yes the govt has to step in.
September 23, 2008

8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

spencerr- You refuted yourself; you say you are not a voluntary member of society, then say you have chosen to live here. "Collectivist, nannyist" "hippysocialist" "Kumbaya"- could you work some more cliches into your post?
September 23, 2008

8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

That says it all, WestminsterJ, thank you. At least you are honest about your socialist views, unlike jay.

"you could imply a right to basic health care from 'right to *life*, liberty and pursuit of happiness'."

Right to Life- Does not mean that others are obligated to maintain your life for you.

Liberty- My liberty is stripped from me when I don't own the product of my labor. I, in essence, become a slave to the masses when they decide to take from me the money I earn.

Pursuit of Happiness- I am happy when I am allowed to keep the money I earn; not when I am forced to turn it over to others who have not earned it.
September 23, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Westminster,

I was born an American, and if I was not born an American, I would have been born into another society. That I choose to remain an American is a testament to my love for a country that lets me be free relative to other countries. Yes I choose to remain an American. Did I choose to be born into a society? No. I am not completely reclusive, for the sake of my family mostly. I don't regret my decision, but my second choice would be to live in a wood shack in Alaska, staying away from people and hiding what little money I had from the government.

Government was originally created to establish property rights and to provide services considerred "public goods" (such as road infrastructure, police, fire department and military) that are essential for society but that no one would be willing to pay for. The liberals are delving way out of bounds of the constitution by creating these non-essential programs.

Just because you see the broad term "right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independance (not as a right in our constitution or any of its amendments), does not mean that you can broadly determine that the right to life means the right to free healthcare at your fellow citizens' expense.

Life means that you have the right to live. Liberty means that you have a right to liberties within reason. And pursuit of happiness means that you can pursue happiness. There is nothing deeper in those statements, and even if there were, it is not a document upon which litigation and legislation are based.

And just because I call a duck a duck, using cliches, doesn't mean it's not true.
September 23, 2008

9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr: "but my second choice would be to live in a wood shack in Alaska, staying away from people and hiding what little money I had from the government"

And yet, you probably vote the straight Republican ticket at every election. In case you haven't noticed, your party subscribes to a hyper-growth for the sake of growth policy that is eventually going to eliminate the option for anyone to live undisturbed in the woods.

I've seen you and other repubs on these forums make so many sneering references about "enviro-whackos" towards anyone who objects to the continued decimation of wilderness and wildlife. For the life of me, I will never understand how you can square those insults with your secret longing to be a "rugged individualist" living in the wild.
September 23, 2008

10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

mytwosense,

It goes back to my balancing act theory that you blew off a couple of months ago when I presented it to you. If you recall, it was my basic postulation that we all know at least some of the facts (though, God knows you have caught me in misinformation before). Then we each get out our scales and weigh it, coming to our own conclusions. Yours and mine are different based on what each of us values most.

I would say that you and I are both informed enough to understand each other's basic conclusions.

There is one fact that will likely always (at least over the next fifty to one hundred years) be true about this world; the population is growing. What would you do? The world population can live in densely populated, highly polluted cities like Mexico City, L.A., New York and Hong Kong, or they can sprawl out into habitat previously considered nature. Quality of life for some 4 billion people in this world is sub-par...economic growth, for them, is the answer. Admittedly, it doesn't have to be the answer for us.

I value humans and their well-being over nature. But I do value both. For instance, I once had a high-speed auto collision with a large deer-like animal (the largest in Colorado). I was devastated that I killed such a beautiful creature, but I was relieved to be alive. Had I killed a human instead, I probably would be in a straight jacket right now.

I value nature highly, just not over humans, humanity, and our populations in general. I work forty hours a week at a job I hate for a wage that is pathetic for my education and experience. More than half of that income goes straight into my mortgage. Life is hard (I realize this may come off as whining). It is much harder for at least a quarter of Americans.

