[untitled]
18 comments
It is also perfectly reasonable to believe that the problem is that we already have too much government control, so turning it all over to the government is hardly the solution.
I am not aware of any health care reform legislation in the United States from any party that advocates turning it all over to the government. You actually suggest this several times in your post, so you seem to be misinformed.
Your points about the article itself are valid. Some people do ignore the fact that there are informed people on the opposite side. However, your argument would have a lot more credibility if you demonstrated understanding of the issue you are writing about.
I am not aware of any health care reform legislation in the United States from any party that advocates turning it all over to the government. You actually suggest this several times in your post, so you seem to be misinformed.
Your points about the article itself are valid. Some people do ignore the fact that there are informed people on the opposite side. However, your argument would have a lot more credibility if you demonstrated understanding of the issue you are writing about.
I simplify for, well, simplicity. No 20-word summary could capture the bills. (After all, that's, what, 1 word per 200 pages of bill or so?) As summaries go, it's not entirely unreasonable either; once the bills are in place, the only things the government won't control is basically things it is choosing not to control, which on the grand scale of how much control they'd have comes in pretty close to "total control". At least in the US, that is not how our government is supposed to work.
I mean, it's not like I made an effort to hide my biases here... :)
I mean, it's not like I made an effort to hide my biases here... :)
It is also perfectly reasonable to believe that the problem is that we already have too much government control, so turning it all over to the government is hardly the solution.
> I am not aware of any health care reform legislation in the United States from any party that advocates turning it all over to the government.
"all over" is an exaggeration, but do you really want to argue that Obamacare wasn't imposing significantly more govt control than we currently have?
If you concede that point, then you're just arguing about the magnitude of what's left in private hands.
Note that using private firms for health services does not imply that those services are not under govt control. For example, the postal service uses contractors to transport mail, but that doesn't imply that the postal service isn't govt controlled.
> I am not aware of any health care reform legislation in the United States from any party that advocates turning it all over to the government.
"all over" is an exaggeration, but do you really want to argue that Obamacare wasn't imposing significantly more govt control than we currently have?
If you concede that point, then you're just arguing about the magnitude of what's left in private hands.
Note that using private firms for health services does not imply that those services are not under govt control. For example, the postal service uses contractors to transport mail, but that doesn't imply that the postal service isn't govt controlled.
Amen. An upvote can't possibly express my agreement. It never fails that some state in the South, this time Texas, is held up as an example of some huge population that doesn't know what's good for it leaving aside the entire history of the South (plenty of that being ugly and sad) as wanting to just be left alone.
These articles are almost always written by someone without the slightest clue what it's like to live in the South, where people want to just be left alone to handle their own problems. It's not that they don't understand their best interests. It's that they'd like to handle them themselves instead of hoping the inept government will fix things.
These articles are almost always written by someone without the slightest clue what it's like to live in the South, where people want to just be left alone to handle their own problems. It's not that they don't understand their best interests. It's that they'd like to handle them themselves instead of hoping the inept government will fix things.
When reading this article, I was reminded of a passage from Dostoevsky's "Notes from Underground":
"But I repeat for the one-hundredth time, there is one case, only one, when a man may intentionally, consciously desire something even something harmful to himself, something stupid, even very stupid, namely: in order to have the right to desire something even very stupid and not be bound by an obligation to desire only what's smart. After all, this very stupid thing, one's own whim, gentlemen, may in fact be the most advantageous thing on earth for people like me, especially in certain cases. In particular, it may be more advantageous than any other advantage, even in a case where it causes obvious harm and contradicts the most sensible conclusions of reason about advantage - because in any case it preserves for us what's most important and precious, that is, our personality and our individuality. ... I believe this, I vouch for it, because, after all, the whole of man's work seems to consist only in proving to himself constantly that he's a man and not an organ stop! Even if he has to lose his own skin, he'll prove it, even if he has to become a troglodyte, he'll prove it."
"But I repeat for the one-hundredth time, there is one case, only one, when a man may intentionally, consciously desire something even something harmful to himself, something stupid, even very stupid, namely: in order to have the right to desire something even very stupid and not be bound by an obligation to desire only what's smart. After all, this very stupid thing, one's own whim, gentlemen, may in fact be the most advantageous thing on earth for people like me, especially in certain cases. In particular, it may be more advantageous than any other advantage, even in a case where it causes obvious harm and contradicts the most sensible conclusions of reason about advantage - because in any case it preserves for us what's most important and precious, that is, our personality and our individuality. ... I believe this, I vouch for it, because, after all, the whole of man's work seems to consist only in proving to himself constantly that he's a man and not an organ stop! Even if he has to lose his own skin, he'll prove it, even if he has to become a troglodyte, he'll prove it."
