Hmmm… no, no hypocrisy here. The Repubs are, and always have been the legislative lapdogs to big business, and they have never pretend or indicated otherwise.
From tax reform to de-regulation (even some speculation that the Civil War was more for the benefit of northern industrialists than some moral crusade to abolish slavery. I reiterate that this is merely speculation, but it is consistent with their pathology.
The liberals here keep asking about where is the Republican plan and why is there no bi-partisanship.
There was an excellent highly sophisitcated Republican plan submitted in great detail by Paul Ryan. It works to repair not only the health care crises but medicare, social security and medicaid. I don’t want to hear anymore why there have been no alternatives suggested. There have but you just will likely reject them.
If you actually want to pass a health care plan consider what Ryan has proposed and incorporate his suggestions into the final bill.
And next Thursday they can give the details to the American people in response to the O. Some of his suggestions are in the bill. After 200 filibusters in the last 3 years, you’d think they’d be out of breathe and the childish demands for their own way EVERY time, but I guess when you get bought, you stay bought. Loyalty to your owner is a good thing.
sclark 55 – Since we never hear, but apparently you do, how about passing some of this information on to us?
Whenever I ask what the GOP’s plans are to fix the problems they created all I ever get is attacks and silence, which as far as I can figure is the GOP plan.
“And the repubs couldn’t be FARTHER from libertarian.”
No, no, that’s only when they are IN office. When they are in opposition they oppose quite a few government initiatives.
As for a GOP plan, I’ve seen some but they basically look like 2-3 page outlines. Ok if you believe in their fundamental assumptions, but not much for details. It’s not exactly the same as the healthcare bill the House or Senate did… and there are a fair few ideas in either (especially the latter) that the Republicans put in.
Effectively, it’s a political thing. The GOP doesn’t want the Dems to pass healthcare so it can paint them as inefficient for the elections.
Ken He sees that our programs of social security, Medicare and medicaid are, according to everyone on both sides of the aisle, totally and completely unsustainable. See today’s NYT. Both parties are scared to death to discuss them because of the third rail and the approach you obviously are making. Unfortunately pretending it isn’t a problem is not an option. Ryan has proposed the first step towards fiscal sanity. I predict you will “just say no” to everything. Your statement is classic demagoguing.
Fennec Like you I am trained in biology. I have a bachelors in chemistry and an MD. Early survival clearly depended on cooperation but as shown in today’s WSJ the great genius discoveries occur by the individual and when very young. Libertarians fight for freedom of the individual. If you want voluntarily to form groups, combines, a kibbutz etc that is perfectly fine. Free choice. Not mandated by a rightest government or a leftist government.
We also think government has limited functions primarily to prevent force or fraud. The US Constitution, Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence are the greatest libertarian documents ever written. We just ask that we follow those principles.
I’m a classicist, so I reach back to Aristotle, who says that “anthropos” – that is, the human being – is a social animal. An individual isolated human being would never develop into a full person. Language, for example, cannot exist in a single person.
But there is obviously a wide range of social structures. Some have more government, some have less, some simple societies perhaps have no government, strictly speaking. There has never been a complex society without government.
I share the libertarian interest in the individual – though I would say the individual within society. I want the greatest opportunity for each individual – and not just the great geniuses – to live as fully as possible. Sometimes government can help – and sometimes it can stand in the way. Each situation has to be examined on its own merits. Sweeping generalizations will not do justice to the complexity of society.
Moreover, government is not the only social institution. There are also churches, businesses, labor unions, and so on. All of these interact in complex ways. At times government can serve to limit the power of other institutions, and at times other institutions can help to limit the power of government. An exclusive concentration on government is an error of analysis.
I’m a personality psychologist, focused on motivation, dealing with business, so I get to see the individual vs. cooperation issue played out quite often. I agree with fennec that we haven’t changed fundamentally all that much since traveling in small social groups across the plains of Africa. We are undoubtedly a social species - we take it for granted, but it permeates everything.