I value economics and growth over environment because I see it as the only way to make almost all Americans' lives better while maintaining a semblance of fairness for those whose lives are already good. I would rather that we all become more prosperous together rather than poorer together.
September 23, 2008

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

My decision to choose individual and business freedom from government was not made lightly. Believe it or not, I am more liberal than I was three months ago, at least in thought. I am human. I have emotions. I value the environment. I am susceptible to personal anecdotes about people who have it hard. I HATE big oil, especially the foreign kind. I HATE all corruption, government and business alike. I feel bad for the poor. I feel bad for those who have not taken Jesus as their savior. When I look at my daughter, I wonder how so many people could simply kill theirs.

However, I attempt to lean on logic in my decision-making process, using it to break ties between two conflicting values, and logic tells me that even though some heads of companies are corrupt, the market on average works better when governments (which are just as often corrupt) are not involved. Logic also tells me that, within reason, people's needs trump the desire to cut back on carbon emissions because they may (or may not) contribute to global warming.
September 23, 2008

10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS, I do vote a straight republican ticket, just as you vote a straight democrat ticket. However, I normally make it a habit of trying to vote judges out of office if I think they are liberal. I am certain that I accidentally voted the wrong way a few times.
September 23, 2008

10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

But if we really decimate nature once and for all, humans will become extinct, too.

And all of the goods that provide this comfortable life for Americans come from natural resources. To use it all up so fast and in such quantity is just plain reckless, period.

What's more, a larger proportion of the world's population don't even get nearly the level of benefits of this hyper consumption of resources, or as you call it "economics and growth."

So can you really say your support of these policies is a clear demonstration of how you value humanity? I just don't see it.

It's not that I don't appreciate electricity, modern health care, the ability to take a road trip in a car, an abundance of food. I do, very much. But I think we are going through the resources that provide such an overwhelming abundance way too fast and irresponsibly, with little concern for conservation.

And I'd like to see more people have a share of this abundance. If that means I have to reduce some of my own share, I'm all for it. In my heart, I know I have too much as it is compared to about a billion other people in the world. Does that make me a socialist? If that's truly the definition of a socialist, then I would be honored to be called one. However, it's not.
September 23, 2008

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr writes: "MTS, I do vote a straight republican ticket, just as you vote a straight democrat ticket."

Actually, I'm a registered Independent.
September 23, 2008

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, just for the record, in many ways I'm liberal. But, I've also got some libertarian views, too.

I've actually been doing a lot of thought about public education in the last several months. While I still agree every child should have access to education, I worry that our system is too big, too institutionalized.

But to me, everything leads back to this consumer lifestyle we subscribe to. We wouldn't need 8-hour schools if more parents could stay home instead of working. Kids could go to school for just a few hours instead, or more parents might opt to home school.

Unfortunately, our current way of living is not set up to support such an approach to education. And frankly, I see both Repubs and Dems buying into the system that keeps our kids trapped in an educational "facility" all day long.
September 23, 2008

10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

First of all, I have not yet accused you of being a socialist in this conversation, though I did fling an insult at Westminster and "his ilk."

A socialist is by definition someone who believes that the government should be in charge of the means of production. That you would advocate for government-provided healthcare and government programs that provide goods and services to people does not simply make you a socialist because we live in an economy that is a hybrid of both socialism and capitalism. It makes you more of a socialist than me, but I don't think you subscribe to Mao or Lenin's version of economics, and they were pure socialists.

So, you are not a socialist, and it is unfair of me to call you one (because I have, in the past).

Not that I am completely defeatist, but what is the end result for humanity anyway, not to mention the earth; The answer is utter destruction.

And I, for one, do not live in any sort of abundance. I drove a car that got 38 miles to the gallon (until an elk wrecked it). I have a big, cheap old TV with bunny ears and live in a pretty good neighborhood, and I can't afford anything outside of feeding my family. As far as I am concerned, I will give to charitable causes that depend on government volunteers. I will not freely give to government under the false pretense that they are equally benevolent or even remotely capable of doing a decent job without wrecking our economy by stealing people's money which would have largely otherwise gone into investment.

