Free Markets, Free People


“Health Care” – Government Will Decide When Enough Is Enough

As you may or may not know, I just sent the last week touring the houses of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe – three of this nation’s founding fathers. So when I glanced through the following interview with Barack Obama I tried to picture any of these three men ever contemplating this question or a role for government in the context of the question and frankly, it’s unimaginable.

The only vision I could even begin to imagine is the three of them looking on sadly and shaking their heads “no” in unison as they tried to grasp the size of government and the depth of its intrusion into the lives of citizens the questions and answers indicated. I’m sure they’d also be trying to figure out where it all went wrong. The questions have to do with “end of life care”:

Q:…where it’s $20,000 for an extra week of life.

THE PRESIDENT: Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.

So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.

And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.

“…society making those decisions to give my grandmother … a hip replacment?” Above that he points to a doctor giving who that choice?

His grandmother.

Below that who is Obama talking about making that decision or having that choice? Well it isn’t his grandmother. And although he uses the term ‘society’, he means government. Note he says that if someone had told him no he’d be upset, but he’s setting up the table to be ‘upset’. This is an old Obama trick – acknowledge the downside in a very personal way while still pushing for that downside.

Q: And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

Anyone who hasn’t quite figured out the rationing model Obama is talking about with his answers to these two questions needs to take a remedial reading course. Anyone – where does he see the opportunity to “cut costs” in the medical field?

And, how will he do it. Unless you’re still hungover from celebrating Guinesses’ 250th birthday, he is talking about denial of service especially to the elderly. Government will determine whether or not you’re worth that $20,000 operation. And the “moral issue” he’s talking about is all wrapped up in egalitarianism. What he’s implying may be “immoral” is allowing those who can pay access to the service while those who can’t pay (and for whom government won’t pay) are denied it.

Again, contemplate the model Obama talks about – reducing the cost of health care – and tell me which way that “moral issue” would be decided? Got the money? Too bad – it would be “immoral” to let you buy the service others are denied.

Q: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

What a question. The assumption is swallowed whole. Where was the question “what if ‘we’ don’t want others making those decisions?”

And apparently you guys in fly-over country are too emotionally involved to make that sort of a decision through “normal political channels” so government have some unelected outside group develop the “guidance.” Only the elite can answer these questions properly.

Three questions, stunning in their implications. Three answers which should make the skin of all lovers of liberty crawl. I’m again left imagining Jefferson, Madison and Monroe listening in on this with unbelieving looks of horror on their faces. The irony is, their opposition to this incredible power grab by government would again leave them in the category of “radical”.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

71 Responses to “Health Care” – Government Will Decide When Enough Is Enough

  • I’m sure the government will never stop someone from getting a hip replacement if they pay for it themselves.

    If they use tax dollars, well, yeah, then society has a voice.  It’s our money.

    • Erb, how about the individual who could have afforded a hip replacement except that the extra taxes they paid for your government coverage made that impossible?

      In any case, people who support “free” healthcare think that its going to be as good as they get now, if not better, and cost less. I think they will be in for a bad suprise. Maybe we should pass a bill for universal healthcare on the stipulation that it must only cost so much money. If it exceeds this cost after so many years, the system will be shut down.

      Put the state planner’s money where your mouth is so to speak.

      Maybe also require that any person receiving a salary from the government, must only get government care and will not be allowed to buy any private insurance. 

      Eat their own cooking, to speak. A great way to align the incentives.

      But while we can limit the freedoms of some people just fine, that would be beyond the pale, right?

      • Maybe also require that any person receiving a salary from the government, must only get government care and will not be allowed to buy any private insurance.

        Yeah, the military is gonna love that idea!

      • All I know is that friends in Germany, including very conservative friends and Doctors, almost universally prefer their system, and think we’re crazy.  (They also think the Brits have a completely horrific system, and thus it’s no surprise that those who want to criticize universal health care always point to the British).  In any event, our current system is great for a chunk of the population, poor for another chunk, and horrible for the poorest chunk.  And it’s too expensive, we can’t afford it, hospitals are in trouble.  Literally things cannot go on the way they have been.

