rickyp wrote: eviddence at hand.
But i could have chosen one of a large number of issues.
- global warming
- prison sentences for criminals
- environmental protection...
There is clearly an anti-science anti-intellectual approach by many conservatives Ray Its not just that we all "choose information" but conservatives generally attack the scientific approach.
The standard tactic is to ignore the general premise of the information offered but attack some small point. As if by refutring that small point the whole premise is undermined.

You could have chosen each of those, and each would be equally ridiculous. AGW, even if true, means that somehow we've got to avoid bankruptcy and yet radically change the way we live. Furthermore, we can already see that some of the more dire predictions are not true. Then we have the latest predictions of sunspot activity receding and a mini ice age coming. I don't know who thinks that the science on AGW is so ironclad that the world must go into panic mode and ignore the geo-political implications. Well, okay, maybe you, Richard.

Prison sentences, really? I suppose they don't necessarily reform the criminals? That, of course, presumes the objective is reform. What if the objective is to protect society? What if some, or even many, criminals cannot be reformed? What's the "science" on that? I can tell you, from firsthand experience, most of the tens of thousands of criminals I have interacted with had little desire to change.

Environmental protection is another canard. Conservatives don't want dirty air or unsafe water. We don't want animals to go extinct. We also don't believe that the environmentalists are rational. They are the ones who put tens of thousands of people out of work in Central CA to (allegedly) protect the Delta Smelt, block a solar plant in Mojave, CA, and stop drilling in Texas to protect a lizard, let alone the caribou in Alaska. There is little empirical evidence that disaster would ensue, but environmentalists are not interested in balance, because, frankly, they are crackers.

The problem is that these crackpots have been largely successful in painting all conservatives as if we are modern day robber-barons, seeking to plunder all we survey. The truth is we think progress for the human race is possible without necessarily extinguishing other species. It's known as "balance" and liberals and their enviro-nut allies should give it a shot.

The climate science question is a very interesting one. Because the science of the matter and the public policy of the matter are two very different things. The reality in the end is that the science's validity is only a small part of the public policy equation. It's akin to libertarians jumping up and down all the time about the Constitution. Whatever the climate science or Constitution say is only minimally significant to what the majority wants in regards to public policy.

Ray Jay wrote:Just on the cancer survival stuff, Danivon has rightly suggested that there may be nuance in the statistics. But he hasn't refuted them in a scientific way. He's just postulated, which is fine.

True enough. Ricky, you really are too dogmatic and tribal on these points. You do realise that I usually skim your posts rather than read them nowadays?

And the fact still remains that if he and I both got diagnosed with cancer in the year 2000, I had a 6 out of 9 chance of surviving 5 years whereas he has a 4 out of 9 chance. What is your intellectual, rational refutation of that point? Remember to use the scientific method.

I suppose my point is that if my diagnosis came a few years later into my condition than yours, that if we compared (say) 10 year survival rates it may well look different. I can't 'refute' your point. But I am pointing to your use of a statistic and how it doesn't 'prove' yours without some more work.

By the way, when it comes to logic, I'm shocked at this:

If you read my article on food stamps you'll seriously question whether the government can control health care spending by running it.

[/quote]Sure, point to failure and extrapolate. We can all do that (Lehman Bros proves that the private sector can't run banks, so suggests we should question whether it can run retail). I suppose the point that there are many countries out there that do have systems that are doing better than the US at controlling spending and where the government does run it suggests that your question has been answered.

Yes, it can. Does it always? Of course not.

danivon wrote:Russell, but you were quoting and replying to me. Hence my assumption that it was my points you were reacting to.

True. Mea culpas

danivon wrote:I note with interest that you are more happy to accept subsidy (which to me is closer to socialism) than a mandate (which is not socialist, per se).

For me the way I see it is the former is a choice the latter is not. Government can establish a choice and take actions to make it more attractive. What it can not do is require me to make a specific choice (with certain exceptions).

Besides I don't actually expect most people to purchase Medicaid even if subsidized because it sucks.

danivon wrote:And again, I'm unsurprised that the debate wheels around to the Constitution (which doesn't really, as far as I can tell, definitively say that the Federal Government cannot mandate health insurance under 'general welfare').

Well the Constitution is not a list of what the Government can not do but rather is a listing of what it can do. Just as Steve pointed to the Constitution specifically says if it isn't specifically listed its prohibited. Therefore, since it doesn't specifically say it can, it can't. At least not until the Court says it can. However, I don't expect the current composition of the Court to expand the Commerce Clause interpretation that much.

danivon wrote: That's just a part of the 'principles' v 'practicality' argument.

You are correct it is. However, there are times when principles should be more important then practicality. For me this is one of those times .

danivon wrote: When the Constitution doesn't serve the nation well, you can amend it. Somehow I doubt that you would be willing to support an Amendment to allow a mandate. So the principle seems to outweigh the consideration of whether it 'works'.

You are correct in that I probably would not support such an amendment. If for no other reasons the potential abuses of that kind of an amendment would be unimaginable.

Besides, I think it would seriously surpass the limits a government should be operating under.

Neal Anderth wrote:The climate science question is a very interesting one. Because the science of the matter and the public policy of the matter are two very different things. The reality in the end is that the science's validity is only a small part of the public policy equation. It's akin to libertarians jumping up and down all the time about the Constitution. Whatever the climate science or Constitution say is only minimally significant to what the majority wants in regards to public policy.

I agree with the 1st 3 sentences of Neal's post, and don't really understand the last 2. Regarding the 1st 3, another way to put it is that I think there is a lot of truth to the charge that conservatives ignore reality when they deny man made global warming or when they deny that US health care spending is out of control and unsustainable.

However, there are many moderate conservatives who agree with human caused global warming but worry that the political cure will be worse than the disease. Ethanol subsidies are a very good example of that. We've created a policy that is anti-food, anti-environment, very expensive, and does nothing to solve global warming. And we so far cannot get rid of it even thought that nobody in their right mind supports it. Cap and trade has also been ineffective where tried.

As to health care, Obama has passed a health care plan that was supposed to be bend the cost curve. However, all of the evidence is that it bends it upward in the wrong direction. Conservatives are operating with the premise that there are huge unintended consequences when Governments act, and huge challenges to terminating any program that government puts into place, no matter how noble the intent and how bad it turns out to be in reality.

For every conservative that you find who denies science, I bet I can find a liberal who denies human nature and economics.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Just on the cancer survival stuff, Danivon has rightly suggested that there may be nuance in the statistics. But he hasn't refuted them in a scientific way. He's just postulated, which is fine.

True enough. Ricky, you really are too dogmatic and tribal on these points. You do realise that I usually skim your posts rather than read them nowadays?

And the fact still remains that if he and I both got diagnosed with cancer in the year 2000, I had a 6 out of 9 chance of surviving 5 years whereas he has a 4 out of 9 chance. What is your intellectual, rational refutation of that point? Remember to use the scientific method.

I suppose my point is that if my diagnosis came a few years later into my condition than yours, that if we compared (say) 10 year survival rates it may well look different. I can't 'refute' your point. But I am pointing to your use of a statistic and how it doesn't 'prove' yours without some more work.

Oh, I totally get that. Another way to put it is that in the US we cure 7 out of every 4 fatal prostate cancers. There are men who are unnecessarily suffering from incontinence, sexual dysfunction, or worse who mistakenly believe that they've been cured of prostate cancer. Let's say a prayer for our brothers, liberals and conservatives alike.

I was responding to Ricky's diatribe that liberals use all the data and conservatives are idiots, or something like that.

By the way, when it comes to logic, I'm shocked at this:

If you read my article on food stamps you'll seriously question whether the government can control health care spending by running it.

Sure, point to failure and extrapolate. We can all do that (Lehman Bros proves that the private sector can't run banks, so suggests we should question whether it can run retail). I suppose the point that there are many countries out there that do have systems that are doing better than the US at controlling spending and where the government does run it suggests that your question has been answered.

Yes, it can. Does it always? Of course not.

Fair point. (Shocked?) Sequentially in my life I read the food stamp article and then I read Russell's post on government working. It wasn't one of those posts that I spent 3 hours thinking about. The contrast was too funny to ignore. When was the last time a large US government program demonstrated excellence? My most recent best example is 1991, and no doubt that would have some controversy.

By the way, to prove your point, it's not good enough to show that the Dutch can arrange a national health care plan that works. Different countries have different sizes, histories, demographics, and political cultures. We can definitely learn from the Dutch, but we can't necessarily extrapolate to the US.

By the way, to prove your point, it's not good enough to show that the Dutch can arrange a national health care plan that works. Different countries have different sizes, histories, demographics, and political cultures. We can definitely learn from the Dutch, but we can't necessarily extrapolate to the US.

Because americans are uniquely incapable?
The "we can't do it here 'cause we're different... ignores the evidence that American medicare, medicaid and veterans care is similar, and works more efficiently than the private system . (KAiser studies on health care delivery) And ignores the fact that 46% of health care spending in the US is already from the government.
So, not so different.

Now very well and good to argue the implications of global warming. But my point wasn't that many conservatives do that...a lot of people argue that.
What many conservatives do is deny the basic science. And we've seen that demonstrated on these boards constantly.

steve

No, what stopped competition was the monopoly and the power that it held. MCI could have competed years before it did, if it was allowed to do so. Note well the lawsuits MCI had to file, the appeals AT&T slowed them with, etc. It took almost twenty years for them to establish themselves and, one could definitely argue, the monopoly system was a key to this

I was thinking of the inception of telephony to the development of the technology that allowed more than one local opertating system or LD system. Roughly 80 years.
I'll grant you that the entrenched monopolies then fought the impending competition and fought the loss of their monopoly. I'm not sure what this proves. Oce the technology allowed competition it was inevitable, and once that ocurred demand elasticity was created.

Housing and elasticity of demand?
I can move to a bigger or smaller house. I can rent. I can move back in with my parents. I can buy a trailer ....

rickyp wrote:Housing and elasticity of demand?
I can move to a bigger or smaller house. I can rent. I can move back in with my parents. I can buy a trailer ....

You can go to a free clinic. You can move to Canada. You can move to a State with less restrictions and more freedom. You can go to medical school . . .

Richard, you simply cannot convince me, or anyone who knows anything about the government, that American government run healthcare is going to be efficient AND high quality.

You love to cite how popular Medicare is. You know why? Because it's subsidized by people who actually work, so it's cheap or even free.

But, it's not efficient. Everyone, even El Presidente (he thinks he runs a banana republic, so maybe we should address him as such) says there is a lot of fraud and abuse in the system. Expanding it to cover more Americans will mean . . . less fraud and abuse OR more???

steve

Richard, you simply cannot convince me, or anyone who knows anything about the government, that American government run healthcare is going to be efficient AND high quality.

First, not really trying to...I was simply illustrating why George Will is right. That conservatives have stopped being the party that is pragmatic and evlieves in the use of evidence and experience.
And thats beenillustrated. I am sorry if this means I seem dogmatic. I fully realize I'm repeating the same arguements and offering up the same evidence that has been presented in otehr discussions on health care,
The point was that they are responses to the same objections. When I refer to the kaiser studies on health care delivery in the US and the evidence they produce that demonstrates it is more efficent then the current private section in the US, it still isn't credible to Steve...who'll never be convinced. Not becasue he has evidence to the contrary but because he his his pre-conceptions and a handful of anecdote to support his illusion.
When Ray says that Americans will never embrace syustems in oterh countries he ignores the fact that the US already does so... (Medicare is similar to CDn system , Veterans care the same as NHS in UK)
And george Will quite rightly says that if you can't get out of your ideological trench you aren't moving forward with problem solving. And Archduke, who is usually prone to the use of proper evidence surrenbders this point when he says that ideology is most important.

Because the ideology difference is the point.

And Steve, it may be that "anyone who knows anything about the government" is actually a pretty small universe of people in the US when seniors show up at town halls to tell them to "keep their govenrment hands off my medicare". But thats another story and one you complain about regularly. The stupid electorate.
It seems that medicare is a pretty popular program Steve, popular enough that republicans sem to be backing off the Ryan fix to Medicare.... Why's that?

Ray

Ricky, I find your diatribes to be among the least well supported on this website, in spite of your claims to the contrary. Really. My perception is as real as yours.

Ray, in this particular thread i've alluded to studies that I linked and posted to several times on debates about health care. I didn't do so this time because i thought most of us would have retained some of that information. For instance when you said Medicare was bankryupting the country, I take it that you failed to retain the information?
I'm not trying to be rude here. Or dogmatic. I'm illustrating that since you seem to firmly want to beleive that medicare and socialized medicine is the problem you will never absorb evidence to the contrary as valid. As george Will maintains. (Despite your characterizations of me as a liberal, I'm really not, otehr than socailly. I simply see that sometimes collaboration and social connectivy is better at delivering happy productive companies and lives.)
Here's the info from Kaiser: and a link:

Government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, account for a significant share of health care spending, but they have increased at a slower rate than private insurance. Medicare per capita spending has grown at a slightly lower rate, on average, than private health insurance spending, at about 6.8 vs. 7.1% annually respectively between 1998 and 2008. [3] Medicaid expenditures, similarly, have grown at slower rate than private spending, though enrollment in the program has increased during the current economic recession, which may result in increased Medicaid spending figures soon

source: http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx

rickyp wrote:steve

Richard, you simply cannot convince me, or anyone who knows anything about the government, that American government run healthcare is going to be efficient AND high quality.

First, not really trying to...I was simply illustrating why George Will is right. That conservatives have stopped being the party that is pragmatic and evlieves in the use of evidence and experience.

Without any context whatsoever, I can only say, with all due respect (which, of course, implies very little), "Bunk!"

And thats beenillustrated. I am sorry if this means I seem dogmatic. I fully realize I'm repeating the same arguements and offering up the same evidence that has been presented in otehr discussions on health care,

No, it's not been illustrated. Ever. That's the problem. You have NEVER illustrated that an actually free marketplace for medical insurance has ever been tried. In fact, we have NOTHING resembling a free healthcare insurance marketplace.

The point was that they are responses to the same objections. When I refer to the kaiser studies on health care delivery in the US and the evidence they produce that demonstrates it is more efficent then the current private section in the US, it still isn't credible to Steve...who'll never be convinced.

Absolute garbage. Because you ignore all the current restrictions and pretend like there could be actual competition in spite of the heavy hand of government.

Not becasue he has evidence to the contrary but because he his his pre-conceptions and a handful of anecdote to support his illusion.

You want me to prove something that has never existed. On the other hand, you dismiss it out of hand--or, should I say out of "faith?"

When Ray says that Americans will never embrace syustems in oterh countries he ignores the fact that the US already does so... (Medicare is similar to CDn system , Veterans care the same as NHS in UK)

Objection, relevance? Did Democrats propose another country's system? No. Why not?

And george Will quite rightly says that if you can't get out of your ideological trench you aren't moving forward with problem solving.

1. George Will is a smart guy.
2. George Will is a conservative.
3. George Will does not speak for all conservatives.
4. George Will deserves to be linked so we can get his unfiltered words. Not that you would have a bias. Well, okay, yeah you would.

And Steve, it may be that "anyone who knows anything about the government" is actually a pretty small universe of people in the US when seniors show up at town halls to tell them to "keep their govenrment hands off my medicare".

I think Nancy Pelosi called such folks, "astroturf." Why? Because they were plants. People who actually understand what Ryan has proposed no that it will affect no one over 55. So, the grannies showing up to protest are either ill-informed or put up to fake protest.

Meanwhile, Democrats have bravely proposed . . . continuing on as if nothing is going to happen!

But thats another story and one you complain about regularly. The stupid electorate.

Well, if they listen to Democrats and their demagoguery, yes, they are stupid.

It seems that medicare is a pretty popular program Steve, popular enough that republicans sem to be backing off the Ryan fix to Medicare.... Why's that?

Richard, why are you such . . . a richard?

Sure, it's popular. When you GIVE something for nothing (or relatively so), it's popular.

Now, what is demagoguery? I'd say it is taking an opponent's plan, distorting it, and using that distortion to scare people who would not be impacted AT ALL by the plan.

What is leadership? I'll tell you what it's not: sitting on your brain and pretending this country can continue giving entitlements at the level we are now.

Those are your Democrats and your man, Obama.

Ricky said:

When Ray says that Americans will never embrace syustems in oterh countries he ignores the fact that the US already does so... (Medicare is similar to CDn system , Veterans care the same as NHS in UK)

Stop right there. Let's stay on this point that you've raised Ricky. It's time for you to look inward instead of looking outward.

Where did I say that the US will never embrace something that other countries have? I've never said that. Never. So, either you are slandering, or you are demonstrating that you cannot read carefully or that you are not able to think analytically. Which is it? How angry do you get when someone says that you've said something that you haven't said?

rickyp wrote:Ray

Ricky, I find your diatribes to be among the least well supported on this website, in spite of your claims to the contrary. Really. My perception is as real as yours.

Ray, in this particular thread i've alluded to studies that I linked and posted to several times on debates about health care. I didn't do so this time because i thought most of us would have retained some of that information. For instance when you said Medicare was bankryupting the country, I take it that you failed to retain the information?
I'm not trying to be rude here. Or dogmatic. I'm illustrating that since you seem to firmly want to beleive that medicare and socialized medicine is the problem you will never absorb evidence to the contrary as valid. As george Will maintains. (Despite your characterizations of me as a liberal, I'm really not, otehr than socailly. I simply see that sometimes collaboration and social connectivy is better at delivering happy productive companies and lives.)
Here's the info from Kaiser: and a link:

Government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, account for a significant share of health care spending, but they have increased at a slower rate than private insurance. Medicare per capita spending has grown at a slightly lower rate, on average, than private health insurance spending, at about 6.8 vs. 7.1% annually respectively between 1998 and 2008. [3] Medicaid expenditures, similarly, have grown at slower rate than private spending, though enrollment in the program has increased during the current economic recession, which may result in increased Medicaid spending figures soon

source: http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx

Ricky, thanks for providing some of the information to prove my point. I've said that Medicare and medicaid are bankrupting the country. You've provided a link that says that the per person cost of medicare has gone up by 7.1% annually over an 11 year period. With compounding that's more than doubling in 11 years. How about medicare eligibility? When the baby boomers are retiring. I've already linked numerous times to a report that the US is over $100 trillion in the red, primarily because of medicare promises. If the per person cost is doubling every 10 years, and the number of people in the program is also increasing substantially, you should be able to see where this is going. If I can quote a previous post of yours: "it's just math".

It doesn't matter that the private sector cost is increasing by less than 1% more per year. That's not relevant to the question of whether the US is bankrupting itself. I don't care if health care costs are increasing by 100% elsewhere; that's not relevant to the question of whether the US is bankrupting itself.

So, in summary, I have absorbed the information that you have provided. In fact, I understand it better than you do. You have not absorbed the information that I have provided.

Ricky:

And george Will quite rightly says that if you can't get out of your ideological trench you aren't moving forward with problem solving.

Steve:

1. George Will is a smart guy.
2. George Will is a conservative.
3. George Will does not speak for all conservatives.
4. George Will deserves to be linked so we can get his unfiltered words. Not that you would have a bias. Well, okay, yeah you would.

What did George Will say? I couldn't find it.