We are deteriorating the environment, but it is not in the doomsday predicament your tenth grade biology teacher would have you believe it is. There are plenty of competent scientists with good values who believe based on good science that we are living a sustainable existance.

Your arguments with me are clearly based on your beliefs, which are not necessarily facts. Your opinion of me and the politics I espouse are dependant completely on the assumption that the scientists on your side of the isle are correct. They may not be, and there is some evidence to the contrary, though I am certain you don't really feel like arguing about whether global warming is man-made or not today, do you?

P.S. You may be an independant, but you are still a liberal. You are only dependant because of the abortion issue, and (now I am assuming) you value environmentalism and redistribution of wealth over the social issues. You are an independant merely out of protest about the social issues.
September 23, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

My thoughts on your last post.

I am glad to know that you are not a California liberal. I honestly believe that a true liberal wants to grow government for the sake of indoctrination, especially in the school systems. I am glad you think it is more important for parents to have a chance to educate their kids than for the public schools to push the democrat party agenda on nearly everyone's kids.

It is my goal to educate my daughter and any future siblings. I am an aspiring book author, and with any luck, I will one day be successful. The end result would be me writing four hours a day and spending the rest of my time with my family.

Do your libertarian views ever conflict with your liberal views? You will see yourself migrate to the right a little when they do. Just an observation.
September 23, 2008

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, you confuse "liberal" with "Democrat" way too much. The truth is, your average Democratic politician is corporate-owned and subscribes to growth and rampant materialism, just on maybe a slightly smaller level than his/her Republican counterparts.

It's basically the "Good cop, Bad cop" routine.

In my ideal world, we wouldn't have Big Government, Big Business, and Big Education. There would be more of an emphasis on localized economies, with small, democratically-run governance and enthusiastic, but not required, civic participation.

Your average Democrat and Republican are doing little to advance my ideal world.
September 23, 2008

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

When I say democrat, I mean democrat, and when I say liberal, I mean liberal.

In reality, you have two choices, democrat and republican. I assumed that you vote democrat because they are the more liberal of the two. I realize that you don't fit nicely with either party.

You and I are not THAT different. I would happily live in your ideal world, as long as you could guarantee that people who got help from my tax dollars were doing their best to provide for themselves.

Anyway, ideally, I would live in Podunkville, population 2,000, in the middle of nowhere in Colorado. I would farm or even clerk at a gas station if it meant that kind of life, that is if I could talk my wife into the idea of me having a horrible career. Doesn't mean I would force it on others though.
September 23, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"Kids could go to school for just a few hours instead, or more parents might opt to home school."

I have a question for both of you regarding education. I've read a lot of stories recently talking about increases in the number of people turning to home schooling for their kids. Will either of you be doing this with your children?
September 23, 2008

11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Eli,

I think so. She is too young and I am too far removed from actually finding my ideal career to tell for certain.

I can't stomach the idea of a public education and I can't afford a private education. Not to mention, I know that I am smart enough and educated enough to do better than a teacher who has twenty other kids to attend to.
September 23, 2008

11:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

spencer jr...what have i told you about the socialism boogeyman stories?

"I do vote a straight republican ticket"

yep....and can't justify those votes based on policy stances.

we've debunked those tired old far right wing talking points more times than we've debunked the myths about iraq being necessary.

eli...i guess i'm looking for questions that don't involved willful ignorance or rushian talking points about being 'forced' into being protected by the police or firefighters.

do you or danny actually have any of those?

in the meantime...here's that pesky question yet again....which is why i love asking it...because it gets the discussion on healthcare immediately to a head....

why do you think our country incapable of adopting some of the best practices of those country who do healthcare better and cheaper than we do?
September 23, 2008

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay,

Did you actually read the content of my posts to see the context in which I used the word "socialism," or did you just see the word socialism and decide it was time to taunt me.
September 23, 2008

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, I'm trying to talk my husband into what I call our "Five Year Plan to Freedom." Instead of chaining ourselves to a thirty-year mortgage, I say we buy in outright cash an RV, and travel the country. Permanently. We could stay in certain places for a few months and do quirky jobs like "lighthouse keeper" or work on an organic strawberry farm in the Pacific Northwest.