        • In any event, our current system is great for a chunk of the population, poor for another chunk, and horrible for the poorest chunk. And it’s too expensive, we can’t afford it, … [emphasis added]

          You mention different groups who have different experiences with health care, though you stupidly indicate that there is one “system” for everyone, when that isn’t true. Then you say “we can’t afford it” as if there aren’t different groups. You can’t even make up your mind what is going on, but you insist that the solution is central planning, which anyone who has studied history knows is a guaranteed recipe for disaster. Instead of some people being unable to afford premium service (because they don’t bring sufficient value to the table), you want to tie everyone’s legs up to make sure that nobody gets better service than anyone else.
          The real problem, however, is that you, like millions of Americans, refuse to respect the freedom of individuals to make their own choices. If you have a medical problem, it is your problem, not mine. I have no moral obligation to solve your problem by surrendering my freedom. The only way you get me to pay for your problem is by threatening force.
          Good people use reason, not force, to deal with others.

          • “We can’t afford it” expresses his entire thinking on so many matters.

            ‘We’ are obviously obligated in his mind.    He takes this as a matter of course as the natural order and much of his thinking on other subjects proceeds from the basic premise that ‘we’ are responsible both to him, and for him on social issues he pays attention to (his pet issues).

            From there he feels the right to dictate to ‘we’ what is right and wrong since he presumes his position in the collective ‘we’ is a guiding position, as opposed to an actual member of ‘we’ who will be responsible for paying and or doing the heavy lifting.

            What he doesn’t perceive is many times on issues ‘we’ arguing  ‘we’ want to be left alone, meaning we are not more willing to commit HIM to some of these wildass projects than we are willing to commit ourselves to them.  The difference being ‘we’ as much as possible, would leave him to his own devices if ‘we’ were in charge, whereas he would have no qualms about telling us what to do if  he were in charge.

    • They may not technically forbid it, but it’s easy to see how they can make it a practical impossibility.  It probably wouldn’t take anything more than forcing any doctors or facilities who take government patients to give scheduling priority to government patients.  Private patients would never make it to the front of the line.

    • If I have “a voice”, I vote to deny service to any member of your family. Let them lie there in misery if you can’t afford to help them.

      Thanks!

      • My voice cancels out yours.  Too bad for you.

        • If I get enough voices to agree with me, we can make sure  you, your parents, kids, and  grandkids get to lay there in misery.

          You see, that’s the logical end of “If they use tax dollars, well, yeah, then society has a voice.  It’s our money.”

          You tout that idea as if it’s a good thing….spoken like a true believer who can’t ever envision a scenario where it’s not your voice or voices like yours that carries the day.

        • Your voice, coupled with millions of others, could “cancel” the voices of people being shoved onto cattle cars. Too bad for them, eh?
          All you’re doing is highlighting the immorality of putting moral questions to a vote.

    • In Canada they do.  It is illegal for Doctors to provide service for money to those covered by healthcare.

      • Nothing I’ve seen in Obama’s ideas suggest we’d emulate Canada in that regard.   Most places aren’t that rigid, and in fact have hybrid systems that mean for most people things would stay as they are now.

        • “Nothing you’ve seen…”? After all of the government promises of the last century which turned out to be flagrant lies (take Social Security and Medicare as two glaring examples), you want people to trust any promise or prediction from government? Even if they promise today not to prohibit private transactions, they can go back on that in the future, just as they’ve gone back on countless other promises.
          Politicians lie. Politicians cheat. Politicians steal.
          I would never give a habitual swindler my permission to have access to your finances, much less to any decent person’s finances. Why do you insist on giving your permission to the swindlers to plunder your neighbors’ bank accounts?

    • Erb’s claim that the government will never prevent someone from purchasing their own health care is so reassuring.  After all, in Canada (subject to the Supreme Court Decision pertaining solely to Quebec) it is illegal to go outside the government system for health care.  If they don’tmake it illegal they will make it so prohibitively expensive that no one outside of George Soros and Warren Buffet would be able to afford it.  They may even retrict insurance policies for service providers outside the government system.  There are hundreds of ways they will restrict care to the government system. 