Suppose the following idea was put to vote: Confiscate the wealth of the top 1% of Americans and redistribute it by dividing it up equally among the remaining 99%.
Each of the 99% would get a check for about $500,000.00
Would it be in the best interest of the 99% to vote "yes" on such a proposal?
Only if you look at the short term outcome. After a while, the economy would be seriously harmed, not just because others would not seek wealth if it could be confiscated like that, and also because in capitalism wealth flows to those who add value by helping others get what they want.
The healthcare reform debate is similar. While in the short term health care reform will help people who can't afford expensive care, it will slow innovation (propelled by the profit motive) and will encourage people to engage in expensive (in terms of healthcare costs) lifestyle choices.
Each of the 99% would get a check for about $500,000.00
Would it be in the best interest of the 99% to vote "yes" on such a proposal?
Only if you look at the short term outcome. After a while, the economy would be seriously harmed, not just because others would not seek wealth if it could be confiscated like that, and also because in capitalism wealth flows to those who add value by helping others get what they want.
The healthcare reform debate is similar. While in the short term health care reform will help people who can't afford expensive care, it will slow innovation (propelled by the profit motive) and will encourage people to engage in expensive (in terms of healthcare costs) lifestyle choices.
Just curious where you got the number $500,000
I've heard ballpark estimates that the total wealth of the U.S., the sum of all assets (bridges, buildings, companies, cars) minus debts is roughly $80-$90 trillion. Wikipedia seems to think it's nearer to $60 trillion.
Assuming $90 trillion and 300mil people, if we divided up the wealth of everyone (not just the top 1%) and redstributed, we'd only get to $300,000 per person. If the top 1% hold a third of all wealth, you've got at most $100,000 per person.
I've heard ballpark estimates that the total wealth of the U.S., the sum of all assets (bridges, buildings, companies, cars) minus debts is roughly $80-$90 trillion. Wikipedia seems to think it's nearer to $60 trillion.
Assuming $90 trillion and 300mil people, if we divided up the wealth of everyone (not just the top 1%) and redstributed, we'd only get to $300,000 per person. If the top 1% hold a third of all wealth, you've got at most $100,000 per person.
I imagine he made it up. The number itself doesn't matter; you probably believe it is in your interest to have an extra $100,000.
I really wouldn't know if you're right or wrong about healthcare reform, but in the context of the BBC article, I wonder: do you think many voters made their decisions based on the sort of arguments that you put forward here?
I'm inclined to believe that indeed they went with a gut feeling that had very little to do with economic analyses.
I should note though, that while the article's theory seems very plausible to me, the supporting evidence is merely anecdotal. There must be more meaty research on voter behaviour out there, I hope...
I'm inclined to believe that indeed they went with a gut feeling that had very little to do with economic analyses.
I should note though, that while the article's theory seems very plausible to me, the supporting evidence is merely anecdotal. There must be more meaty research on voter behaviour out there, I hope...
While in the short term health care reform will help people who can't afford expensive care, it will slow innovation (propelled by the profit motive) and will encourage people to engage in expensive (in terms of healthcare costs) lifestyle choices.
Im not sure, though, that is the reasoning driving this populist opposition.
This healthcare reform business has seemed a bit of a mess for me, living in the UK. To us the new proposals seemed like common sense and "I thought everyone did it that way". The mass opposition was unexpected (at least for me anyway).
Im not sure, though, that is the reasoning driving this populist opposition.
This healthcare reform business has seemed a bit of a mess for me, living in the UK. To us the new proposals seemed like common sense and "I thought everyone did it that way". The mass opposition was unexpected (at least for me anyway).
I submit that you are correct about Zimbabwe-style confiscation policies being disastrous for an economy.
Aside from the other points ....the economy would be further harmed by a massive inflation fueled by all that excess cash chasing the same number of consumer goods.
But at the same time it's true that the degree of distinction between rich and poor at the moment is still highly detrimental to American society as contrasted to either contemporary Scandinavia or American in 1955. Indeed, it's extremes like present American wealth disproportionalities that can make Zimbabwean confiscation seem more appealing to the majority regardless of one might rationally argue with them (one can look at Latin America for a lot of example here).