And we could homeschool our son along the way. There is actually a rather large faction of perfectly respectable families who are living this way. My husband has some serious reservations about it, though.

Eli, to answer your question, I may or may not homeschool my child. It's something I just recently began to ponder, and not a decision I would make lightly.

If I did, I'd probably choose the more radical "Unschooling" approach. Look it up, it's pretty different than what we have been brought up to believe is the right approach to education.
September 23, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

That kind of life would be quite interesting. It is not the way Americans are used to living. I think it would be fun, but there is too much uncertainty for my taste.

I have lived abroad and in Hawaii. I have visited a quarter of the states including Alaska. I don't need to see any more of the world, though I don't knock you for it. That would be an interesting and probably a fun lifestyle.

It would just be hard to live within a model of lifestyle so different from the traditional lifestyle.

Personally, I like the idea of having ten acres in any direction separating my neighbors from me.

Also, if your son has difficulty making friends and otherwise socializing, you would probably be committing him to a very difficult childhood. I was an Army brat, and life on the move was generally miserable for me until my pop separated and I was able to have the same friends for more than one year. My little bro seemed to thrive on it though. Just depends on the individual.
September 23, 2008

11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

It's interesting to note that the home school movement is comprised of two distinct factions.

You've got one group who views institutional education as an indoctrination camp thats going to turn their children into godless heathen communists.

Then you've got a completely different faction who fears institutional education is a training camp meant to reshape our children into mindless cogs for the machine of corporate commerce.

Completely different reasons for their suspicions, but the suspicions are just as equal in their intensity.
September 23, 2008

11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Good luck though! I hope that works out for you. To each her own.
September 23, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, that's a real possibility with such a life on the road. But wouldn't your daughter likewise be isolated on ten acres of land and schooled at home?

I suppose church and get-togethers with other homeschooling families could fill in the void, though.

My understanding is that a lot of families who RV full time plan get-togethers too, but yeah, there would not be the same opportunity to build long-term relationships for my son. It's definitely something I consider.

Maybe we would just do it until he's 13 or so. And, he would meet a lot of interesting people along the way, from numerous generations. Not just be stuck with people his own age all day, every day. We really segregate the generations in this country, albeit probably not intentionally.
September 23, 2008

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

I suspect you are somewhere in between actually.

I suspect you think that public schools would turn your kids into Godless heathen cogs. :)

I have a story for you. Once, sitting in the mat room of Flood Middle School in Englewood, Colorado, a teacher approached my class of about twenty and gave us quick directions, "Okay everyone, are you ready? I am going to dump pennies on the floor and you have to grab up as many as possible."

Before we could gain our wits, she dump a bucket full of pennies all over the floor. I completely laid on top of the them and managed to collect like ninety percent of them. I had a couple dollars worth. The most anybody else had was five. Most had none.

The teacher than approached us and said, "Okay, now you have a choice. You obviously don't need all those pennies, and there are others who have none. If it was real money they would be starving. You can either keep all the pennies for yourself, or share them with your friends."

My classmates all gave me puppy eyes and started begging me for pennies. I went ahead and gave them out.

MTS, tell me that that is not an overt lesson in socialism! Of course, I didn't know it at the time.

