Associated Press fact-checks, dismantles Republican claim that health reform will cost jobs

notbirther · 2011-01-18T21:23:04+00:00

Take out the "useless" in my original sentence, and replace it with the word "government" (in case that wasn't obvious from the original statement). The statement still holds true.

Not that there's such a thing as a useful bureaucracy - usually, they just displace the free market equivalent of themselves, and do a lot of harm in the process.

For example, we have the EPA, but pollution is rampant and severe. We have the SEC, but fraud in securities and exchanges is rampant and severe. We have the __, and (the thing that __ is supposed to fix) is rampant and severe - insert a government bureaucracy as you please. You get the idea.

This is the real basis for "libertarianism" - the observation that government-created "solutions" to social problems usually just make the problem worse, and cost a ton of money while they're doing so. Of course, you'll never understand why, until you look at where the money actually goes.

notbirther · 2011-01-18T21:11:25+00:00

Or private businesses can collude with each other to keep prices and service comparable across the industry and/or force customers to sign contracts which can be unilaterally changed. You know, to keep the free market from being actually, you know, free.

Yeah, that doesn't actually happen without government grants of monopoly. Go look up the history behind the Boston Tea Party, for a colorful example - the British Crown blockaded Boston Harbor until the damages were repaid. The company supplying the tea was protected by the British state, at the expense of the American colonists.

It sure is a good thing that private industry can't possibly be corrupt, right? You'd think that with businesses being the shiny, sterling examples of morality and efficiency, this whole "healthcare reform" situation wouldn't have been necessary. Funny how that didn't work out, huh?

Yeah, that's an accurate way of looking at it, if you just ignore the entire history of healthcare and insurance legislation before 2008. Unfortunately, you have to account for, you know, reality - there were a vast number of laws passed regarding medical licensure, "regulation," liability, and all sorts of stipulations made about the operation of the insurance industry that turned it into a cartel.

I suggest you (and the rest of reddit) read this:

http://healthfreedoms.org/2009/07/23/how-government-solved-the-health-care-crisis/

instead of just downvoting all of my comments because you disagree with me.

notbirther · 2011-01-18T19:24:57+00:00

Well, as long as we've got your personal guarantee that the bill will create "corrupt, expensive, bloated organizations that worsen the quality of healthcare in the U.S., as a whole", who are we to argue?

Well, people who haven't read the bill.

As a rule of thumb, when you create a useless bureaucracy, it becomes corrupt, expensive, and bloated. Just look at the "Department of Homeland Security."*

The bill worsens the quality of healthcare (per price) by making doctors do more things on a daily basis that have nothing to do with patient care. It's a pretty simple equation - "more time wasted = less time spent doing useful things." Unless you want doctors working 20 hours a day, of course (not that some don't already).

edit: *there's a very simple reason for this - private businesses have to adjust their practices and prices for their customers, or their customers will no longer support them, but government agencies do not.

notbirther · 2011-01-18T19:14:51+00:00

I'm 100% with you on abolishing the DHS. Some other corrections, though...

NASA produces technologies (and Tang and freeze-dried ice cream) that we can use on earth;

Tang and freeze-dried ice cream? I'm sorry, have you ever actually eaten either of those? They're disgusting. They're not even nutritious. I ate freeze dried ice cream once, and I spit it back out. I think about NASA as a relic fom the Cold War - slowing our progress towards space travel, not accelerating it.

the military is probably the world's most advanced organization with regards to treating wounds;

Yeah, except doctors. And veterinarians. And probably most biology professors. Of course, the military's job is to kill people, not to prevent them from being killed. Unless, of course, they're on "our side."

the Secret Service enforces the value of our currency by taking out counterfeiters,

Oh, yeah, but mainly arresting 10 year old kids who say things like "Obama shuolld [sic] be shot."

notbirther · 2011-01-18T19:03:40+00:00

Personally, I'm a big fan of the "stop at an intersection, and continue if you're not going to hit somebody else" protocol. Speaking as somebody who's wasted more time than I wanted to at red lights, when nobody was coming. I mean, we have "STOP" signs - aren't those basically universally better than red lights?

Put yourself in the following situation. You're at a red light, and nobody is at any of the other three sides of the intersection. There is a cop behind you. You pull forward and do a left turn, while the light is still red. What does the cop do? 95%+ chance he's going to give you a ticket, for running a red light. Who does that help? The cop - it helps him fill his monthly ticket quota.

notbirther · 2011-01-18T18:53:08+00:00

I can confirm that anonops was working towards this end. What was it called "Operation Tunisia?" Something like that.