A lot of libertarian views are appealing to me but I find the more extreme forms of libertarianism to be naïve indeed. Civilization requires a lot of cooperation, on a very large scale indeed. I don’t think we’re going to be able to do without governments, and I think they have to be large enough to hold their own against other large organizations – like multinational corporations.
By the way, libertarian, I think it ironic that a biologist can believe that “the great genius discoveries occur by the individual and when very young.” Darwin finished his thoughts on evolution in his late forties! In my own field, Freud published his first book on psychoanalysis when he was forty. It really depends on the field. In physics, most modern discoveries take large teams. Mathematicians do seem to need young brains, but artists don’t. I simply do not believe that all great creations are by young individuals. The data don’t back it up.
I was actually quoting from a story in today’s WSJ about genius and youth. And of course no one ever said “all great creations”.
I think there is confusion about libertarianism, government, society and cooperation. What libertarians say is the individual must have the chance to freely choose. If he chooses society and cooperation- more power. What we don’t want is big government telling individuals to do what government thinks is best.
We tend to be strong capitalists and that requires many many people working together, by choice. Government has a purpose but it is limited. Read the 10th amendment to the bill of Rights. Really read it and understand what it says and means. Government has limited powers-very limited.
@Libertarian1 I agree with the libertarian approach that individuals must have a chance to choose freely. However I also believe in limiting the negative choices that hurt others. People lie, steal, and cheat. That is why the constitution was enacted. It is a set of negative rights aimed at curbing such behaviors. When someone advocates for the removal of such safety nets (especially when businesses are concerned) I can’t help but cringe.
As a business major I understand all too well what you advocate. I should actually be on your side when it comes to government and the markets. But I also know the dangers of laissez faire business practices. Walmart is a perfect example. For every Walmart set up in a community several businesses are destroyed due to the low prices they can shell out thanks to outsourcing. Though they are not breaking any laws is it worth killing several jobs in order to save fifty cents?
As you said we tend to be strong capitalists, but what happens when the chance to become a capitalist is taken away because you can’t compete with the big boys? Anti-trust laws were enacted for such a purpose…To give you a shot at the American Dream. Now thanks to deregulation and free trade that dream is harder and harder to attain. We need government to protect us from those who seek to crush us.
Libertarian – I suspect we share some goals, but my experiene of power in practice tells me that government is an essential part of a set of countervailing institutions. I also believe in capitalism, but with reasonable regulations. In my own life I am more often annoyed by corporations than by government. Without regulation I fear that corporations will maximize profits without regard to the public good. We’ve been through that, why try it again?
Fair enough, Libertarian, but corporations are pretty good at organizing around certain goals (e.g., profit) in ways which can have a negative impact on the public welfare. As I see it, our government is a tool of individuals to counter inimical organizations which are not beholden to the people, as our government is (or should be). In the 1770s there was no organization comparable to modern multinationals in size and influence, save governments and the East India Company, or the Founders might have called them out. Government of overly limited powers would have no force against multinationals – and indeed look at companies who have their “headquarters” and monies in the Bahamas but influence elections here.
LONE - Thanks for the link. All of the suggestions were of a very general nature, i.e. reduce unnecessary tests and procedures, or encourage people to take better care of themsleves, or require more proof from the doctor/hospital that what they did was necessary and worked, and so on. Of course there was the usual “reduce the waste and fat in Medicare.”
The one hard suggestion was the one about reducing the fees charged by the Health Care Plans by allowing competition over state lines. I’ll let the better informed then me argue about that one, but I do know it didn’t work for car insurance, what you got was a lot of low priced companies that wouldn’t or didn’t pay off when you had a accident.
Actually, I’m very ambivalent about this. First, afaik the Senate bill already allows for states to enter groups where plans can apply across borders. The main difference is that the states should approve of the plans first, making sure they are compatible with their level of regulation. By forcing states to accept any plan from any other state, you effectively eliminate the state’s right to regulate healthcare plans, which isn’t necessarily a good thing.