I don't want anyone indoctrinating my kids except for me. When their minds are strong enough, they will go to whatever college they like and get a more rounded (liberal) education.
September 23, 2008

11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

MTS,
Regarding your RV plan, if you really want to do something like that then you should without a doubt check out that book. There are a lot of good ideas in there (and a lot that I think is bull too, but it's still worth the read) to kind of phase yourself out of your business and really free up your time.
Another thing to maybe get your husband to consider might be to just take a year or so to travel instead of doing so permanently. My girlfriend was traveling around SE Asia for four months and met quite a few couples who had taken their kids out of school for the year to travel. They were still giving their kids home lessons while traveling, but even if they weren't I'd bet the experience turns out to be more valuable for their education than that one year in public school ever would be. Your husband may very well be much more receptive to the idea of temporary travel than a huge leap into a permanent lifestyle change like that.

"don't involved willful ignorance or rushian talking points about being 'forced' into being protected by the police or firefighters."

Jay, how many straw man arguments do you plan on using in one thread? Nobody has said they are being forced into being protected by police and firefighters. You made that argument up on your own.
Now, before you throw a fit about the definition of a straw man...let me point you to this thread:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

Here, I cited a number of terrorist incidents which happened during the Clinton administration in response to a post by no_more_republicans, and to quote myself I said that the point was "...to debunk the liberal myth that the era was a time free of terrorist incidents."
This was hyperbole on my part. You called it a straw man, saying "nobody has said it was a time free of terrorist incidents".
I actually conceded the point on that. It was sloppy on my part.
But here, you do the same thing, and will undoubtedly continue to deny your use of straw man arguments.
September 23, 2008

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, actually, your annecdote reveals a lot more about you than whatever your teacher's motivation for such a lesson.

You were told to *grab up* as much of the money as you could - and you broke the rule by flinging yourself on top of almost all of it.

Doesn't it say something to you that most of the kids in your class did not share that instinct?

*files this story away for future use and consideration*
September 23, 2008

12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

At any rate, it sounds more like a lesson about charity. Which I thought you were a proponent of.
September 23, 2008

12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I didn't cheat. Of course, my putting her lines in quotes was more of a paraphrase. I didn't break the rules. It was fifteen years ago, and I don't recall the exact verbage.

Anyway, there were kids along all walls, and she threw the pennies in my general direction. Sure the four or five kids sitting closest to me could have done the same thing. The point is that she meant for one or a few of us to get all the pennies, and then she appealed to our emotions in a very effective attempt to demonstrate the compassion of liberalism (if not socialism).

The meaning was lost on us at the time. And maybe I am being too suspicious. While I have no doubt that she was trying to teach us a lesson about giving, I also suspect that the lesson was actually meant to influence our political nature. But maybe it was as innocent as trying to teach four or five boys to be a little nicer.

I have to admit, it was fun, and I enjoyed bartering and otherwise interacting with some of the other kids.
September 23, 2008

12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

I am very jaded about anyone who is in the employ of the government in a role that might be better either eliminated or privatized.

To make my point, I could just as easily have referred back to my tenth grade biology teacher telling us that the carrying capacity of the Earth would peak in 2040, and that we are gradually progressing toward hell on earth.

Or, I could have pointed at him telling me that creationism is completely bogus.

My point is that someone who is uneducated is a little ball of silly puddy, ripe for the molding. Most of us, at sixteen and younger, readily believe what a teacher is telling us or trying to teach us without question. We don't know that there are two or more points of view to the same topic.

And while they are teaching us the skills that we need in order to be functional in the economy and/or government (aka make us cogs), they are not immune to the desire to pass along their own political beliefs about any given topic. By definition, public schools are filled with people who ideologically believe in public schools.

Anyway, I was just trying to make a point about your indoctrination post. I guess, point lost.
September 23, 2008

12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

And I am a proponent of charity...though I must admit that I haven't done much since leaving Hawaii. Too busy at the moment. Guess it isn't going to get any better any time soon, so I oughta just pony up and get out into the community.
September 23, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, for what it's worth, I thought your story was funny. I can just imagine every year the teacher re-enacts that lesson, there's always some kid who does the exact same thing!

And at least you willingly shared your pennies. :) Winning the prize is often more rewarding than the prize itself!

