mattp

Bill, As one who spends a lot of time whining on a public bulletin board I disagree with you where you suggest this is going to “f*ck this up for the rest of us.” I agree with you that the outcome in Iraq is very important and for a long time I felt like you - that although we should not have invaded to begin with I thought that by doing so we had assumed a responsibility to “make it right.” However, at this point I’m afraid Bug is right. I don’t think we CAN win this one and I seriously doubt we are going to be able to prevent the broader civil war that we have torched off. Meanwhile, debating how we got into this war or arguing about whether we should continue to torture prisoners of war may not constitute important intellectual discourse but it may not only pass time but also help us refine our views on these matters and this actually is important stuff. It is too bad our leaders are unwilling or unable to have any similar debate.

I agree with this statement. Jimmy Carter warned us 30 years ago that our dependence on foreign oil posed a serious threat to our country and even to freedom. He said we should move toward energy independence. He warned, too, that we as a nation were living beyond our means. We have done virtually nothing about it since then except, as GWB suggested in respoinse to 911, borrow money and go shopping.

Question for you guys who hate socialism: how is healthcare different from education. I know some of you hate public education, too, but haven't we generally come to accept the idea of a public system Kindergarten through twelfth grade?

First of all, you suggest I "want" government to pay for all healthcare. I haven't said this. Even if there were a single system providing universal coverage, and even if the government took over operation of more hospitals and clinics, there would remain a market for private providers who were paid privately. As to whether I "want" government to control distribution and application of that funding for healthcare that is part of any national system? I'm generally suspicious of "public-private partnerships," because they appear to me to mean the government/taxpayer ends up subsidizing private businesses. In a system with the vouchers or tax credits that you suggest, the healthier will be offered and will in their own interest purchase cheaper coverage from private companies whereas the sicker will only be able to get much more expensive insurance if any, unless the government actually provides it at some fixed price. The most profitable part of the market will tend to become private, while the less profitable public. Maybe a tax credit / voucher system could work, though, and I'd certainly favor ANY system whereby even in theory I couldn't lose all ability to purchase health insurance if I became in need of expensive medical treatment and unable to work.

Fairweather likes to spew horse manure, and stick with it even if wrong. He asserted that any proposed move toward universal health coverage is "socialized medicine," and indicated that if the government gets in the business of providing or overseeing more health insurance than present we are all going to be forced to go to government operated hospitals and clinics. Although he hasn't provided a source, he said Hillary tried to make it illegal for anyone to go see a private doctor.

You better watch those torpedo's or you'll be needing that graemlin too.

I think he meant hurl-ish.

Peter: I want one of those sweet no-bid deals. And now that I think of it, I think I'll take a ten-foot stretch of I-5, right under the convention center. That should be low maintenance as it is relatively new and protected from the weather. I can charge a toll on every car that passes through as this is private enterprise. And I can run it as a corporation, pay myself all the money in salary, and then simply declare bankruptcy when there is a repair bill I don't like. Privatization at its finest!

I don't think I ever argued that corporations are infringing upon my rights and freedoms. If I did, I misspoke. I DID say that I would trust a government agency with my health records before I would trust private enterprise, and that I would greater trust ANY enterprise to look out for my long term health interests if I was confident that I could never lose my insurance. That is a different matter, no? I'm not quite clear as to your "single payor" question either. I don't know what the options are, or how any of the proposals might actually work but yes, I think you are trying to get me to acknowledge that I believe we should have a system where we continue to subsidize healthcare for sicker and poorer people more than we do for healthier and wealthier people. I believe this is going to have to require some restrictions on the latter's option to "opt out" without paying into the system - whether it is through taxes or being forced to contribute as I believe is more or less the situation in Massachusetts. But Mass. is not a single payor plan, is it?

So you are planning to eliminate bankruptcy to enforce this? You'd have to eliminate the "corporate shield" while you were at it. I doubt JayB would be in support of such an idea, however, as it would have a chilling effect on business. And I wouldn't be in favor of it either, for the same reason. My original point was that even if you think private enterprise is likely to be more efficient than public enterprise, it still has to be regulated and policed.

Did I say that nobody who has committed criminal acts in the name of a corporation has ever been convicted?

Thanks for the information. You've made some incorrect assumptions, but it is good information none-the-less. You could have offered it without the quip about personal choices.