A few other proposals from the linked article that may already exist:
“Republicans should further propose that Medicare strengthen its capacity to provide data and measure patient outcomes” - Sure, and I think this actually existed as an agency in a previous plan. I think the GOP actually criticized the idea, but I’m not 100% sure. BTW, such an agency would also cover the topic of unnecessary procedures that featured heavily in Mr. Gingrich’s ideas.
“Rather, it should introduce competition to the insurance market by creating a system of regional exchanges, similar to the one now operated by the federal government for its employees, to allow everyone the opportunity to choose an insurance plan” - these exchanges are I believe featured in the current plans.
Tort reform - I believe the last plan included an option for states to do that on their own, if they consider it necesary. Personally, I think that you can go too far in that direction - how’d you feel if a doctor messed up and you lost an index finger, and you get 2000 bucks?
toasteroven about 14 years ago
I am full of generosity and hope today! Prepare yourself for a wave of JOY.
Let’s see now… something good to say about this comic…
Um… Well, it’s… Uh…
Oh for Christ’s sake.
FURY
Doreen Rice Premium Member about 14 years ago
how unfortunately accurate …. party of hypocrisy.
Wildcard24365 about 14 years ago
Hmmm… no, no hypocrisy here. The Repubs are, and always have been the legislative lapdogs to big business, and they have never pretend or indicated otherwise.
From tax reform to de-regulation (even some speculation that the Civil War was more for the benefit of northern industrialists than some moral crusade to abolish slavery. I reiterate that this is merely speculation, but it is consistent with their pathology.
bradwilliams about 14 years ago
Oh I am sure there were some closed door meetings to keep the troops in line.
Libertarian1 about 14 years ago
The liberals here keep asking about where is the Republican plan and why is there no bi-partisanship.
There was an excellent highly sophisitcated Republican plan submitted in great detail by Paul Ryan. It works to repair not only the health care crises but medicare, social security and medicaid. I don’t want to hear anymore why there have been no alternatives suggested. There have but you just will likely reject them.
If you actually want to pass a health care plan consider what Ryan has proposed and incorporate his suggestions into the final bill.
freeholder1 about 14 years ago
And next Thursday they can give the details to the American people in response to the O. Some of his suggestions are in the bill. After 200 filibusters in the last 3 years, you’d think they’d be out of breathe and the childish demands for their own way EVERY time, but I guess when you get bought, you stay bought. Loyalty to your owner is a good thing.
freeholder1 about 14 years ago
And the repubs couldn’t be FARTHER from libertarian.
toasteroven about 14 years ago
“Ah, toaster, were i Markstein, i’d be thinking ‘My work here is done,’ right about now.”
Would he cackle as he did so? Please say he would.
d_legendary1 about 14 years ago
What the Republicans are doing to relate to the American People:
http://tinyurl.com/ya4xcwu
I’m very sure Senor Bullwinkle would enjoy this!
SClark55 Premium Member about 14 years ago
Markstein doesn’t hear the Republicans’ ideas in his favorite media so thinks they’re ignoring the issue. He’s the one w/ his ears covered.
kennethcwarren64 about 14 years ago
sclark 55 – Since we never hear, but apparently you do, how about passing some of this information on to us?
Whenever I ask what the GOP’s plans are to fix the problems they created all I ever get is attacks and silence, which as far as I can figure is the GOP plan.
4uk4ata about 14 years ago
“And the repubs couldn’t be FARTHER from libertarian.”
No, no, that’s only when they are IN office. When they are in opposition they oppose quite a few government initiatives.
As for a GOP plan, I’ve seen some but they basically look like 2-3 page outlines. Ok if you believe in their fundamental assumptions, but not much for details. It’s not exactly the same as the healthcare bill the House or Senate did… and there are a fair few ideas in either (especially the latter) that the Republicans put in.
Effectively, it’s a political thing. The GOP doesn’t want the Dems to pass healthcare so it can paint them as inefficient for the elections.