We learn about sharing and concepts of community in many different settings. Taking communion at church is one example that comes to my mind. And after all, the Bible does tell us to love our brother and to take care of the poor. It really doesn't go into details into how.

Isn't it ultimately good for humanity's chances of survival to have such attitudes?

And on a much more micro level, it's much easier to manage a classroom of children if they have at least some values of compassion and sharing. Otherwise, things could soon deteriorate into a Lord of the Flies scenario...
September 23, 2008

12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

Such lessons should be left to parents. As conservative parents, most of us are not going to teach our children that it is enviable to be a corrupt businessman. Most will teach our kids to share with their cousins and brothers. My wife plans on getting our daughter involved in things like Habitat for Humanity and soup kitchens as soon as she is old enough.

I plan on growing tomatoes and other garden vegetables with my daughter, the larger part of which will be donated to men's homeless shelters.

In retrospect, the experience seems a little fishy, a little out of bounds for any school to be teaching its kids.

Anyway, we are mostly on the same page with regard to thoughts on homeschooling. Besides the worry of indoctrination, there is only so much one person with a B.A. or B.S. can teach a group of twenty to forty all at once. The effects are obviously dilluted.

I have actually been thinking about getting together a group of parents to do a private/charter-type thing, but it is at least four years down the road.

Get five or ten other like-minded parents together and take turns supplementing the kids' educations with a variety of knowledge and activities from the other parents, showcasing the abilities and strengths of the others.
September 23, 2008

1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr writes: "MTS, Such lessons should be left to parents."

Sadly, many parents aren't teaching their children basic lessons in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. For some kids, outside influences is their best hope.

Besides, a lesson is learned more effectively when children see others besides their parents teaching them. We cannot keep our children isolated from the world inevitably, and it's the better for them if most of the adults they encounter are teaching them to be respectful and caring of each other.

You may not subscribe to "It takes a village," but I do. I will not always be there to teach my child right from wrong, as much I want to be.

And if you really think only *parents* should teach their kids about basic concepts of human decency, then don't send them to Sunday school. Don't send them to Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. And I guess don't send them to private or public school, because all teachers at some point have to talk to kids about sharing and not bullying each other.
September 23, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

In reflection, I gave my three anecdotal stories (two regarding the science teacher and the pennies in the mat room) as evidence that indoctrination is taking place in public schools.

To be fair, everyone is political in their interactions with others, especially when given the responsibility of teaching children.

My wonderful parents basically split duties with the family of a self-described socialist. When we were of tween age, we spent day and night with each other, and my conservative parents helped raise him, and his socialist parents helped raise me. Lessons were learned. Both sets of parents respected the beliefs of the other to the point that politics and economics mostly stayed out of our combined upbringing.

I was just trying to make the point that indoctrination does take place in any school, not just public. I most certainly will allow my little girl to get involved in activities. However, I most certainly will not allow my little girl to go to my public alma mater. Not only because of the indoctrination factor, but because my wife and I can do it better.
September 23, 2008

6:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Are you going to teach her that the theory of evolution is bunk, and that there is no such thing as man-made global warming? Just curious.
September 23, 2008

7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

as always, spencer jr...no one is going to turn the country into a "socialist" state...no matter what rush tells you. and for the record...global warming deniers are just as irrelevant as creationists....

and yes, eli, whining that you're going to be "forced" to accept better, cheaper healthcare is just like whining that you're being "forced" into being protected by the nation's police forces.

still waiting on ANYONE to answer this politically inconvenient question from which you've been running for MONTHS...

why do you think our country incapable of adopting some of the best practices of those country who do healthcare better and cheaper than we do?
September 23, 2008

10:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"...whining that you're going to be "forced" to accept better, cheaper healthcare is just like whining that you're being "forced" into being protected by the nation's police forces."

Regardless of whether one agrees with this statement or not, the fact remains that it was a straw man argument, jay.
September 24, 2008

8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

First, I thought you would be a creationist given what I know about you.