      No one should doubt for a second that neither Obama nor Biden nor the Clintons nor Rahmbo and his family will ever wait a minute for health care.  They will get all of the end of life care they want regardless of cost.  Al Gore’s environmental hypocrisy, Pelosi’s private jet shenaningans, the Obamas putting theirchildren in private schools while terminating the DC voucher program, etc. all show that liberals will never be constrained by the restrictions they intend to place on us.  When their hero Fidel got sick a couple of years ago, he brought in a specialist from Spain.  When liberal Canadian MP Brenda Stronach got breast cancer, she went to California for treatment.  Liberals are hypocrites.  I thought that they were against intrusion into people’s private lives.  One of the lame legal justifications for Roe v. Wade’s claim of privacy is that the patient physician relationship is a private one to be protected.  So much for that in regard to our health care. 

    • “I’m sure the government will never stop someone from getting a hip replacement if they pay for it themselves.”

      Actually they will:

      Pensioner who went private is refused NHS op

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3953638.ece

      Lynda O’Boyle was denied NHS care (unless she paid for it) subsequent to having paid privately for a drug the NHS decided she didn’t need. If she hadn’t bought the drug then NHS care would have bee provided for “free”.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2069464/Cancer-patients-should-sue-NHS-if-they-are-refused-free-care-after-private-treatment.html

  • Judging by the comments on the original interview site, it seems like his line of reasoning makes sense to a lot of people though…

  • “Only if you accept his premise”

    I guess I meant it seems a lot of people accept his premise.

    • Yeah, and a survey yesterday or the day before indicated a lot of people ‘reasoned’ they liked price controls on cars but not coffee, for example.

      And in 1850 a lot of people in a lot of states thought owning other people as farm machinery had a solid line of reasoning behind it.

      A lot of people ‘reason’ that Obama is doing a terrrrrific job, even though he’s spending today’s dollars, tomorrow’s dollars, and yeah, verily, future dollars unto our children’s children’s children’s ability to earn.

      As is being demonstrated, a lot of people ‘reason’ in really poor fashion.

    • “A lot of people ‘reason’ that Obama is doing a terrrrrific job, even though he’s spending today’s dollars, tomorrow’s dollars, and yeah, verily, future dollars unto our children’s children’s children’s ability to earn”

      The point being, if you’re really that concerned about what he’s doing/going to do you really should be more concerned with the fact that it seems there is already a large (and seemingly growing) bloc of support for such policies.

      • The only growing bloc of support for his policies is in the media and in the current government.

        But it will take time before the ground swell volume hits ’11′.  Until then I have to listen to ‘approval ratings’ and polls about how wonderful it all is as evidence that he’s doing good things, when intuitively anyone who pays their own bills and works for a living ought to be able to see they are NOT doing good things.

        We CANNOT spend our way to happiness.  This is like saying because we spent our next two months of salaries on a drunken orgy tonight everything is WONDERFUL!
        Sure it is!  TONIGHT.  And when the bill comes due in a couple of months, well, we’re not in the future right now, so let’s party on!
        In actually things aren’t so great tonight, but we’re not talking about it like we would if Bushitler was in charge.
        No, instead we get polls of how wonderful ‘everyone’ thinks it is, how stupid and vile and out of touch the ‘teabaggers’ were (the only vileness being the people using the term teabaggers) and what a great job the President thinks he’s doing, and how spiffy his wife is.

        Sure, be a kid, pretend that it’s all about the popularity contest that we’re obviously running at the moment.  Pretend we can continue to blame the Republicans for all the spending and bills.  Pretend you can up end the economy, from power generation to financial institutions to the fundamental fact that we generate CO2 in nearly everything we do (to include breathing), that CO2 is not a health hazard, and is NOT the one single magic gas that will make the myth of global warming go away. Pretend you can give away health care at government expense. And more specifically, pretend that you can manage every bit of this without charging the taxpayers, both rich and poor, very soon, to pay for it all.
        We won’t even get into the Constitutionality of any of this stuff, let’s just stick to the damned economics of it, those are bad enough as they are.

        Now why should I sit back and assume that Obama is really THAT stupid to believe this stuff himself.  I don’t believe he’s that stupid, which means I have to believe he’s lying to me, and knows it.

        All the polls and media in the world won’t change the result when the unwashed masses finally catch on to that.