Just as much, I'd mention that there have umpteen versions of health care reform in the debate and they cannot all be mechanically compared to simplistic confiscation. Further consider that neither the US public education system nor the US highway system have not been economic disasters for the US and the British NHS provide health far more cheaply than the US health care non-system provides.
That said, I would admit that the particular compromise bill that has come out of Congress is pretty much a statist disaster in the making (though hopefully now in the unmaking).
Also, it's worth noting that America's current private-public system is more or less the worst of both worlds. The majority of private companies aren't innovators but parasites on government funding while the government doesn't have the mandate to directly distribute any goods. Either pure free enterprise or state health care could be an improvement IF either could start from a clean slate - but naturally that won't happen regardless.
But at the same time it's true that the degree of distinction between rich and poor at the moment is still highly detrimental to American society as contrasted to either contemporary Scandinavia or American in 1955. Indeed, it's extremes like present American wealth disproportionalities that can make Zimbabwean confiscation seem more appealing to the majority regardless of one might rationally argue with them (one can look at Latin America for a lot of example here).
Just as much, I'd mention that there have umpteen versions of health care reform in the debate and they cannot all be mechanically compared to simplistic confiscation. Further consider that neither the US public education system nor the US highway system have not been economic disasters for the US and the British NHS provide health far more cheaply than the US health care non-system provides.
That said, I would admit that the particular compromise bill that has come out of Congress is pretty much a statist disaster in the making (though hopefully now in the unmaking).
Also, it's worth noting that America's current private-public system is more or less the worst of both worlds. The majority of private companies aren't innovators but parasites on government funding while the government doesn't have the mandate to directly distribute any goods. Either pure free enterprise or state health care could be an improvement IF either could start from a clean slate - but naturally that won't happen regardless.
"After a while, the economy would be seriously harmed"
I would imagine that the economy would be immediately harmed as the meaning of value is contextual -- how much is a banana worth if everyone suddenly has the same amount of money? In the long term, I think things would stabilize as a new economy emerged.
I would imagine that the economy would be immediately harmed as the meaning of value is contextual -- how much is a banana worth if everyone suddenly has the same amount of money? In the long term, I think things would stabilize as a new economy emerged.
In the long term, society would stabilize if you killed half the population. Stabilization does not imply a lack of harm.
> Only if you look at the short term outcome. After a while, the economy would be seriously harmed, not just because others would not seek wealth if it could be confiscated like that, ...
This line of reasoning only makes sense if your premise is that wealth can be created from nothing and does not correspond to actual resources available/needed.
This line of reasoning only makes sense if your premise is that wealth can be created from nothing and does not correspond to actual resources available/needed.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Pretty cocksure guy himself, it might be added ...
P.S. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." was Yeat's line in the 1919 poem The Second Coming
P.S. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." was Yeat's line in the 1919 poem The Second Coming
Maybe just because they believe the proposals are not in their best interests.
You know, it's possible that people know what's in their own best interest more than someone else does.
If you disagree with me about what's in my best interest, it's far more likely that you're wrong than it is that I'm wrong.
Something to think about.
If you disagree with me about what's in my best interest, it's far more likely that you're wrong than it is that I'm wrong.
Something to think about.
Exactly why is that more likely? When you're in hospital, would you say the same thing to your doctor? Why would a trained political scientist / economist not know what's good for you - within the domain of their expertise?
I'm not saying you'd be wrong in most cases (plenty horrible politicians about), but I don't see convincing logic in your point.
I'm not saying you'd be wrong in most cases (plenty horrible politicians about), but I don't see convincing logic in your point.
When you're in hospital, would you say the same thing to your doctor?
I might. About 200,000 people a year die in the US from preventable medical errors[0]. I've had a number of experiences[1] where I found important medical information that doctors missed. Part of the reason is that when I or a close friend is ill, I put a lot more time and effort in to researching that specific case than a doctor would.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice#Statistics
[1] I know anecdotes don't serve as evidence for a trend
I might. About 200,000 people a year die in the US from preventable medical errors[0]. I've had a number of experiences[1] where I found important medical information that doctors missed. Part of the reason is that when I or a close friend is ill, I put a lot more time and effort in to researching that specific case than a doctor would.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice#Statistics
[1] I know anecdotes don't serve as evidence for a trend
Despite what the technocratic classes may think, political "science" and economics are nowhere near medicine in terms of understanding what is best for someone. Economics in particular is terrible at correctly understanding how people place value on their courses of action.
That's all very true, I agree. But my point wasn't that they're good at what they do; my point was that they may still be better at it than we are for ourselves.