Secondly, no. I will teach my daughter about both in both cases, trying to be as neutral as possible regarding the science of global warming. I will teach her that creationism is correct, but I will teach her what evolution is, especially since microevolution is completely valid. Macroevolution, the theory that we all originated from primordial ooze and somehow grew our gene pool to become what we are right now...I will teach her that that is mainstream but wrong. I have good materials already for those lessons.

Global warming is a little harder because I want her to be able to make up her own mind. The only righward slant I will give her is to emphasize that academia and the media have declared discussion over on the topic despite the fact that many experts aren't so sure that global warming is man-made.

Anyway, regardless of what political views she has when she grows up, if I omit the liberal side of the issues while educating her, she will eventually run across very intelligent liberals who will give her a potentially valid re-education. I run the risk of losing all credibility in her eyes, and worst of all, I risk watching her follow the path of an atheist. I feel that I must arm her for intellectual battle...she must know as much as possible from all points of view so that, regardless of what side of the isle she eventually chooses, she will be able to stand up for what she believes.

I think more importantly, I will have the opportunity to teach her that everything in life is political and has at least two sides...something that I did not understand until I was about to graduate from college.

Hopefully, I can act more as a guide than an absolute authority figure, and she can begin to make up her own mind about things as soon as she can grasp the concepts.
September 24, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, great post! I don't agree with you that all science debates are political, though. I do believe that there is a serious attempt to make them so, which does a big disservice to our children in my opinion.

Regarding evolution versus creationism, I guess I was thinking more along the lines of some fundies insisting that dinosaurs roamed the earth only six thousand years ago - and essentially
dismissing all carbon-dating technology.

But science has actually made many discoveries that point to a deliberate design and creation of earth. I don't think these discoveries necessarily have to conflict with secular beliefs if people would open their minds a bit.

The coolest example I learned about recently through a documentary, in which scientists discovered earth was uncannily positioned to capture the best views of the surrounding universe. The documentary goes into a lot more detail than I will here, but I really got chills as it became clear that "Something" meant for us to observe the galaxies around us by positioning Earth in an incredibly ideal spot.
September 24, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Well, MTS,

With regard to the politics of science, I was taught that theories cannot be definitely proven but that they can be disproven. Therefore, the theory that carbon is causing global warming is not a fact. It is only a theory. There are experts that have found evidence that, while not definitively disproving man-made global warming, definitely raises doubts on it. This is a scientific topic, but it is highly political because neither theory has been disproven, and the implications are vastly different depending upon who is ultimately correct.

I have a hard time with evolution vs. creation because I was raised in the secular world, with secular friends and secular views. I came to know God when I was around seventeen. I know a lot more about evolution than I do about creation. However, my church tells me that I can't sit on the fence with this topic. I can't have the best of both worlds.

I did recently view a documentary (for the lack of a better word) that emphasizes that creation is not a science but that darwinian evolution is actually bad science. There are so many scientific facts that disprove it that evolution in its purest since has no credibility. There is even evidence of a recent flood of the scale of Noah's Ark that explains the depositing of remains. The evidence that they use to "prove" darwinism is shaky at best, and completely twisted and contrived many times.

I don't know that I believe the Earth is only six thousand years old (but I know I should), but I think that macro-evolution is completely cockeyed and invalid. Maybe there is a third answer; but I don't know it.

Actually, that self-described socialist (and atheist) friend that I told you about grew up to be a physicist. He did some intern work on the Shroud of Turin, and his team found that carbon dating can be significantly flawed when the object of note is exposed to things like fires. That documentary also goes into the flaws in the science of carbon dating.

You might be interested in it, but for the life of me I can't remember who the PhD mouthpiece's name was, nor do I remember the name of the video. My parents have it though, so maybe next time I visit them, I will get the name of it. It is very dry, but the guy makes great points.
September 24, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

Have you ever had a "conservative" education? Have you ever sat down with a father (or mother) figure or mentor who was conservative? Have you ever taken educational guidance from someone who was overtly conservative?

