Chickenhawks

[akhalteke]

Oh...Oh..Oh....can I be the poster "man"?

 

When your balls drop.

[No. 13 Baby]

When I moved here from CA [. . .]

 

This explains everything.

[olyclimber]

Oh snap!

 

 

bugs bunny got roadrunner on this one!!!

[mtn_mouse]

I just spent the last several days in the High Wallowas enjoying the mountains. Too busy now to read all the prior comments, and since I was right in the first place, that is good enough for me. Get out there now while the weather is great, and climbing perfect. On the way out I saw a nissn pickup with a bumper sticker that said "Northwest Forest Pass- Don't buy one!" on the windshield was a ticket for $75! The irony.

[akhalteke]

I will be in the Pisgah through Monday. Gotta get outta the heat. Humidity is killer here! Forest Passes are so ghey. I have never bought one ; nor payed a fine. The military hasn't come and gotten me yet, so they must be all bark and no bite.

[JayB]

Of course, even if the government can provide health insurance or even healthcare services cheaper than the private companies and of better quality, and even if their tax burden might actually go down, Fairweather, KK and Canyondweller would still be against it because this would be soclalism. It is a good thing these insane "government is the enemy" ideas weren't so popular when we undertook to wipe out Polio or build the interstate highway system and I, for one, am glad we at least have the medicaid and medicare systems that we presently have.

 

You are aware of the fact that most countries have both public and private healthcare systems, yes? Canada is atypical in this regard. Why the dogmatic insistence on a single-payer/administrator?

 

If the government provided all citizens with either a tax-credit, vouchers, or direct subsidies sufficient for them to purchase some basic level of health-services - but individuals, rather than the state, were in control of their coverage - this would still be a single-payer model, no? Would this be acceptable to you, or would you insist on having the state serving as the central administrator of all health care decisions/spending? If so - why?

 

This point isn't necessarily for Matt alone, but I'm also kind of wondering of the efficiency stats that people cite for public healthcare include the cost associated with tax collections (private health insurers include the cost of raising money through premiums in their "overhead"), and of fraud, waste, and overbilling.

 

 

[JayB]

Mistrusting the government and power in general is healthy. Questioning where our money goes is my right, and also wise.

 

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.

 

We have institutional protection against corporate monopolies, and they have no authority to tax, arrest, or otherwise impose their will on free citizens - so the notion that "corporate greed" constitutes anything like the threat to personal freedoms and essential liberties as the state does is to take a position that is fundamentally at odds with reality. Did corporations bring about Prohibition, The War on Drugs, or outlaw all manner of other activities that individuals engage in alone or in the company of consenting adults, and which cause no direct harm to anyone else?

 

Also - could you oblige me and define precisely what it is that differentiates "corporate" greed from other kinds of greed. Since most legal firms operate as partnerships, is there something this form of legal organization that renders any greed that they may exhibit of a finer and more beneficial character? They certainly seem to spend quite a bit of money attempting to advance legislation that will secure their interests in Washington D.C. Are we to assume that "partnership greed" renders the trial lawyers are impartial arbiters of the public good, and that we should look upon all of their efforts to influence legislation accordingly? How about sole proprietorships? What distinguishes the greed that an enterprise organized under these auspices may exhibit from the "corporate" variety.

 

[mattp]

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.

[Hugh Conway]

But the market is setup to punish them?

 

Oh wait, no, it isn't. Nothing bad happens to them except they might have to selloff that wine collection or the Gulfstream.

 

Look at who is paying to clean up the mine in Holden - not the corporation that profited from it! You! Me! We!

[JayB]

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.

 

All of these things are true, but I would like to see what the evidence is that "actors" are statistically more likely to exhibit behaviors consistent with greed, malice, etc than their counterparts in sole-proprietorships, partnerships, or any legal classification under which for-profit entities are administered and organized.

 

Having said all of that - and conceding that corporations are run by humans who are no less infallible than their counterparts who make their living in for profit enterprises with slightly different characteristics - I'd still like to see you demonstrate that corporations (IBM, Microsoft, The Gap, Dunkin Donuts, Mattel Corp - manufacturer of "Extreme Tickle Me Elmo," etc) are invested with an array of powers to forcibly constrain individual freedoms that are equal to or greater than those of the government. If you can do so, then you'll have a rational case for arguing that everyone should be at least as concerned about corporate greed/power as they are about government power.

[JayB]

But the market is setup to punish them?

 

Oh wait, no, it isn't. Nothing bad happens to them except they might have to selloff that wine collection or the Gulfstream.

 

Look at who is paying to clean up the mine in Holden - not the corporation that profited from it! You! Me! We!