You wrote "If you disagree with me about what's in my best interest, it's far more likely that you're wrong than it is that I'm wrong" - and it's not obvious to me that that is more likely.
You wrote "If you disagree with me about what's in my best interest, it's far more likely that you're wrong than it is that I'm wrong" - and it's not obvious to me that that is more likely.
The job of an economist is to make fools of the technocrat.
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. -- F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. -- F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
> Why would a trained political scientist / economist not know what's good for you - within the domain of their expertise?
Because they don't know my values.
Every time I read one of the "people don't act in their self interest" research reports, I see that the folks doing the research don't understand their subjects' self-interests or don't understand how what their subjects are doing serves that self-interest better than what the researcher posits as the "correct response".
I don't know if it's their training or self-selection that produces such results.
Since you disagree, how about providing a list of specific experts in political science or economics who you'd let run your life. Better yet, which politicians would you let control your life?
Names, please, not affiliations.
Because they don't know my values.
Every time I read one of the "people don't act in their self interest" research reports, I see that the folks doing the research don't understand their subjects' self-interests or don't understand how what their subjects are doing serves that self-interest better than what the researcher posits as the "correct response".
I don't know if it's their training or self-selection that produces such results.
Since you disagree, how about providing a list of specific experts in political science or economics who you'd let run your life. Better yet, which politicians would you let control your life?
Names, please, not affiliations.
> Since you disagree, how about providing a list of specific experts in political science or economics who you'd let run your life. Better yet, which politicians would you let control your life?
If you put it that way, the answer is, of course, nobody. But in putting it that way, we'd be shifting the discussion away from the original point. Now we're suddenly talking about "people running our lives for us", about our freedom. Respectfully, I would suggest that's a rhetorical trick.
I'm not an American, but I would have certainly trusted president Obama with the healthcare reform job. I'm not saying that I know he's right, I'm saying that I would trust him to make better decisions on it than I would make. Better for me, too. Would I let him run my life for me? I do hope that that is obviously a totally different question.
(edit: note that I never said I disagreed - the "I know what's good for me" sentiment actually does very much resonate with my instincts, too. But that doesn't make it true... and so I think it's not useful as an objection here)
If you put it that way, the answer is, of course, nobody. But in putting it that way, we'd be shifting the discussion away from the original point. Now we're suddenly talking about "people running our lives for us", about our freedom. Respectfully, I would suggest that's a rhetorical trick.
I'm not an American, but I would have certainly trusted president Obama with the healthcare reform job. I'm not saying that I know he's right, I'm saying that I would trust him to make better decisions on it than I would make. Better for me, too. Would I let him run my life for me? I do hope that that is obviously a totally different question.
(edit: note that I never said I disagreed - the "I know what's good for me" sentiment actually does very much resonate with my instincts, too. But that doesn't make it true... and so I think it's not useful as an objection here)
Looks like the young ones are going to have to repeat history. What is in your "best interest" is entirely subjective. Joe likes sausage and Peter likes pickles, so you solve a massive linear programming problem and you deliver them grapefruit. The idea that any person or system outside of yourself can objectively determine what is in your best interest is impossible. Even in defined settings, like healthcare, a good physician will give you a range of options. Maybe you'll opt for the transplant because you want to see your son graduate; or, maybe you won't because you cannot stomach being on immunosuppressants for the rest of your life.
This is a very intuitively appealing assertion, because (almost) everyone resents being told what is in their best interest if it contradicts what they think is in their best interest, regardless of whether or not the other person is right. To whit, I have told a number of friends (as tactfully as I could) that they were in bad relationships, because they were, and I was worried about them. Within a couple months time, all of those relationships had ended, because they were really, really bad. But the number of friends who didn't resent me for telling them that is 0.
I think, in general, people are pretty awful at figuring out what is in their own best interest. That's why the obesity rate is so high, credit card debt is so crushing, lotteries exist, and casinos are so damn profitable. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that politicians are better at figuring it out. But I have no idea how you are supposed to successfully navigate life without the insight that you frequently make a lot of mistakes about what is best for yourself.
I think, in general, people are pretty awful at figuring out what is in their own best interest. That's why the obesity rate is so high, credit card debt is so crushing, lotteries exist, and casinos are so damn profitable. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that politicians are better at figuring it out. But I have no idea how you are supposed to successfully navigate life without the insight that you frequently make a lot of mistakes about what is best for yourself.