    • Yeah, that’s what it means – what it doesn’t mean is his premise is correct. You can logically argue a false premise, but the fact that your argument is technically logical doesn’t mean the premise is anything other than false.

      I’m not swayed or impressed by populist or majority arguments just because they’re popular or more people think a certain way. History is rife with examples of both that have lead down the road to ruin and destruction.

  • Eugenic editing at the beginning of life.

    Enthusiastic euthanasia at the end.

    Carefully rationed care in between.

    That will be the efficient means of universal government health care in the U.S.

    The healthy will be continuously sold on how secure they feel to have coverage.

    Erb, of course, will walk into the garbage compactor with his big smiley face on and, as he notices they are strapping him onto a gurney marked “morgue,” ask, “can I get an upgrade if I pay for it myself?”

    The attendants will be plugged into the iPods and won’t hear him.

    • Logan’s Run was pretty cool. 

      or was that Tron?

      • “Renew!” – Logan’s Run.  

        Erb would probably be convinced he could buy his way out of participating in ‘Carousel’.   Up until he rose to the ceiling and detonated.

  • I will support Health Care Reform IF:
    1) I get the SAME health insurance plan that Congress and Federal Employees get; or
    2) Congress and Federal employees lose their coverage and have to participate in my “new and improved” health coverage.

    Oh and Erb can I forbid her to get an abortion?  You know as long as she is using Federal Health Care, you know I’m footing the bill so I get a say?  And can I discuss your diet with you?  Because you KNOW, I’m footing the bill for your health care?  And DON’T EVEN get me started on your alcohol or drug consumption!

    • And DON’T EVEN get me started on your alcohol or drug consumption!

      Dude, I seriously doubt that he uses drugs or alcohol.  As scary as it sounds, I get the impression that it is the pure, unrefined, and unalderated Erb that comments at this site.

    • If you were a dictator you could forbid such things.  But your voice in a democratic republic means your position might end up losing out.   That’s how politics works.

      • Like those dictators in New York who banned trans-fats.

      • “Might”?
        Rewind a bit. If you want to vote down slavery or Jim Crow, you might lose out. Tough luck, I guess.
        What a wonderfully immoral way of deciding the lives of other people. “Might.”

      • So, if we vote in slavery it’s okay because the majority said it’s okay.

        • Oh, see, but that would never happen under “we wise leftists”.  You just have to believe that because of course it’s true, it just is.

      • Erb never quite got that “enumerated powers” memo.

        But why should the Left stop voting to empty your pocket. It’s not like they’ve gotten the courts to do that work for them, yet.

        Has he defended the vote of the “committee on patient termination” yet? Everyone here is, I’m sure, aware that the “right to die” movement has evolved a “duty to die” spin-off.

  • Oh and Erb, in case you forgot, Clinton’s Health Security Act of 1993/94 WOULD have made it illegal for Granny to pay for the hip replacement herself.  So I guess it’s entirely possible that Obama will try to prevent Granny from paying for it herself, too. And so Granny may have to rely on the kindness of strangers to get her hip fixed!

    • Granny will be put on the euthanasia ramp the minute she walks in the door to have her hip looked at.

      Hip replacements are almost minor procedures these days. When the government is asked to make the call on them, much less get them done, they’ll be death sentences. Capitalism makes good, or at least survivable, medicine and hospitals. Socialist medicine specializes in infections and crematoriums.

      If you go into Erb General Hospital to have a nasal polyp removed you’ll come out wearing a colostomy bag, if you get on the line where you have a chance of getting out at all. And don’t let them take you to Ward S, no matter what you do. That’s where the postal workers who have been issued proctoscopes are stationed.

  • “Oh and Erb can I forbid her to get an abortion?  You know as long as she is using Federal Health Care, you know I’m footing the bill so I get a say?  And can I discuss your diet with you?  Because you KNOW, I’m footing the bill for your health care?  And DON’T EVEN get me started on your alcohol or drug consumption!”

    I don’t see why those things couldn’t be factored into the debate as well using Erb’s logic (which I support.)  However, that in no way means your personal position on any one issue would be the prevailing viewpoint in that debate.