 

No one who has conducted business under the auspices of a corporation has ever been prosecuted for conduct that they undertook while doing so? Someone page Dennis Koslowski, Ken Lay, etc.

 

In the case of the company in question - did they violate standing laws when they emitted the pollutants, or did the regulations come after they did so? IMO if the company breaks a standing law, they should pay. If they regulations are changed retrospectively, then the state should cover the tab.

[mattp]

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

[Hugh Conway]

IMO if the company breaks a standing law, they should pay.

 

So you are planning to eliminate bankruptcy to enforce this?

 

It's all well and good to make something illegal - without investigation, enforcement and punishment thats pissing in the wind.

[mattp]

IMO if the company breaks a standing law, they should pay.

 

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.

[JayB]

Agreed on that point - but I'm still interested in hearing the argument for why a rational person should worry as much about the encroachments that corporations might make on their rights and freedoms as they do about their government's ability to do the same.

 

Also still interested in whether your ideal healthcare system would involve a single payer/administrator, or whether a system where the government gives individuals the money that they need to buy their own coverage would satisfy your desire for a "single payer." If not, then it would seem that you are arguing in favor of something rather more comprehensive and far reaching than a "single-payer" system.

 

[JayB]

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

 

The comments were directed at Carl.

 

I'm not persuaded that under the current system, any and all acts of malfeasance that anyone might conduct while working in/for a corporation will go unpunished. I'm hardly an expert, but from my vantage point it seems like there's a fair amount of individual exposure to criminal/civil prosecution for actions undertaken in such circumstances, and while corporations can't be sent to jail, they too are subject to a variety of sanctions, punishments, etc.

 

The notion that corporations can act with impunity, and are unconstrained by the legal system is simply false.

 

 

[mattp]

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?

[Hugh Conway]

I'm not persuaded that under the current system, any and all acts of malfeasance that anyone might conduct while working in/for a corporation will go unpunished. I'm hardly an expert, but from my vantage point it seems like there's a fair amount of individual exposure to criminal/civil prosecution for actions undertaken in such circumstances, and while corporations can't be sent to jail, they too are subject to a variety of sanctions, punishments, etc.

 

The notion that corporations can act with impunity, and are unconstrained by the legal system is simply false.

 

Nothing is absolute. It's been my experience that a number of corporate crimes go un punished and that punishments meted out by the market only affect the economically rational individual.

[JayB]

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?

 

Hmm. Seemed like you were arguing that KK should, for the sake of logical consistency, fear the power wielded by corporations as much as feared the power of government.

 

In it's simplest form, my question about your stance on "single-payor" healthcare comes down to this: Do you want the government to just pay for healthcare, or both pay for and control the its distribution down to the individual level?

 

The two are not synonymous. There are many mechanisms by which the state could provide funding for healthcare without the state acting as the sole administrator of the funds. My hunch is that if, say, the government used a system of vouchers/subsidies/tax-credits that enabled everyone to afford health-care, but left control of these funds in the hands of individuals, this would not satisfy you, even though this would involve a single entity essentially paying for all health-care expenditures in the country.

 

Keep the control of the money in the hands of the state, rather than individuals, and I suspect that the system would be rather more to your liking, but feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you.

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

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?

 

Hmm. Seemed like you were arguing that KK should, for the sake of logical consistency, fear the power wielded by corporations as much as feared the power of government.

 

In it's simplest form, my question about your stance on "single-payor" healthcare comes down to this: Do you want the government to just pay for healthcare, or both pay for and control the its distribution down to the individual level?

 

The two are not synonymous. There are many mechanisms by which the state could provide funding for healthcare without the state acting as the sole administrator of the funds. My hunch is that if, say, the government used a system of vouchers/subsidies/tax-credits that enabled everyone to afford health-care, but left control of these funds in the hands of individuals, this would not satisfy you, even though this would involve a single entity essentially paying for all health-care expenditures in the country.

 

Keep the control of the money in the hands of the state, rather than individuals, and I suspect that the system would be rather more to your liking, but feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you.

 

 

 

Matt likes to mock those who call that scheme 'socialized medicine', but that's exactly what it is. I think he's in denial about his beliefs.

[pc313]

ONE THING'S FORSHURE,NO ONE GET'S OUT A LIVE!!!

[mattp]

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.

[mattp]

In it's simplest form, my question about your stance on "single-payor" healthcare comes down to this: Do you want...

 

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.

[mattp]

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?

[Fairweather]

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?

 

Regardless of federal strings, public education is still very much under state and local control. Very different from the centralized health care proposals you seem so fond of that aren't "actually" socialism.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Fairweather