You are right, Jay, individuals can be selfish and even criminal as well. However, corporations are a fictitious legal entity that shields the actors responsible for what they do in the name of the business entity from personal responsibility. When a business that is held by a corporation screws up or hurts people, the risks associated with whatever they do are borne by shareholders but the CEO or manager of a division or whatever gets to keep their salary, benefits, and proceeds from selling their stock or whatever. Quite apart from any question of predatory monopoly practices, we see corporations engaged in all kinds of things that are dangerous or worse, from selling unsafe cars, tobacco or asbestos, to spewing arsenic into the atmosphere, or engaging in mortgage fraud. Unless they can be convicted of a crime, which is rare, the persons responsible for deciding to engage in the offending behavior usually retire wealthy millionaires or billionaires. Yes, the phrase "corporate greed" may be a stereotype or cliche, but there is a reason for it. It has real meaning in the real world, apart from the issues raised in your pop quiz.

Maybe I can sign up for the Clear Creek road that serves Darrington climbing areas. I'll charge a toll and make a mint! Ph hey: I'll take the Clear Creek campground too. Just like the bus company or Iraq security services, I should be able to score these contracts as a single bidder with no other competitor, right?

I gotta admire your idealism. In a program that cost a total of $257,000.00, Metro provided a subsidy of $38,000.00. The article above said the private provider will charge four times as much so, if you do the math, four times the metro fare receipts of $175,000.00 is $700,000.00. Remember: this program costs $257,000.00 as provided by metro. Private enterprise is grand?

I thought you were headed for the Pisgah. Take a chill pill and any conversation between KK and I won't bother you.

I am sorry to offend your sensitivities, even by accident, as you would never be offensive yourself, right? Go home and put your feet up. Relax. You'll feel better.

You are touchy, KK! After our "transfer of wealth" discussion the other day, I figured you were for private enterprise over public endeavor, so you might argue that public transporation used tax money and was therefore immoral as a transfer of wealth to people who did not serve in the military. But, either way, I was just trying to generate some good discussion. No insult was intended. I didn't call tou names or tell you to piss off, but: Piss off. Cocktail hour starts early on Friday's and there's a single malt and a couple of ice cubes waiting for you somewhere.

It looks like the free market folks, probably some friends of KK and Fairweather, are targetting public transportation. For big events like Husky Football and Seahawks games, Metro has been providing shuttle service from regional park and ride lots, helping alleviate traffic and parking problems associated with these events. Apparently, there is a new Federal regulation providing that Metro cannot provide transportation to public events if there is a private service that wants the job. Result: the price for fans to get to Seahawks games will be four times as much and the busses will not pick up passengers actually in the park and ride lots. What do oyou want to bet we'll see an increase in the number of people who elect to drive to the games? Seattle times Next thing you know, they'll privatize the campgrounds in National Forests!

Kind of like the Shiites we told to rise up in southern Iraq and then let Saddam mow them down?

Agreed. However, you have more than a healthy mistrust for government -- you fear that expansion of even an existing and by all accounts highly efficient and successful medicare insurance system would lead to state sponsored oppression. Conversely, you show no apparent mistrust for power in the form of corporate greed. Whether it is big tobacco or the military industrial complex, you argue for "free market" efficiency -- or do I misconstrue? As to questionning where your money goes -- when was the last time you actually did this? You complain about how bad our roads are or lament the possibility that there might be a toll on a new 520 bridge but I have not seen where you took even the smallest step to research what the revenue and budget issues actually are.

Yes, we could go round in circles forever. We have no idea what the State spends on roadway maintenance and construction, nor how this stacks up with other states, or what it would cost to make overall improvements to what we have and how that would stack up. It boils down to this: you are critical of everything the government does just as a matter of principal and I argue that, yes, they are corrup and inefficient -- but so is private business. I actually think our government is OK even if our president is a crook and our State governor mediocre. You think our government sucks, and the president is mediocre while the governor is a crook.

Montana has a state income tax. I don't know how the budge works but they do have a nice interstate maintained with federal dollars, and a network of state roads that receive very little traffic.

Yes, they have nice roads in California. Are they really THAT much better than here? Maybe a little bit, but our roads are pretty damn nice. And California? Don't they have state income taxes? Do you have any idea how much they spend on their roads as compared to Washington? I'm critical of DOT as much as the next guy but I think we have pretty good roads. Traffic jams in Seattle suck, but most if not pretty much all traffic and highway experts agree that we can't build our way out of the traffic jams. Only folks like your pals Tim Eyman and Dino Rossi use this as a political wedge. We went over the 520 bridge a few weeks ago. I understand that you think it should be replaced and replaced right now and you should not have to pay a penny more whether in taxes or tolls but do you really have any basis for whether this is realistic?

Do you have any different information?