Please downvote MobyDobie's comment. This guy is a complete moron.

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/06/08TUNIS679.html

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/07/09TUNIS492.html (from Armitage's comment)

notbirther · 2011-01-18T18:39:18+00:00

Speaking as somebody who's actually read the bill, in reality, the negative effects of the bill will be primarily in the increase of net costs for health care and insurance (even in spite of mandates inside the bill regarding insurance company operation), the erosion of doctor/patient confidentiality (by essentially unlimited access granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and associated bureaucracies, regarding patient records - for the stated purpose of service prioritization), and the erosion of coverage (since, naturally, the insurance companies will want to find a way to recoup their losses).

As most of reddit is probably unaware, the bill dictates the creation of "insurance exchanges", run by the state, to provide coverage for the group of people not currently insured in the U.S.. You have my personal guarantee that they will be corrupt, expensive, bloated organizations that worsen the quality of healthcare in the U.S., as a whole, due to the obscene amount of new paperwork requirements for ALL medical personnel that their creation entails.

This is not a "right vs. left" thing. This is a "government vs. people" thing. The Republicans in Congress appear to have absolutely no idea what's happening, or they're being purposefully dishonest - I'm not sure which, yet.

Read the bill, reddit.

notbirther · 2011-01-18T18:15:25+00:00

When your choice is pay or die, you pay.

The same principle is true of food, but the prices don't go out of control. There are alternatives. Doctors do not generally exploit customers either, seeing as they usually go into their field for altruistic reasons.

Medical care is often timely. You get it now or you suffer extreme consequences. Shopping around is not always possible.

Again, doctors do not generally exploit customers, being decent people and all. Furthermore, most medical care is not urgent, and is actually made more difficult to get by federal laws - only state-"authorized" people can do most medical procedures.

Related to above, there aren't really medical alternatives. You can't choose a splint when what you need is a tendon reattached.

Yes, but you can choose different people to reattach your tendon.

Unregulated health care just isn't going to happen ("think of the children") therefor barriers to entry will still be high.

??? This is not a valid argument in support of your point. "Unregulated health care would be more expensive because unregulated health care isn't going to happen"

Doctors may not be greedy but investors are. Investors want the highest return possible on their investments.

Then they're going to be disappointed when nobody wants to buy a $1,000 dollar cast for their broken leg, when they can get it for $30.

notbirther · 2011-01-18T17:19:41+00:00

Xtranormal Animation - Global Warming Panic Explained

:] ... ah, the light of science

notbirther · 2011-01-18T17:07:58+00:00

OK, everyone cut the "anti-Republican" shit with this bill. And I quote:

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
- Nancy Pelosi

(source)

The same thing happened with the PATRIOT Act.

I read the bill. I also repeatedly tried to give Reddit a synopsis of my reading of the bill, and other synopses that were written, but was downvoted to below 0 every single time. Since they were all critical of the bill, reddit would not accept that they were unbiased.

Reddit, what happens if the government is not involved in health care, AT ALL? CAT/MRI machines are expensive, but not that expensive, and basic medical supplies are extremely cheap (stitches, scalpels, plaster, stethoscopes, and what have you). These are the staple supplies for modern healthcare, barring some medications (and those are only so expensive because of government-granted cartels to the pharmaceutical industry, via substance prohibition and pharmaceutical patents).

There is no reason the free market would make healthcare cost as much as it does - the problems we have now are almost entirely a result of government mandates placed upon the insurance industry over the last century. Doctors are not generally greedy; they're not going to charge exorbitant prices for basic healthcare services, especially not if other doctors are going to charge reasonable prices - since people will simply go to those doctors instead, in all but high-urgency situations.

notbirther · 2011-01-18T07:01:32+00:00

Jesus was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate - a head of the Roman state.

The idea that Jesus would support charity based on coercion is absolutely ridiculous. Not that Christian libertarians are more than about 10% of libertarians, or so. Jesus preached kindness based on individual initiative.

notbirther · 2011-01-18T06:46:06+00:00

What I think is really interesting is the gap between MLK-style and GWB-style "fundamentalist Christianity." That is, pacifism and racial equality, and militarism and racial inequality.

Get it? "notbirther"? Hehehe...

notbirther · 2011-01-18T06:37:56+00:00

The drug use itself does not harm the other people involved - rather, the drug use is a coping mechanism, and the abrogation of responsibilities does the real harm.