    • flak… that in no way means your personal position on any one issue would be the prevailing viewpoint in that debate.

      Perhaps not now, but what about the future.  One of the favorite ploys that the trash likes to use in every election is the ol’ “The Republicans will take away your Social Security / Medicare if you don’t vote for us!”

      Let’s assume for a moment that the trash are right and that us nasty ol’ Republicans just can’t wait to cut people off from the government trough, make elderly people eat cat food, throw widows and orphans into the street, and in general make life utterly miserable for anybody who isn’t filthy rich.  Let’s assume further that folks like Joe get control of the government and, hence, the hypothetical national health care system.  What’s to stop them ending funding for abortion, or health care for illegal aliens, or health care for chronic drug abusers, or anything else?  After all, “it’s our money”.

    • And why should the government feel inclined to allow facilities that DON’T take government money in some form to exist? 

      What facility in some way, shape, size, or form, can be demonstrated to absolutely not draw from the government well.   They’ll have to ensure they take NOTHING from the government to even plausibly remain free of government control.  And you can rest assured that if you choose these non-government facilities that NONE of your federal health insurance would be eligible for use at those facilities to pay your bill.
      Easily arranged, just as the government forced the banks to take the loans by threatening to audit them and tie them up so they couldn’t do business.  The do-gooders can’t let you make your own decisions and they can write the laws to essentially force providers into line.

      So, essentially, WHO do you think is going to provide this ‘non government based’ health care that I can pay for myself?  It’s so easy to mandate them out of existence it’s not even worth discussing.  From onerous regulation, to taxation, to attempts to stifle the availability of adequate or competent staff, it can all be done with a nod and a wink that allows facilities to exist on paper but will prevent them from existing in reality by virtue of legislating them out of existence.

      You WILL participate as provider and providee, otherwise it won’t be ‘fair’.  Any such facilities will exist ex-patria, just as our facilities currently exist to support people in Canada who don’t find their system of health care sufficient. 

      Maybe Cuba perhaps, I mean, after all, they seem to have a wonderful health care system, some genius already did a movie about how great it is, and how sucky ours is (snark).

    • However, that in no way means your personal position on any one issue would be the prevailing viewpoint in that debate.

      Since when does “the prevailing viewpoint” have anything to do with the fact that the lives of other people are not yours to direct? Again, for those who are too obtuse to get it, making a moral decision based upon “the prevailing viewpoint” opens the door to legalizing slavery and apartheid.
      The only way you get people to pay for medical care for other people, when they don’t want to, is by threatening them with violence. In a free society, nobody would threaten violence against you if you want to pay for someone else’s medical care.

  • “What’s to stop them ending funding for abortion, or health care for illegal aliens, or health care for chronic drug abusers, or anything else?  After all, “it’s our money”.”

    Nothing.  Of course, that’s just one more powerful club for the Dems to drum up votes.

    • And that’s the real point, isn’t it?  This isn’t really about reforming the health care system, providing better health care to poorer Americans, making things “fair”, making them more “efficient”, or any of the other reasons that the statists (Stalinists?) give to try to convince suckers to hand over their health care to the same outfit that pays $400 for a hammer.

      It’s about the trash coming up with (as you put it) ANOTHER powerful electoral club to ensure that they have more and more political power.

  • Well Flak, how’s the Drug War going under Obama and the Democrats? And didn’t a Mayor of a major US city ban trans-fats? You see, we can talk to Erb about his drug, alcohol, and trans-fat usage…even today.

    Let MY peep’s come to power in 2012 and we might just want to talk to HER about her decision to abort her child…

    When you give Uncle Sam leave to talk to you about your health decisions, on the basis of Federal support, well you give the winners of elections that power…and there’s no guarantee that you’ll like the winners of those elections.

    And as to abortion, who cares if two or four years later the rules change, if you wanted/needed an abortion today, its availibility TWO YEARS HENCE is pretty cold comfort, don’t you think?

  • “When you give Uncle Sam leave to talk to you about your health decisions, on the basis of Federal support, well you give the winners of elections that power…and there’s no guarantee that you’ll like the winners of those elections.”

