[slap_j]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

You fellows seem to think I should focus what the government might, and likely won't, do.

Which probably isn't far off from what the founders were thinking when they put the separation of powers into the constitution.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Perhaps... the Patriot Act is the one which steals the constitutional protection from search and seizure.

Either way, both acts are very unethical.

Originally Posted by Bryan

it expands what the government can do under the idea of national security.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." That's a mantra I think we should all take up.

[JerryLove]

Governments abuse power. There really is no room to intelligently protest this claim.

The founders knew this... so they created a checks-and balances system to protect people from abuse.

The main focus of this administration, indeed something Cheney and Nixon agreed upon when they were working together, is bringing complete and unregulated power to the office of the president.

This is always bad. Power corrupts. Governments should not be trusted.

This government "detains" innocent people all the time for any number of reasons... but most come to "because they can get away with it". That's what checks-and-balances protects us from and what the patriot act allows.

You want to suspend rights for terrorists? OK. Who decides that they are terrorists?

How about this, we setup a court to oversee law-enforcement and decide who are and are not terrorists. We let the terrorists get lawers and go before the court to establish that they are not terrorists (if they are not).... oh, that's what we had before the patriot act wasn't it?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Governments abuse power. There really is no room to intelligently protest this claim.

The founders knew this... so they created a checks-and balances system to protect people from abuse.

The main focus of this administration, indeed something Cheney and Nixon agreed upon when they were working together, is bringing complete and unregulated power to the office of the president.

This is always bad. Power corrupts. Governments should not be trusted.

This is where I don't understand you. You inherently distrust government, yet you define socialism as (loosely) government control of the means of production, IIRC, and proceed to support it. How can the government be trusted with the means of production if "governments should not be trusted," as you write here?

I see mass centralization of power and I start thinking god-complex, and while it's bad for an individual to have a god-complex it's really bad for a group of people who own all the guns to have a god-complex. So this is why I'm a fan of limited government. But you accept a similar premise while denying my conclusion. How do we come to different conclusions?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

This is where I don't understand you. You inherently distrust government, yet you define socialism as (loosely) government control of the means of production, IIRC, and proceed to support it. How can the government be trusted with the means of production if "governments should not be trusted," as you write here?

Well, let's take the example before use... domestic security.

I think that the government should be in charge of domestic security. The government should run the army and the police. Does it sound socialist?

But what about that distrust. Your post seems to indicate that the other option to blind trust is to deny the government any power at all. Fortunately for us, those who came before had a better idea. Create a system where there are checks and balances to benifiial/neccessairy power. Allow the executive only to do what the legislative said they could, and throw in a judiciary with oversight, but no ability to act on its own (it neither creates nor enforces the law, only interpretes it).

Make the hole system transparent, and as reliant on the people as possible (fill jurys with them, gie them the right to vote, make trials and laws public, guarentee the righ to redress and defense) and you have an important social service, provided by a government, and held in check by the power of law.

It's no different with healthcare or any of a number of other things.. perhaps even simpler. Provide a minimum guarenteed coverage to all citizens. Unlike the millitary, I'd allow competition with the govenment (private primary and/or supplemental care), and create industry regulation to protect everyone involved.

The major checks are the openess to private competition... think of it like the Post office. It might not be the most efficient, but its hardly socialism nor abused.

[S.B.Nichols]

That's pretty inconsistent.

So since governments abuse power, we should put them in charge of the police, healthcare, and a number of other things? Seems rational to me. Not at all like socialism.

All that aside, I don't want my healthcare run with the same efficiency as the post office.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

You fellows seem to think I should focus what the government might, and likely won't, do.

Correct. Or rather, I think you should focus on what the government has the power to do, because, as we well know, power corrupts.

You are aware, for example, that Hitler was not granted practically unlimited power for the PURPOSE of trying to take over the world, right? It was, as those who granted him the power likely thought, something he COULD do with the power but likely wouldn't. Turns out they were wrong. That's exactly the point. You can't trust anyone with unchecked power, regardless what the purpose for that power is. The government currently has unchecked powers of surveillance. This is a problem. The purpose for those powers is irrelevant. No branch of the government should have ANY unchecked powers.