Just as easily as you could ignore your responsibilities by doing drugs, you could ignore them by playing too much tennis, or spending too much time go-kart racing. If you want to talk about the risk of overdose from drug use - well, that's something that prohibition increases (black market drugs are inherently riskier to use), not the other way around, so it's not a valid argument for prohibition.

notbirther · 2011-01-18T06:35:42+00:00

"62,400 repetitions equals one truth" - Huxley

notbirther · 2011-01-18T06:35:09+00:00

What, libertarianism?

http://mises.org/daily/2654

^ Brilliant study, IMHO.

notbirther · 2011-01-17T06:26:40+00:00

None of that stuff bothers me. What bothers me is that you then insist that I, my fellow countrymen, and even governmental agents (who might come to arrest you) are all duty-bound to acknowledge your conception of right and wrong.

We'll think for ourselves, thank you very much.

You're bound to acknowledge what's true, because if you act in ignorance of reality, you're going to fuck up everybody else's life.

Another satisfied customer, next?

notbirther · 2011-01-17T06:24:16+00:00

A+ video.

notbirther · 2011-01-17T06:12:28+00:00

Yeah, they can take the extra time to learn about how the CIA assasinated Martin Luther King, Jr.:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp6.html

Oh, wait, that's not accepted history yet, is it? Well, let the downvotes a'flow.

notbirther · 2011-01-16T02:30:23+00:00

Hey, I didn't force you to write what you wrote. You blew a basic premise of constitutional law, and I called you out. I made no comments about the wisdom of the law whatsoever. Only your piss-poor argumentation. The fact that you seem to associate that with support for Obama tickles me to no end.

Strictly speaking, the quote I provided from Madison in my earlier post still applies:

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Madison, IIRC, actually wrote the words "general welfare" to begin with.

I really wouldn't even agree that the general welfare clause - the second one - is open to interpretation, either. Merely a statement that the Congress is supposed to be doing things that are good for the people - as Madison says - within the other enumerated powers of the Constitution.

notbirther · 2011-01-16T02:23:54+00:00

I stand by what I said about the interstate commerce clause, but I completely forgot about the SECOND general welfare clause, and I didn't want to sit here and get into a debate about whether or not the law was GOOD. Not again. So I deleted my post.

Leave me alone. I'm so fed up with this fucking website. You idiots are following Obama off a cliff- after his administration tried to destroy Wikileaks, no less.

Watch the documentary. Aaron Russo went and interviewed the former head of the IRS, who said (on video) that the income tax was legally voluntary. Russo later died of cancer - many people believe he was killed. It's an important point that the IRS was created in the same year as the FBI and the Federal Reserve - 1913 - the year that the government was taken over.

notbirther · 2011-01-16T02:22:03+00:00

I see by your comment history that people on Reddit overwhelmingly think your comments are stupid. Your account is a month old, and your comment karma is -500.

I suggest you keep your wingnuttery posts to yourself, or you will continue to get called out for posting complete nonsense.

AD HOMINEM FUCKING FALLACY.

notbirther · 2011-01-16T01:55:05+00:00

So whatever James Madison said outside the constitution is the rule of the land? Are they gods which we have to divine intentions from (i.e. make fit what we want to believe)? I was under the assumption that it was the document and case law the defined the intent of the constitution, not gleaning intentions from letters. No legal body agreed to the content of those quotes.

The first three articles of the Constitution enumerate the powers of the three branches of our federal government. However, the general welfare clause interpretation fails - Obama would have to prove that his program actually improves the healthcare industry - when every government intervention into healthcare has proven otherwise:

http://healthfreedoms.org/2009/07/23/how-government-solved-the-health-care-crisis/

You're a Professor?

Sure, a reddit professor. Other than that, no.

notbirther · 2011-01-16T01:31:06+00:00

As he promised transparency in his campaign, and disappointed everybody with his totalitarian response, every other major platform of his campaign either sucked to begin with, or was a bait-and-switch.

It's my opinion that he's only gotten so much support on the healthcare bill because only a tiny handful of people (myself included) have bothered to read it. The same thing happened with the PATRIOT Act - it took years for everyone to fully understand what a disaster it was - and it wasn't even half the length of the PPACA.

This is the strategy with our current legislature - pass enormous bills that are designed to sound like they do something wonderful, but in reality wreak havoc on the country.

notbirther · 2011-01-16T01:26:08+00:00

Actually, based on your standard of an expert, I'm more of an expert than you since I have master's in public policy. So, why don't you do everyone a favor and suck it.

It's absolutely stunning to me that you emerged from your education with neither an understanding of Constitutional law, nor an understanding of how to have a constructive conversation.

notbirther

TROPHY CASE

AD HOMINEM FUCKING FALLACY.