Ask anyone who is obese if it's in their best interest and they're unlikely to say yes. Same for credit card debt and gambling addictions. These people know what is in their best long term interest but choose to do something else in the short term. That's different from being "awful at figuring out what is in their own best interest". People may be awful at choosing long term interests over short term interests but saying people don't know what their best interests are at all sounds condescending to me.
I don't believe it's condescending because I include myself among the great number of people who have trouble figuring out my own best interest.
Case in point: gambling. I love to do it. It is astonishingly easy to convince yourself your likelihood of winning is easily 10x, 100x, or in the case of a lottery, 100,000x as likely as it actually is. Humans have a well known tendency to take small probabilities of positive outcome and act as though they are, in fact, quite likely. Even knowing this, I still frequently over estimate the likelihood of good things happening when I play poker. If that tendency right there isn't my own brain being hardwired to have trouble figuring out my own best interest, I don't know what is.
Case in point: gambling. I love to do it. It is astonishingly easy to convince yourself your likelihood of winning is easily 10x, 100x, or in the case of a lottery, 100,000x as likely as it actually is. Humans have a well known tendency to take small probabilities of positive outcome and act as though they are, in fact, quite likely. Even knowing this, I still frequently over estimate the likelihood of good things happening when I play poker. If that tendency right there isn't my own brain being hardwired to have trouble figuring out my own best interest, I don't know what is.
It's primary a function of time preferences. Ceteris paribus, men prefer things that can be consumes right now rather than later.
Everyone knows that exercise is good for you, credit card debt is bad, etc. However, most people succumb to shot term temptation, rather than long term gain.
It is like the marshmallow experiment conducted by Standford university.(http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_...)
Most kids succumb before they can get the second marshmallow. However, those that wait these long few minutes will get two of them.
If a man will have a low time preference, in general, he will be more wealthier than a man with a high time preference.
Everyone knows that exercise is good for you, credit card debt is bad, etc. However, most people succumb to shot term temptation, rather than long term gain.
It is like the marshmallow experiment conducted by Standford university.(http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_...)
Most kids succumb before they can get the second marshmallow. However, those that wait these long few minutes will get two of them.
If a man will have a low time preference, in general, he will be more wealthier than a man with a high time preference.
This is a very intuitively appealing assertion
The politically opposite assertion, which is that the members of the speaker's set know better than the masses what is in their interest, is also extremely appealing.
The politically opposite assertion, which is that the members of the speaker's set know better than the masses what is in their interest, is also extremely appealing.
Yeah. Totally. It must be that people don't know what's good for them. What else could be wrong with the government providing more services? Nothing, that's what. Only if people could understand how much other people just want to help them.
Either that or these reporters and professors weren't so blinded by their own preferences. One of those.
Principles? Ideals? Ideology?
There's much more to decision making than peoples' immediate material interests.
There's much more to decision making than peoples' immediate material interests.
Very well put. "Best interest" is not a scalar, it is a whole vector of values, from material values, self-reliance values, freedom from control, spiritual values.
I think this book is relevant to this discussion.
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Polici...
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Polici...
From the site guidelines: "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
Regardless what they actually say, political material like this is an excuse to start a tribal argument.
Nothing is going to be said here about health care or transatlantic relations that hasn't been repeated ad nauseam elsewhere, and the oppositional vibe lingers.
HN gets less useful for everyone as a result.
Regardless what they actually say, political material like this is an excuse to start a tribal argument.
Nothing is going to be said here about health care or transatlantic relations that hasn't been repeated ad nauseam elsewhere, and the oppositional vibe lingers.
HN gets less useful for everyone as a result.
[deleted]
In America only about 50% of us can be bothered to vote in a Presidential election, far less in congressional and local elections. So out of the people who do vote most are ideologues with a strong affiliation to a particular party. They usually cancel each other out. 20% D, 20% R. That effectively puts control of our Democracy into the hands of less than 10% of the population with some variation to be factored in for voter turnout. At the risk of generalizing these people often make their choices based on fear and ignorance. Some small subset of these people are true independents making informed choices but most are just jumping to whatever party is offering the easy answers and a good talking points.
I am someone who is proud to not be blindly partisan and proud to be someone that always votes.
But for many people, if there party tells them something they accept it as truth. My party says it, I believe it, that settles it.
Two things the GOP are very good at is branding and riling up their base. Here are direct quotes from e-mails from "Michael Steele, RNC Chairman" <[email protected]>. I only went back about 1 month)
"socialist health care takeover scheme"
"socialist nightmare"
"past the liberal media filter"
"health care experiment"
"trillion dollar health care gamble"
"the liberal media's biased coverage"
"impose socialism on America's health care"
"Obama Democrat scheme to seize a fifth of our economy"
"put Washington bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors"
"their leftist goal of controlling every facet of American life."
"the American people don't want to surrender their health care freedoms to Big Government."
"Republican senators are on the side of the American people"
When I try to tell people that the proposed reforms have much in common with proposals passed by the house under GOP leadership they don't believe me. It doesn't fit the narrative their party has extolled AND I tried to explain, I don't have a nice easy story to tell.
I argued with those in OFA that they should be selling health care reform as a moral issue. But they don't listen to me either. At least in the e-mails from the Dems there is a textarea where I can express my opinion. GOP e-mails contain push polls and only once did they have a textarea (the form didn't work the first time I tried it).
The Dems believe in governing with PHD's, the GOP in governing with MBA's. MBA's are better at marketing.
But for many people, if there party tells them something they accept it as truth. My party says it, I believe it, that settles it.
Two things the GOP are very good at is branding and riling up their base. Here are direct quotes from e-mails from "Michael Steele, RNC Chairman" <[email protected]>. I only went back about 1 month)
"socialist health care takeover scheme"
"socialist nightmare"
"past the liberal media filter"
"health care experiment"
"trillion dollar health care gamble"
"the liberal media's biased coverage"
"impose socialism on America's health care"
"Obama Democrat scheme to seize a fifth of our economy"
"put Washington bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors"
"their leftist goal of controlling every facet of American life."
"the American people don't want to surrender their health care freedoms to Big Government."
"Republican senators are on the side of the American people"
When I try to tell people that the proposed reforms have much in common with proposals passed by the house under GOP leadership they don't believe me. It doesn't fit the narrative their party has extolled AND I tried to explain, I don't have a nice easy story to tell.
I argued with those in OFA that they should be selling health care reform as a moral issue. But they don't listen to me either. At least in the e-mails from the Dems there is a textarea where I can express my opinion. GOP e-mails contain push polls and only once did they have a textarea (the form didn't work the first time I tried it).
The Dems believe in governing with PHD's, the GOP in governing with MBA's. MBA's are better at marketing.
This is troll bait -- FLAG
For the record, what is wrong about concentrated wealth in the US, if everyone has a high standard of living compared to the rest of the world?
Some people are more productive and generate more for society, shouldn't they be rewarded for such?
Some people are more productive and generate more for society, shouldn't they be rewarded for such?
Clearly the only way to solve this problem is to remove the people's ability to vote. Or perhaps dissolve the people and elect a new one, as a large portion of this country would like to do?
The sheer arrogance of the author of this article is astounding. Apparently he knows all the answers and the American people are a bunch of idiots.
The general populace may not be the most informed, but in general they're much better at determining their own interests than some central command bureaucrat. Look at where central planning got the USSR.
The general populace may not be the most informed, but in general they're much better at determining their own interests than some central command bureaucrat. Look at where central planning got the USSR.
As an american, my observation is that _most_ Americans are bunch of idiots. How does that compare to most people from other countries? I don't know, I haven't lived in most countries.
This article could easily be completely discredited had they taken a moment to actually ask someone who dislikes the current health care reform why they dislike it. Considering that even large swathes of the Left currently have no great love for what has actually passed even the BBC might have been able to find such a person.
I, for one, don't give a shit how great your healthcare system is when a fundamental component of it is "Oh, and we'll break the economy on the rocky shores of immovable mandates." It doesn't matter how awesome your promises are if the economy can't sustain them. It is also perfectly reasonable to believe that the problem is that we already have too much government control, so turning it all over to the government is hardly the solution. (One question I'd ask those who still support this health care bill is, are you ready for when the Republicans control Congress and the Presidency again, and therefore control all your health coverage? It's not "if", it's "when".)
Note that arguing with me about whether we'd break the economy or whether more freedom in the market might help is besides the point. The point is that I am in fact "voting" (not yet, but I would and quite possibly will) against something I don't perceive to be in my interest. The shocker, the unthinkable thought, the terrible tragedy is not that I am willing to "vote against my interest", it is that I don't agree with you about what is in my interest.
If I seem incensed, well, I am. This is the argument of a supercilious bastard and deserves no attention, here or anywhere. People disagree with you. Deal with it. (People disagree with me too, only I don't go on about how they are stupid for "voting against their interest"....)