[S.B.Nichols]

I understand your concern, but no one has unchecked power. And personally, I can't live in such a state of paranoia. There are checks and balances which are still in place, much to the disdain of liberals and, apparently, Ron Paul supporters. Its not perfect. But they are still there. (the proof is in the pudding: the courts have overturned parts of the PatAct, upheld others). This is not window into Nazi Germany.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

You are aware, for example, that Hitler was not granted practically unlimited power for the PURPOSE of trying to take over the world, right? It was, as those who granted him the power likely thought, something he COULD do with the power but likely wouldn't. Turns out they were wrong. That's exactly the point. You can't trust anyone with unchecked power, regardless what the purpose for that power is. The government currently has unchecked powers of surveillance. This is a problem. The purpose for those powers is irrelevant. No branch of the government should have ANY unchecked powers.

A fine historical point to be sure, but since Mein Kampf repeatedly makes reference to 'living space' in the east and what not, the Nazis and their supporters knew full well what giving Hitler unlimited power was going to accomplish. That much is made clear by the statements of Goering at Nuremburg and in Raeder's memoirs. The Reichstag knew exactly what was going on.

I agree with your main point, by the way, I just don't think invoking Nazi Germany on this point is appropriate. The military commissions act, maybe. But not on the surveillance.

Originally Posted by S.B. Nichols

I understand your concern, but no one has unchecked power. And personally, I can't live in such a state of paranoia. There are checks and balances which are still in place, much to the disdain of liberals and, apparently, Ron Paul supporters. Its not perfect. But they are still there. (the proof is in the pudding: the courts have overturned parts of the PatAct, upheld others). This is not window into Nazi Germany.

You're right, insofar as we still have an independant judicary. Hitler had to Nazify the courts or put extraconstitutional courts outside of the jurisdiction of the regular Weimar court system. The People's Court, for example, was entirely outside of the jurisdiction of any regular trial court.

The problem the US has is that it is slowly but surely becoming less and less independant and more and more politicized, to the point that it's no longer independant but dependant on political affiliation and patronage.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

That's pretty inconsistent.

So since governments abuse power, we should put them in charge of the police, healthcare, and a number of other things?

That's not at all what I said. I said that the government should provide some services (such as the ones you listed). I did not say that the reason that they should provide such services was *because* they should not be trusted... that's your straw man.

I said that, because they should not be trusted, we should have oversite, checks, and balances to control abuse.

Do you disagree that te government should provide services?
Do you oppose checks, balances, oversight, and accountability?

On what grounds?

Seems rational to me. Not at all like socialism.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are controlled by the state. I did not propose such.

Of course, all governments are partially socialist, and partially capitalist.

All that aside, I don't want my healthcare run with the same efficiency as the post office.

The reality is that your healthcare is run with far less efficiency now than in pretty much any social healthcare system.

The least expensive healthcare system in the world is run by a government. Germany's. It's also better than ours (25th vs 37th). (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)

The best healthcare in the world is run by a government (France). It is also half the price of ours (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/19866.php).

Even just within the US. Government run Medicare is 12% cheaper than private-run medicare (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/30/Bu...are_plan.shtml)

So lets see what the actual statistics show us: Government run healthcare is both cheaper and more effective than privately run healthcare. It is also far more available.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Unlike the millitary, I'd allow competition with the govenment (private primary and/or supplemental care), and create industry regulation to protect everyone involved.

The major checks are the openess to private competition... think of it like the Post office. It might not be the most efficient, but its hardly socialism nor abused.

This is where I don't get it. Because I thought (and I could be wrong here) that you understood socialism to be government control of the means of production, which means that there could not conceivably be non-government competition because all means of production would be government-controlled.

(Of course you couldn't accomplish that in a day, but it would be the long-term goal so far as I see.)

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

This is where I don't get it. Because I thought (and I could be wrong here) that you understood socialism to be government control of the means of production, which means that there could not conceivably be non-government competition because all means of production would be government-controlled.

I'm not a socialist. I do support the government providing services.

I'm all for free enterprise... well, regulated free enterprise (see my Lasse Faire discussion). I don't want to get rid of private healthcare... I just want to make sure everyone has healthcare. I know too many people without it and without the ability to get it.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That's not at all what I said. I said that the government should provide some services (such as the ones you listed). I did not say that the reason that they should provide such services was *because* they should not be trusted... that's your straw man.

Brother, you said it, not me. You may have had reasons for wanting the government to control such services, but you said...

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Governments should not be trusted.

So if governments shouldn't be trusted, why would I want to:
A) Increase the governments size
B) Give them more of my money to spend
C) Trust them with my civil protection and general health

Should the government provide services. Yes. Do I oppose checks, balances, oversight, and accountability? Nope.

Should the federal government control the police? Nope, we've already got a military. Putting the federal government in charge of police would give the administration (or future administrations) the sort of power the liberals seem to think it's after. ("We don't like you, so we'll send in the police and cut off your healthcare funding")

Should health care be run by the government. Well, there is room on both sides of that argument, but the fact still remains, I don't want my health, or the health of my friends and family, in the chains of a system as efficient as the United States Postal Service. Again, your words, not mine.

If it works in France, then great for France. But the fact is that we're a little different. We have, what 6 or 7 times the population, Different demographics, different social system. Different economic system. A somewhat better comparison would be Canada (30 on the list you provided). Of course, we still have a huge population gap, so it's hard to compare, but I don't see us coming out ahead on that one. Personally, I'd rather not have to wait 6 weeks for non-elective surgery.

The government has managed to screw up taxes, airlines, national security, the postal service, etc etc etc. But I guess it makes perfect sense to give them a shot at health care. Yeah right.

I'll refer to Chrysostom's comments on your views of socialism, only adding that you've got a good textbook knowledge of what socialism is on paper, but seem to be forgetting what socialism becomes in reality.

Then, of course, we have to wonder who will pay for it. Oh yeah, raise my taxes. Great.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

So if governments shouldn't be trusted, why would I want to:
A) Increase the governments size
B) Give them more of my money to spend
C) Trust them with my civil protection and general health

The alternative is anarchy. If you want to know why I prefer an untrustable government to anarchy, I'd suggest you look at any country that has tried it. The sohrt answer is "because it's superior to the alternative".

Should the government provide services. Yes. Do I oppose checks, balances, oversight, and accountability? Nope.

So then you agree with me in principal. Where's the concern?

Should the federal government control the police? Nope, we've already got a military. Putting the federal government in charge of police would give the administration (or future administrations) the sort of power the liberals seem to think it's after. ("We don't like you, so we'll send in the police and cut off your healthcare funding")

Who said "federal"? I'm just discussing government. If you want state-run universal healthcare, then we are just arguing details... if you don't, you are still faced with justifying why in light of your pro-police, pro-millitary position and lack of real support for your hypothesised conclusions.

Should health care be run by the government. Well, there is room on both sides of that argument, but the fact still remains, I don't want my health, or the health of my friends and family, in the chains of a system as efficient as the United States Postal Service. Again, your words, not mine.

That's a shame, as it's currently in less efficient hands than that.

So how about you choose between real options. Better, cheaper, available-to-everyone healthcare that's run by the government, or more expensive, inferior, available only to some healthcare that's not.

Of course, if someone else can do it better, and you can afford them, you are welcome to have private healthcare .I support private healthcare.

If it works in France, then great for France. But the fact is that we're a little different. We have, what 6 or 7 times the population, Different demographics, different social system. Different economic system. A somewhat better comparison would be Canada (30 on the list you provided). Of course, we still have a huge population gap, so it's hard to compare, but I don't see us coming out ahead on that one.

So it works the same for 40million and 140million but you think it will be different, for no reason you can mention, for 300million?

OK. Then look at Europe as a whole.

Personally, I'd rather not have to wait 6 weeks for non-elective surgery.

Or 4-hours in an emergency room.. .wait, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817906/

Let's see what those priave insurance companies in the US think: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76295.php

"In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that "the (U.S.) healthcare system is not timely." He cited "recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement… that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable," Brennan said. "

In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or better than the U.S. in most areas, the organizations say. Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.

"There are significant differences between the U.S. and Canada, too," said Burger. "In Canada, no one is denied care because of cost, because their treatment or test was not 'pre-approved' or because they have a pre-existing condition."

BTW. The last elective surgery I had took me a year to get (I was paying for it myself), when I had cancer it took me 2 months to get an appointment (after three months of going from one specialist to another to determine that's what I had). When standard chemo failed, it took 6 months to arrange a BMT (not over a doner either, I was autoautologis), and my last ER visit I spent 2 hours in the waiting room, and more than 5 hours before the doctor (PA actually, never saw a doctor) even looked at me. The bill for those 5 hours with no doctor was over $3000.