I ask because while I was raised by people who were fiscally and mostly socially conservative, my friends, teachers, mentors and professors were mostly highly liberal. All other adult male role models in my life, and like 90% of my teachers and profs were all liberals. My old buddies still are.

Maybe it would be a little eye opening for you if you were to submerge yourself in some conservative thought, and instead of dismissing it outright as poppycock, try to see why some people see the given issues in the light that they do.

When I argue with you, I try to tone down my vehemence toward your side's views because I am trying to show you from where I am coming. It seems to me that, while I try to let you know that I understand from where you are coming, you either don't understand from where I am coming or think that my arguments are completely invalid.

It really steams me when you bring jay into a conversation, because he is nothing more than an internet troll trying to piss conservatives off. He is not trying to influence or educate, but only trying to get a rise out of people like Eli, me, Dannyar, and Cwilly. When you start acknowledging him, you tell me that you have nothing more to contribute and that you, like jay, think that cons are nothing more than ignorant or uneducated idiots.
September 24, 2008

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Well, personally speaking, I don't go to the kind of church that tells it's members its creationism or else. I have in the past, and just could not reconcile my recognition that much of the Bible conflicts with other passages with their insistence every single word should be taken literally. Believe me, I tried.

Anyway, I think such churches would bring in far more skeptics and agnostics to the faith if they would concentrate on the Sermon on the Mount, instead of politicizing scientific theories.
September 24, 2008

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTS,

I have gone to two types of services, and neither has made huge emphasis of science vs. religion, though they both mention it on occasion.

One has a preacher who preaches straight out of the bible. It takes him a year or more to get through it. His sermons are bible studies, and they are usually full of moral philosophies. It is enlightening. The other church focuses on morals and uses scripture and personal anecdotes to make the points. It is not as enlightening, but there is much more love involved and the fellowship is much better.

Both churches de-emphasize tithing (though I still contribute), which I like because that is the single most repulsive aspect of listening to a pastor. Both do not talk much about creation or evolution.
September 24, 2008

3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

MTS,
What was the documentary you were talking about?
September 24, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

no strawmen, eli...as usual.

danny insisted that universal healthcare is "just wrong".

universal healthcare represents cheaper, better healthcare.

therefore, the question of why he/she wouldn't want cheaper/better healthcare...the answer was "it's just wrong".

any questions about that?

oh...and spencer jr...please don't foster ignorance in your children.
September 24, 2008

5:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Not quite, jay. You're twisting his words and you know it. Stop trying to save face, your efforts are nothing short of pathetic.
September 25, 2008

6:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

Here you go, jay. So you don't take my words out of context again.

"Again, I am against it because it is not the role of government and I don't want to participate in another program where I am a net payer. There are already too many of those. I resist when being dragged into a program that uses my tax dollars and is not an essential function of government. It's just wrong."

Still waiting on your answer to this question:

"Why should I be FORCED to participate in your program if I don't want to?"

WestminsterJ was willing to answer it; why won't you?

This was his answer:

"Because we live in a society, and in a society we sometimes have to do what we, as individuals, don't want to. 'Promote the common good'- look it up, it's in the Declaration of Independence."

And followed up here:

"That's the point, it *is* your responsibility, or, rather, it is the collective responsibility of our society, of which you are a voluntary member."

The "collective" responsibilty. Is that what you're afraid to say, jay? That it is a "collective" responsibilty?

Not the individual, but the "collective".

No thanks.
September 25, 2008

3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

chaka419 writes:

Pagen, what is your reasoning for going so long without healthcare? Do you have a job? Do they offer healthcare? If not why have you not gotten another job? If they do offer it can you give up somthing else to make sure you have healthcare? I know of people who say they can not afford healthcare but they go on nice vacations, buy nice cars or live in very nice houses. The point is some people CHOOSE to live without healthcare. It is not my responsibility to take care of you!!

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

ROSEN: Underinsured isn't uninsured

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 19, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs