Saturday, August 01, 2009

Glock's Spiel

I am going to take space today to replay the comments of, and add my responses to, the arguments against my views on health insurance reform. My correspondent, one Mr. Gaston Glock, will not be happy but I am choosing to print his words in blue and mine in Republican red.
--------------------------------
There is *nothing* more important than FREEDOM.

Hunger. Sex. God. (in any order you choose)

However, this bill restricts the freedom of individual citizens, it restricts the freedom of doctors and medical professionals, it restricts the freedom of private employers, it restricts the freedom of the insurance industry.

Any legislation restricts freedom. All the rest is commentary.

But specifically, any individual can pay anything he/she wants to any doctor. Medical professionals, however, are not free to practice the best medicine they know how because of insurance companies. Doctors now are paid, essentially, by insurance companies, which have more money and more power than government. Insurance companies—not government—rations health care. So pick your villain. I will choose government, whose officials I can lobby and vote out of office.

Private employers are not free, either, in the best use of their workforce or their capital -- due to insurance companies. Reform legislation would, in fact, restrict the freedom of the insurance industry, which has among the largest profit margins of any industry, and this industry should be restricted.

This.... from assholes who can't even get three days of vehicle trade-in's right? Christ -- the auto industry has been accepting trade-in vehicles for 3 generations in a transaction that takes 10 minutes. Put the US Government in charge of it, and the whole thing collapses in three days because of incompetent bureaucrats.

I am amazed at your line of thinking. Here is a government program that is incredibly successful beyond all predictions. It is directly stimulative to the economy. The reason a transaction may take longer is to make sure no one is cheating the government/taxpayer. But it doesn’t take longer for the consumer. It takes longer for the dealer and there is not a single car dealer in the U.S. as I write who is not peeing in his pants with delight at this program. A program by the way we borrowed from Europe

I want this for my health care? I opt OUT of this asinine healthcare program and I have to pay a $2,500 penalty?? That is NOT FREEDOM.

I suppose it isn’t freedom to have to insure your car either, but doing so makes it possible for you, and me, to drive. It isn’t freedom to register with the Selective Service System. It isn’t freedom to have to get your kids vaccinated before going to public school. It isn’t freedom to have to get a Social Security number. Ad infinitum.

That is an oppressive government, controlling peoples lives, the type of which leads to revolution.

No, revolution is caused by rising bourgeois discontent over inequalities in society.

Perhaps you really ought to learn what fascism is. Guess what, it starts by Goverment controlling private industry.

I know what fascism is. It is an alliance of government and corporations that imposes its economic and political will by force. It was created by your ancestors and it killed mine. One of the political techniques it uses is to repeatedly lie in small ways and big. Another technique for maintaining political control is to set subgroups of the population against each other sowing fear and hatred, making it easier for the fascist leader to assume and maintain power.

Yeah, Washington knows how to run the banks better than bankers do.....they know how to run the auto industry better than automakers do.....they know how to run healthcare better than health professionals do. Health professionals know how to run healthcare. They are not allowed to -- by insurance companies. And even a cursory drop-by to the reality-based world would make apparent to you that the banking and auto industries are incapable of running themselves.

Profit itself is neither good nor bad but the social cost of private profit has to be taken into account. The system we have now creates a middleman between patient and doctor, and we know what middlemen do. We have examples of Medicare, VA and plans that cover civil and military servants that work very well. You might as well farm out to profit-making corporations things like war.

Oh, nevermind. Blackwater really helped us secure the peace and freedom of Iraq.

...let's bow down do omniscient Washington. Bureaucrats know better than everyone else. Oppressors one and all.

What you fail in each of your posts to recognize is that freedom flourishes here because we have representative government. Bureaucrats, as you know, operate the programs created by Congress, who are elected by the people and who rely on bureaucrats to make the detailed decisions the elected officials are afraid to. And, yes, because of their job requirements bureaucrats do know better than most other people. They, however, are not nor should they be empowered to make policy decisions that go beyond the scope of their executive branch leadership’s direction. And they never do. So blame your elected leaders. And the more we all blame them, the easier it can be to regulate a health insurance program than it is when profiteers run the program.

I would be tempted to ask you how you would run health care, but I am pretty sure I know: Make it entirely a market-based enterprise. You would be dead in five years, from rampant infectious disease if nothing else, or bankrupt. Financially bankrupt, that is.

And most importantly, read the 10th Amendment. This fascist Federal goverment was never granted these powers by the people, and thus those power are reserved to the States or the People.

This government was granted no powers by the people. They took those powers by a bloody revolution. I know which side you would have been on, too! Only losers yap about the 10th Amendment. There has been exactly one 10th Amendment “victory” before the Supreme Court in generations. To others who are still interested in this discussion, do as Herr Glock says and read the Constitution and its granting to Congress power “to make all laws which shall be for carrying in to execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.”

Freedom TRUMPS government!

This a tautology of immense silliness. Without social control (government), freedom goes only to those who are of superior physique, intellect, amorality and means. Since none of those attributes is usually attributed to you, I am surprised that you think you would survive long under the Social Darwinism you worship. Or as the distinguished political philosopher K. Kristofferson, Ph.D., once wrote: “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

No, you don't believe in freedom my subservient friend. Nor does this President.
Over the years, I have seen that what you think is violation of freedom I see as expanding freedom to others without taking away rights from others.

Saying someone doesn’t believe in freedom is like saying someone doesn’t believe in the weather. It is plain stupid and unproductive. When it rains, it is good for farmers and bad for picnickers. When there is a winter of excessive snow, it is bad for home builders but good for ski resort operators. “Freedom” is a relative term, and your freedom is someone else’s demise. It is a pure concept only when you are running around naked (clothes restricting your freedom, naturally) trying to escape nature’s predators.

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin

Real nice, adopting the left’s favorite quote about the Bushitler Administration, run by a president whose grandfather actually did business with real fascists.

14 comments:

  1. Of all the years I've known you, this is the first time you've actually laid out your personal misconceptions on life in general in such away that explains all the upside down nonsensical rantings you've made over the years.

    There's plenty more to come, but these will suffice over morning coffee...

    "And, yes, because of their job requirements bureaucrats do know better than most other people."

    This is probably the most riduculous statement you've *ever* written.

    I know you spent your entire life inside the beltway, which means you have no idea how life is in the *rest* of the world. But I can assure you, as a general rule bureaucrats are the people who *couldn't* get hired by entrepreneurs and business people. They have no concept or clue how anything works, how efficiencies are gained nor how improvisation under the gun gets problems solved and the job done. Bureaucrats are about the dumbest employed people on the planet, the furthest down the intelligence chain, and I know, I earn my living defeating them. Regularly.

    "This government was granted no powers by the people. They took those powers by a bloody revolution."

    How upside down is this? Maybe just once over the years you should have done what I've suggested numerous times, and that is STUDY CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. If you don't know Constitution 101 -- and that is -- what precisely the Constitution IS -- then obviously you end up with cocamamie views on governent.

    The Constitutions IS --- The granting BY THE PEOPLE certain powers to the government.

    The GOVERNMENT has NOT YET taken those powers by bloody revolution, although this fascist regime is on its way there.

    I repeat - sink in to your government indoctrinated brain - The Constitution is the granting TO government, specific powers, granted to them ONLY BY THE PEOPLE.

    It ain't the other way around. Learn some constitutional history.

    And lastly...

    "No, revolution is caused by rising bourgeois discontent over inequalities in society."

    ROFL

    I guess to a socialist/communist/liberal, that might be true.

    I just quote here:

    "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    Note the use of the word "usurpations." Please tie your thinking cap on and correlate this to Amendment X.

    Words mean things.

    Like I said, more to come. But your three simple ABSURD assertions outlined above, explain completely why you're pretty much clueless and will allow a fascist regime to take control of your life.

    Wow, the framers must have been prescient -- they gave us the 2nd Amendment *anticipating* these um, usurpations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I promised more to come on this riduculous post. I keep my promises.

    "Private employers are not free, either, in the best use of their workforce or their capital -- due to insurance companies."

    Since I am and have been for many years, an insider in the decision-making for many private employers, I can say with certainty, that this is just bullshit that you made up out of your head. Since your experience with "private employers" is extremely limited, and particularly in how decisions are made, I can state with confidence that, you're full of crap. It is *rare* that insurance companies have any sort if direct impact on business decisions other than risk/cost analysis. Employee matters? Nearly non-existent. You just made that crap up.


    "Reform legislation would, in fact, restrict the freedom of the insurance industry, which has among the largest profit margins of any industry, and this industry should be restricted."

    Restrict profit? Is this what the founders had in mind when they fought a revolution for freedom? Is this what the framers had in mind when they established congressional power to protect patents and copyrights? No. The founders and framers *wanted* business to flourish and profit. This is precisely the government's role in "promote the general welfare."

    Simply more cluelessness on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Continued commentary as promised.

    You wrote: "Here is a government program that is incredibly successful beyond all predictions."

    Really? On what facts do you base this statement. Because what I'm reading is that notwithstanding the administration's *claims* of success, they refuse to release the records of the program.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_cash_for_clunkers_transparency

    So, they only basis you have for your inane statement is, "cuz the White House says so."

    Yeah, that's a reporter's nature. Don't question a White House progam if you like it. Accept as gospel, "Believe us, it really works."

    Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you don't believe in economic stimulus, then no program will be successful. Otherwise, putting $1 billion into the hands of consumers with the concomitant increase in employment and tax revenues is pretty damn successful for its intended short-term purpose.

    And guess what? No one is forcing dealers to sell cars under the rebate.

    As for insurance company profits, why do they go ever higher instead of coming down? Because they are charging higher and higher premiums for less and less coverage. In real capitalism -- unlike the current socialism for the rich -- consumers would use their clout to get prices lowered.

    That is called public policy; i.e., government.

    Unlike most other goods and services, health care is something that real people cannot intelligently compare, rationally understand what services are best or decide while they are ailing.

    I am perfectly happy for Starbucks to sell a cup of coffee for $4 and for me to refuse to buy it.

    When it comes to health, do you want a profiteer standing between you and death's door? In your case, I do.

    Seriously, and you know this damn well, you cannot apply free-market principles to certain issues on which rationality, by definition, cannot apply -- such as health, national security, cocaine, prostitution etc. etc.

    Prices for cell phones, flat screen TVs and computer have come down because of competition. Why doesn't health care? Because of overuse of a system that rewards providers for performing more services with lower quality.

    Aside from childish ad hominem arguemtn, what is YOUR solution to the health care system? A workable one, not something only a soulless accountant could love on paper.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Today commentary on Ira's most ridiculous post ever...

    Ira quoted the Constitution (a document with which he clearly has *no* understanding) whereby it discusses the powers of Congress:

    “to make all laws which shall be for carrying in to execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by the Constitution"

    "Foregoing powers." Do you see those words in there? That means that PRIOR to this sentence, the Constitution LISTS the specific powers of the Congress. And NO WHERE in there do the people of the United States grant the Congress the power to make laws with respect to healthcare. Nowhere.

    They can make all laws for carrying the "foregoing powers."

    We return you now to the 10th Amendment. "Those powers not delegated (got that? delegated) to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or the people."

    Congress does not have blanket power. They have specific powers granted to them by the people. This healthcare legislation is an overreaching usurpation of power.

    So continue to quote the Constitution, and I'll continue to explain what the words mean, according to those who wrote the document.

    ReplyDelete
  6. “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

    How sad a thought. (Mind you, never an original thought) But it's no wonder you're completely willing to give up freedom and liberty, just so you can keep what you have.

    Freedom means I go my way, you go your way, and so long as I do not disturb your life or liberty, nor deprive you of your property by force or fraud, then everything's great.

    And I think losing freedom *itself* is the tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. While I wait for any proposal from you regarding health care/insurance reform, it occurred to me to do a cursory search on your nom de plume.

    Not a surprise that you revere someone with ties to the European neo-Nazi movement. I learned that if you own a $500 Glock, it cost Herr Glock $75 to make it. I am happy you are a capitalist and being taken to the cleaners every which way you aim.

    What’s sad is you don’t even know—or have the honesty to recognize – that your collection of hatreds and your immense ignorance is typical of what keeps in power the very crooks that mire you firmly rooted in middle class loserville.

    As for the Constitution, you are so far in right field you can’t read it from there.

    You state (in capital letters because that and name-calling are the only way you can offer an idea) that “NO WHERE in there do the people of the United States grant the Congress the power to make laws with respect to healthcare. Nowhere.”

    Gaston, read this carefully:

    “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,” which is why the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees are the major legislative players in health reform. Since Medicare and the insurance industry are regulated by the imposition and collection of taxes, you are, as usual wrong.

    Congress has the power to make laws with respect to healthcare. If it doesn’t, then explain that to any relatives you have who use Medicare, Medicaid, the VA system or Tricare.

    “The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce … among the several states.”

    Health care is interstate commerce. Case closed.

    And again, Congress has the power to make laws “necessary and proper” to execute those two enumerated powers plus all the others that you care to mention.

    According to your view that “if it isn’t in Article I, Congress can’t do it,” please explain your views on trains, planes, automobiles, cars, computers, televisions, space travel and food additives, just for starters. They are all regulated by Congress.

    Thankfully, Congress – with strong support from conservatives – has recently given parity between physical health and mental health in legislation you clearly believe is un-constitutional. Use it -- before you try to lynch your congressman.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow.

    I wasn't finished pointing out all the ridiculousness of your original post, yet you take ridiculous to the next level.

    I'll answer this latest nonsense before I get back to the original.

    You write: "I learned that if you own a $500 Glock, it cost Herr Glock $75 to make it. I am happy you are a capitalist and being taken to the cleaners every which way you aim."

    Wow, it must mean I'm taken to the cleaners on ever single thing I buy. The answer is, "so?" Glock has created a product that through innovation and research has become quite popular due to its superior qualities. Other's have tried to imitate, but some believe it's not as good. He's protected by patents, he can charge what he likes. If you wish to own one, you pay. If you don't wish do pay, you don't own one. That's freedom.

    (I suppose a liberal who really liked the second amendment would say that we should have a government program to subsidize the poor who can't buy their Glock themselves.)

    Who TF cares what it costs to make? Tell me, how much does a copy of MS Office cost to make after the R & D costs have been recovered? Retail price, ~$400. Buy it or don't. But stop whining about marginal profits.

    (Just to make this even more fun, I aquired my GLOCK (and my spouse's Smith and Wesson for that matter) from a company called TGSCOM, Inc. They've had two very famous customers besides me.)

    Do I care that the guy selling the paper "thug" target that I shoot at charges 2 bucks, when we all know it costs 2 cents to make?

    I return to my initial comment. You don't believe in freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "As for the Constitution, you are so far in right field you can’t read it from there."

    My understanding of the Constitution of the United States comes from understanding the writings of the people who wrote it.

    I'm never more than a few feet away or a couple of clicks from the Federalist papers.

    When the Constitution was put forth for ratification, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay each wrote essays which explain each and every section of the Constitution. Laid out in clear 18th century language.

    As I've suggested to you many many times, please read Federalist 41. This is where Madison essentially *laughs* at anyone that says that the powers of congress extend beyond those that are specifically listed there.

    So I'm out in right field? Then what about this ---


    "“The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce … among the several states.”

    Health care is interstate commerce. Case closed."

    This is where I believe ultimately your brain has been melted.

    Healthcare professionals are licensed. By States. Those licenses are not transferrable across state lines, not valid in state that they are not issued. Each State has its own requirements. So no, these people are *not* subject to the interstate commerce clause since they are not doing business interstate.

    The two biggest hospitals in my town are both owned by a local not-for-profit charity. They own no other hospitals besides the ones here. These people are *not* subject tot heinterstate commerce clause.

    Lastly, my own personal physician. He has a single office, and offers a 'concierge' practice. He does not practice outside of that office or two local hospitals where he has privileges. He is *not* engaged in interstate commerce.

    However, I have no doubt that when my local congressman has his town hall in my community in 10 days, he will provide the same ridiculous talking points. And when I confront him on the fact that I don't want socialized medicine, he'll surely say that I was a plant by some insurance lobbying group, or the minion of some talk show host. Because he will *never* admit to himself that I'm just one of 'the people.'

    Read the Federalist papers. That's where *my* understanding of the Constitution comes from. And it sure as hell is closer than yours. If I'm in right field, you're across the river in Giants Stadium staring at the goal posts.


    "Case closed"

    ROFLMAO

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am not going to spend one more second of my time researching the obvious. The provision of most health care and health insurance falls within the definition of interstate commerce.

    It is why the House Interstate Commerce committee has primary jurisdiction over the matter, it is why your hospital cannot discriminate on the basis of race and why your hospital buys products from out of state, and it is the finding of the Supreme court in Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322, 111 S.Ct. 1842, 114 L.Ed.2d 366 (1991).

    If health care is not a federal matter, what is the basis of conservative-backed tort reform legislation, or the DeMint-Shadegg bill to allow insurance behemoths to sell insurance across state lines?

    I happened to be reading some religious history today and could not help but note that had you been alive in the 15th Century, you would have been a leading Hussite – believing that nothing you do in life is okay unless the Bible specifically mentions it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ten-plus years I've been encouraging you to read one document. (Much less the entire series of documents) But you refuse.

    I know you don't want your vision of the Constitution of the United States to be tainted by the facts.

    Continue to be both blissfully ignorant, and steadfast in your misconceptions.

    I on the other hand, have no inclination to take usurpations of power and accellerating fascism sitting down.

    Federalist 41. 10th Amendment.

    Words mean things.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh yeah, and BTW, Summit Health, LTD., the petitioner in the case you cite, owned hospitals in 6 States and were *clearly* engaged in interstate commerce.

    That still has no bearing on any of the three examples I cited.

    Perhaps next time you use Lexis/Nexis you should actually read the case. LOL

    ROFLMFAO

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your claim was that health care is not interstate commerce. This case and others state the opposite. I will take what you originally said as individual examples of providers who are not in interstate commerce, but the plural of data is not anecdote.

    Your use of the word fascism, when you really mean totalitarianism, is another indication of your ignorance of political philosophy.

    Fascism has been and always was an amalgamation of government and corporate power in service to a national unity ideal based on racial/ethnic purity and the violent subjugation of dissent.

    As for the Federalist papers, there are more of them than #41. Together, they speak to the centrality of national government.

    Because you insist on arguing everything BUT the issue (in this case health care), I congratulate you on besting me once again. I cannot compete with your intellect or searing skewering of my positions.

    So, let me just leave it at this. You are one ugly, malicious ignoramus who would be a danger to society if you only had the courage to act on your beliefs or the ability to get anyone to take them seriously.

    Keep commenting on this blog if you wish, but don't expect any further reply. You win.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous5:38 PM

    Are you two losers done jacking each other off yet?

    ReplyDelete