Libertarian1 about 14 years ago
4uk4ata
Read the very detailed Ryan plan.
kennethcwarren64 about 14 years ago
LIB - Is that the one that wants to privatize Socal Security, and elimate captital gains, interest profit, and inheritance taxes for the rich?
Libertarian1 about 14 years ago
Ken He sees that our programs of social security, Medicare and medicaid are, according to everyone on both sides of the aisle, totally and completely unsustainable. See today’s NYT. Both parties are scared to death to discuss them because of the third rail and the approach you obviously are making. Unfortunately pretending it isn’t a problem is not an option. Ryan has proposed the first step towards fiscal sanity. I predict you will “just say no” to everything. Your statement is classic demagoguing.
comYics about 14 years ago
GOP Healthcare Reform?
Libertarian1 about 14 years ago
Fennec Like you I am trained in biology. I have a bachelors in chemistry and an MD. Early survival clearly depended on cooperation but as shown in today’s WSJ the great genius discoveries occur by the individual and when very young. Libertarians fight for freedom of the individual. If you want voluntarily to form groups, combines, a kibbutz etc that is perfectly fine. Free choice. Not mandated by a rightest government or a leftist government.
We also think government has limited functions primarily to prevent force or fraud. The US Constitution, Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence are the greatest libertarian documents ever written. We just ask that we follow those principles.
lonecat about 14 years ago
I’m a classicist, so I reach back to Aristotle, who says that “anthropos” – that is, the human being – is a social animal. An individual isolated human being would never develop into a full person. Language, for example, cannot exist in a single person.
But there is obviously a wide range of social structures. Some have more government, some have less, some simple societies perhaps have no government, strictly speaking. There has never been a complex society without government.
I share the libertarian interest in the individual – though I would say the individual within society. I want the greatest opportunity for each individual – and not just the great geniuses – to live as fully as possible. Sometimes government can help – and sometimes it can stand in the way. Each situation has to be examined on its own merits. Sweeping generalizations will not do justice to the complexity of society.
Moreover, government is not the only social institution. There are also churches, businesses, labor unions, and so on. All of these interact in complex ways. At times government can serve to limit the power of other institutions, and at times other institutions can help to limit the power of government. An exclusive concentration on government is an error of analysis.
Motivemagus about 14 years ago
I’m a personality psychologist, focused on motivation, dealing with business, so I get to see the individual vs. cooperation issue played out quite often. I agree with fennec that we haven’t changed fundamentally all that much since traveling in small social groups across the plains of Africa. We are undoubtedly a social species - we take it for granted, but it permeates everything. A lot of libertarian views are appealing to me but I find the more extreme forms of libertarianism to be naïve indeed. Civilization requires a lot of cooperation, on a very large scale indeed. I don’t think we’re going to be able to do without governments, and I think they have to be large enough to hold their own against other large organizations – like multinational corporations. By the way, libertarian, I think it ironic that a biologist can believe that “the great genius discoveries occur by the individual and when very young.” Darwin finished his thoughts on evolution in his late forties! In my own field, Freud published his first book on psychoanalysis when he was forty. It really depends on the field. In physics, most modern discoveries take large teams. Mathematicians do seem to need young brains, but artists don’t. I simply do not believe that all great creations are by young individuals. The data don’t back it up.
Libertarian1 about 14 years ago
MM
I was actually quoting from a story in today’s WSJ about genius and youth. And of course no one ever said “all great creations”.
I think there is confusion about libertarianism, government, society and cooperation. What libertarians say is the individual must have the chance to freely choose. If he chooses society and cooperation- more power. What we don’t want is big government telling individuals to do what government thinks is best.
We tend to be strong capitalists and that requires many many people working together, by choice. Government has a purpose but it is limited. Read the 10th amendment to the bill of Rights. Really read it and understand what it says and means. Government has limited powers-very limited.
d_legendary1 about 14 years ago
@Libertarian1 I agree with the libertarian approach that individuals must have a chance to choose freely. However I also believe in limiting the negative choices that hurt others. People lie, steal, and cheat. That is why the constitution was enacted. It is a set of negative rights aimed at curbing such behaviors. When someone advocates for the removal of such safety nets (especially when businesses are concerned) I can’t help but cringe.