The government has managed to screw up taxes, airlines, national security, the postal service, etc etc etc. But I guess it makes perfect sense to give them a shot at health care. Yeah right.

Who has done national security or a postal service better, and since when did the government control airlines.

You are unwilling to compare the 36 countries with better healthcare because they have a different population than us, but you are willing to compare national security and healthcare? Why not compare apples-to-apples when such a comparison is right there. The government is 12% more effiient at administering medicare than private companies.

I'll refer to Chrysostom's comments on your views of socialism, only adding that you've got a good textbook knowledge of what socialism is on paper, but seem to be forgetting what socialism becomes in reality.

Pretty vague and reeks of rhetoric. I wonder what you actually know about capitalism. Go look up "US Steel" and "Stanard Oil"... for fun add "shanty town".

Then, of course, we have to wonder who will pay for it. Oh yeah, raise my taxes. Great.

Actually, your out-of-pocket will go down. America has the most expensive health-insurance on the planet.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The alternative is anarchy. If you want to know why I prefer an untrustable government to anarchy, I'd suggest you look at any country that has tried it. The sohrt answer is "because it's superior to the alternative".

It isn't anarchy now. It isn't great, but the systems we have now are, as you said, better than the alternative, which is bigger government, more taxes, and all my services with the reliability of the post office. My gosh, look at medicare.

What's truly funny is your reasoning that anarchy will rain if we don't surrender to big government. I assume you have the typical liberal thought process that the state is never wrong and people can't think for themselves.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So then you agree with me in principal. Where's the concern?

There's a difference between offering services, and taking control. It is interesting that the thing the left fears the most from the current administration is the one thing they want for themselves. More power, more control.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That's a shame, as it's currently in less efficient hands than that.

So how about you choose between real options. Better, cheaper, available-to-everyone healthcare that's run by the government, or more expensive, inferior, available only to some healthcare that's not.

Of course, if someone else can do it better, and you can afford them, you are welcome to have private healthcare .I support private healthcare.

Since you brought up rhetoric, you have yet to convince me of your better-cheaper-available argument.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So it works the same for 40million and 140million but you think it will be different, for no reason you can mention, for 300million?OK. Then look at Europe as a whole.

There is a big difference in meeting the demands of 40 million and 300 million, and I'm sure you know it. And if you go back and reread, you'll see that I also noted differences in demographics, culture, economy, etc. Comparing it to any country in Europe (a common liberal argument) is invalid; our numbers are bigger, and our health needs are different.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Or 4-hours in an emergency room.. .wait, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817906/

Let's see what those priave insurance companies in the US think: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76295.php

"In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that "the (U.S.) healthcare system is not timely." He cited "recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement… that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable," Brennan said. "

That's pretty suspect. 70 days? I'm not buying that without knowing the facts of those statistics. A quick search of ihi did not yield the statistics in question.

From personal experience, the last time I went to the ER, before I had insurance, I spent 30 minutes waiting at a crowded ER in Miami. In another example, my brother in law, who has cancer, was prepped for a bone marrow transplant within a week of the doctors deciding he needed it (and he doesn't have insurance, how's that for the kicker)

Originally Posted by JerryLove

In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or better than the U.S. in most areas, the organizations say. Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.

What statistics? What organizations? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the wait times are getting better considering the government just spent 6 billion dollars at addressing the problem. Imagine the cost of funneling that up to cover 300 million people.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Who has done national security or a postal service better, and since when did the government control airlines.

You are unwilling to compare the 36 countries with better healthcare because they have a different population than us, but you are willing to compare national security and healthcare? Why not compare apples-to-apples when such a comparison is right there. The government is 12% more effiient at administering medicare than private companies

I was speaking to the mess (although, not horrible mess) that is the FAA.

I never made such comparisons. Any comparison is yours, not mine. I'm only pointing out how inefficient those services and agencys are with meeting our needs.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Pretty vague and reeks of rhetoric. I wonder what you actually know about capitalism. Go look up "US Steel" and "Stanard Oil"... for fun add "shanty town".

Ha, yeah, I'll go ahead and do a comparison of Europe, just to cover my bases.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Actually, your out-of-pocket will go down. America has the most expensive health-insurance on the planet.

It is expensive, yes, but that doesn't make me wish I could through my money at, in your own words, an untrustworthy government. No, not at all.