    I never said there was.  In fact, I admitted there wasn’t.   What I did say, is that the threat of such an outcome would be a fairly powerful tool for the dems to use to be sure they stayed in control of such decisions.

    Regardless, I support the general principal of government money coming with government oversight, even in situations where I don’t like the specific outcome.

    • As do I and therefore in things where I don’t want YOUR D@MNED OPINION of what I do, I say keep the gub’mint out! Health care springs to mind in that vein…unless of course you want the gub’mint deciding on how much health care you get, or whether or not you can eat that cheeseburger.

  • Ted Kennedy. Brain surgery. What would have been different under ObamaCare?

    Nothing. Nomenklatura.

  • Margaret Sanger would have approved.

    • I think that she would have withheld her approval until the population was successfully cut in half.

      Blacks, of course, would need to be eliminated to get Sanger’s fullest approval. That’s why I always squint so hard when I see Obama bowing and scraping before Sanger’s legacy: Planned Parenthood.

      Cognitive dissonance.  Hillary, by the way, was out getting some sort of award named after Sanger a few weeks ago. She called Sanger a transformative figure. She was right about that. So was Joseph Mengele.

  • Erb: “If you were a dictator you could forbid such things.  But your voice in a democratic republic means your position might end up losing out.   That’s how politics works.”

    Ah, the sudden passivity toward power.

    What I most note about you over time, Scott, is that for such an incredibly shallow person, with such an astonishingly, how to say it, transparent affect, your mendacity has such great depth. You exhaust the easily recoverable mendacity, but that doesn’t stop you. You go down and find the tar sands of mendacity, and squeeze them with the ordinary delight of the hard-working soul.

    I see you, in my minds eye, getting up early on a Saturday morning, grabbing a coffee to go at the Mobil station, and heading over to volunteer, with a big happy smile, to man the line where the incurable are passed along to be thrown into an incinerator. Such fulfilling work, in a democratic republic.

    • Erb: “If you were a dictator you could forbid such things.  But your voice in a democratic republic means your position might end up losing out.   That’s how politics works.”

      Again,  Erb speaks with the naive thought of one who does not believe his side will be in the losing position. Look, all it will take is 4 years of payback and suddenly “that’s how politics works” will morph into something else….whinier.

      Again Scott, if we can get enough so the position of “the Erb family gets thrown in a ditch and left to die when they get sick” – well, I guess that’s “how politics works”.   Stockpile penicillian pal.

  • Hey, Erb, if you love Germany so much, go live there.  There’s only one America, but dozens of Social Democracies for you to choose from.  Go find one.  Take President Mussolini with you, too.

    • I love Germany, I love the US, I love Italy.  I could live in any of those places.  I have a job in the US, so I’ll live here.   And perhaps I can play a role in making this the kind of place politically I prefer.  I have that right.

      • It’s a right you’re comfortable denying to others, but hey! Hiding behind the bill of rights is par for the course for your ilk.

        Stockpile antibiotics pal.

      • Erb: And perhaps I can play a role in making this the kind of place politically I prefer.

        When you say you will “play a role” what that means is you will give those in power your permission to use force to take away choices from others.

        I have that right.

        No, you do not have the moral authority to make people who are minding their own business do things they don’t want to do. Nor can you give a “representative” that authority by proxy (vote), since it isn’t yours to give in the first place.
        I have no intention to take away any of your choices. Why can’t you give me, and others not interested in your central planning solution, the same courtesy?

        • Elliot,
           He was just referring to his ability to wantonly lie to his students in order to create more like-mided voters. He doesn’t see that as just his right, but as his moral responsibility if it will limit the number of people killed by American Soldiers. Never mind his posts last week about the US abandoning its priciples to give terrorists a shower, academic integrity isn’t as important as the absolute prevention of collateral damage.

  • jt007: One of the lame legal justifications for Roe v. Wade’s claim of privacy is that the patient physician relationship is a private one to be protected. So much for that in regard to our health care.

    Warren Mayer pointed out this glaring contradiction two years ago. The “KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY” t-shirt juxtaposed with the “Demand Health Care for All NOW” button says it all.

  • Correction: Warren Meyer, not “Mayer.”