As a business major I understand all too well what you advocate. I should actually be on your side when it comes to government and the markets. But I also know the dangers of laissez faire business practices. Walmart is a perfect example. For every Walmart set up in a community several businesses are destroyed due to the low prices they can shell out thanks to outsourcing. Though they are not breaking any laws is it worth killing several jobs in order to save fifty cents?
As you said we tend to be strong capitalists, but what happens when the chance to become a capitalist is taken away because you can’t compete with the big boys? Anti-trust laws were enacted for such a purpose…To give you a shot at the American Dream. Now thanks to deregulation and free trade that dream is harder and harder to attain. We need government to protect us from those who seek to crush us.
lonecat about 14 years ago
Libertarian – I suspect we share some goals, but my experiene of power in practice tells me that government is an essential part of a set of countervailing institutions. I also believe in capitalism, but with reasonable regulations. In my own life I am more often annoyed by corporations than by government. Without regulation I fear that corporations will maximize profits without regard to the public good. We’ve been through that, why try it again?
Motivemagus about 14 years ago
Fair enough, Libertarian, but corporations are pretty good at organizing around certain goals (e.g., profit) in ways which can have a negative impact on the public welfare. As I see it, our government is a tool of individuals to counter inimical organizations which are not beholden to the people, as our government is (or should be). In the 1770s there was no organization comparable to modern multinationals in size and influence, save governments and the East India Company, or the Founders might have called them out. Government of overly limited powers would have no force against multinationals – and indeed look at companies who have their “headquarters” and monies in the Bahamas but influence elections here.
lonecat about 14 years ago
Check out this mornings NYT for an OpEd piece in which five prominent Republicans make suggestions on health care reform. Draw your own conclusions.
4uk4ata about 14 years ago
lonecat, got a link? I’m willing to wager that more than a few suggestions will either be ineffective or already present in the Senate bill ;) .
lonecat about 14 years ago
try this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinion/22healthintro.html?th&emc=th
I don’t guarantee it will work – I subscribe, so it comes to my email.
kennethcwarren64 about 14 years ago
LONE - Thanks for the link. All of the suggestions were of a very general nature, i.e. reduce unnecessary tests and procedures, or encourage people to take better care of themsleves, or require more proof from the doctor/hospital that what they did was necessary and worked, and so on. Of course there was the usual “reduce the waste and fat in Medicare.”
The one hard suggestion was the one about reducing the fees charged by the Health Care Plans by allowing competition over state lines. I’ll let the better informed then me argue about that one, but I do know it didn’t work for car insurance, what you got was a lot of low priced companies that wouldn’t or didn’t pay off when you had a accident.
4uk4ata about 14 years ago
Actually, I’m very ambivalent about this. First, afaik the Senate bill already allows for states to enter groups where plans can apply across borders. The main difference is that the states should approve of the plans first, making sure they are compatible with their level of regulation. By forcing states to accept any plan from any other state, you effectively eliminate the state’s right to regulate healthcare plans, which isn’t necessarily a good thing.
A few other proposals from the linked article that may already exist:
“Republicans should further propose that Medicare strengthen its capacity to provide data and measure patient outcomes” - Sure, and I think this actually existed as an agency in a previous plan. I think the GOP actually criticized the idea, but I’m not 100% sure. BTW, such an agency would also cover the topic of unnecessary procedures that featured heavily in Mr. Gingrich’s ideas.
“Rather, it should introduce competition to the insurance market by creating a system of regional exchanges, similar to the one now operated by the federal government for its employees, to allow everyone the opportunity to choose an insurance plan” - these exchanges are I believe featured in the current plans.
Tort reform - I believe the last plan included an option for states to do that on their own, if they consider it necesary. Personally, I think that you can go too far in that direction - how’d you feel if a doctor messed up and you lost an index finger, and you get 2000 bucks?