  • The sad thing is that Erb, (apparently) flak and lefties generally are on the side of history: people seem to have a desire – a NEED – to be regimented, controlled, told what to do.  Russians, for example, have lived for centuries under some sort of autocracy / plutocracy.  The Germans were enthusiastic for Hitler; ditto Italians and Mussolini.  The Chinese seem more-or-less happy with the communists.  Even the British are surrendering more and more of their human rights in the interests of “fairness”.

    Now we have Americans, who by tradition SHOULD be leading the fight for MORE liberty and freedom and personal choice, clamoring for their government to do everything for them, blithely unconcerned that the government powerful enough to do FOR them is powerful enough to do TO them.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are born with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are the rights to a decent life until it becomes inconvenient for society and the pursuit of a certain amount of happiness.”

  • “people seem to have a desire – a NEED – to be regimented, controlled, told what to do”

    A large group of people, yes. Certainly more so than are comfortable with total “freedom” as most here would define it.  I’m self-aware enough to admit I fall in that category.

    • Then go regiment yourself an leave the competent alone.  I don’t care if collectivists want to collectivize themselves, but like children they just can’t keep their hands off other people

    • That’s a good one. You’re “self-aware enough” to know that you need to be “told what to do.”

      O.K., I’ll feed that “self-awareness” and tell you what to do: drop dead.

    • So, you would AGREE that “freedom is slavery”???

      Tell me, just how much regimentation do you feel that you need?  What are you willing to do for the master that you want?  Some garden-variety bootlicking?  Pick cotton?  Goosestep?  Herd other people into ovens?

      My God, what sort of a person are you???

  • That’s a good one. You’re “self-aware enough” to know that you need to be “told what to do.””

    More that I believe in a highly structured society, with a clear purpose, expectations, goals, etc for every member.

    I also would have no problem with only being in a collective society with others of the same mindset, as long as the “outside world” would allow said to exist un-harassed. (something they have been historically unable/unwilling to do.)

    • No one would interfere with your collective if you wanted to create one, unless it was one that tended to deny basic human rights to other members (in which case some of us would still leave you alone while others of us might be inclined to take an interest).

      The main objection is we, who would rather think, and fail or succeed on our own don’t want to be FORCED to join by other collectivists who seem to think that they need OUR money/labor to fulfill THEIR dreams.

  • “unless it was one that tended to deny basic human rights to other members”

    Since you consider “Liberty” to be a basic human right, doesn’t the very existence of my hypothetical collective compel you to “free” it’s members by destroying the collective? 

    Personally, I am a collectivist, but I would never force anyone to join, their loss as they say…

    • “Personally, I am a collectivist,”

      There isn’t any “personally” in collectivism.

      “One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic,” said Stalin, who knew what the collective had to do to the personal, which was to exterminate it.

      Fortunately for today’s “personally I’m a collectivist” crowd, we have public schools and universites to iron the personal flat, flat enough, at least, so that when you turn it sideways you can’t see it. In the irony of ironies this is often called “diversity,” the true definition of which is “we’re replacing your values with ours.”

      The personal is much more than personality, by the way, so don’t deceive yourself into thinking that because you appear to yourself to have the latter that there’s substantial enough “personally” around for it to count, as much.

    • Personally, I am a collectivist, but I would never force anyone to join, their loss as they say…

      There’s a reason they shot people trying to leave collectivist East Germany by climbing the wall. The sanguine color of communist flags wasn’t chosen for it’s aesthetic value.

    • Since you consider “Liberty” to be a basic human right, doesn’t the very existence of my hypothetical collective compel you to “free” it’s members by destroying the collective?

      No.  Clearly you think of ‘liberty’ differently than I do.  You are at liberty to create your collective, you are not at liberty to insist others join you or to keep them there if they desire to leave, or to take the fruits of others labors involuntarily to support your collective.   Are you planning on forcibly bringing people into your collective?  I presumed it was voluntary, did I misunderstand?

      Your liberty allows you to wander off and form a collective if you like.  My Liberty allows me to remain a non participant. 

  • “Personally, I am a collectivist,…”

    You’re a bloody fool.  You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Erb does, but he plays that Mr. Rogers sweater to such terrific effect that it anesthetizes many peoples’ gag/choke reflex.