Limits of State Power

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 26 of 36

PREV PAGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NEXT PAGE

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, May 18, 2009 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So in other words, Serg, I want government to have less control over personal decisions that I make that affect myself..who I marry or have relationships with, whether I carry a child to term or not, whether to smoke or take drugs. I think we should be responsible for ourselves and our own families, but I think the provision of a good healthcare and education system will benefit everyone. I think there should be a welfare net, but some mutual obligation for using it.

Ahhh... but do you see how these two aims conflict? Setting up government in a caretaker role gives them a vested interest, and a powerful incentive, for exerting more control over society. The healhcare example is good case in point. If we're all responsible for our own health care, it's acceptable to take a live and let live approach to personal decisions affecting health - like dangerous hobbies, tobacco/alcohol/drug use or unhealthy diets and such.

But when we declare health care to be a right, that must be supplied gratis by the community, suddenly there's a compelling reason to control our personal decisions - since personal health is no longer a private matter, and very much the business of the state.

You are quite right, serg. It is a conflict. I also see that the conflict is there with private insurance as well, and the capacity to sue when things go wrong, hence laws get made to reduce the chances of payouts being made.

Regardless of who pays (public monies vs private monies), people have become very poor at taking responsibility for their own decisions regarding their lives, and seek to blame and receive due compensation when things go wrong.

You and I have had this conversation many times before, serg. You are an idealist, I am not. I think the conflict exists but we can do the best we can, and sometimes it can work okay. An example is drugs, if government can actually legalise and then tax drugs, it can commit the money obtained to the resulting need for treatment and rehab that will inevitable arise from the increase in supply (a bit like the casino model we have here)

SERGEANTX

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I also see that the conflict is there with private insurance as well, and the capacity to sue when things go wrong, hence laws get made to reduce the chances of payouts being made.

But private insurance companies don't have the ability to control people themselves. They can only do that by manipulating government - and we need to put a stop to that.

Quote:
Regardless of who pays (public monies vs private monies), people have become very poor at taking responsibility for their own decisions regarding their lives, and seek to blame and receive due compensation when things go wrong.

Are you saying we should indulge this habit? Most of the safety net programs do just that. In response, we crank up the nanny-state to force them to behave responsibly (as the state defines it). Not only is the whole cycle unnecessary, but it trashes the concept of constitutionally limited government in the process.

Quote:
You and I have had this conversation many times before, serg. You are an idealist, I am not. I think the conflict exists but we can do the best we can, and sometimes it can work okay.

Honestly, that assumption seems far more idealistic to me. The pragmatic reality is that such policies will expand caretaker government and diminish personal responsibility.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

GEEZER

Monday, May 18, 2009 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

"From what I've been reading of the government's involvement with GM and Chrysler reorganization plans ..."

Cites, references please.

Well, I had cited sources in other threads, but since you insist, here's some more.

"Treasury advisers are handling the effort and keeping GM and Chrysler informed of the steps through back-door channels, said the people familiar with the matter. The interplay between the government, auto makers and the markets is proving to be complicated."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535613910745405.html

"A group of salaried retirees met with the Treasury Department a senior adviser on the auto task force Friday morning in a bid to make sure salaried workers weren't forgotten in negotiations on the fate of GM and Chrysler."
http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=689780419790

For a nice eample of threat and response, see the next two.

"GM, for example, is under pressure from Wall Street and the Obama administration to strip 2,700 stores from its remaining 6,273 dealerships by 2010."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009
051501341_2.html

"GM is hoping that by reducing competition between its dealers, it can raise prices and increase sales at each remaining outlet, shrinking margins and boosting profits. It's told the Obama administration it plans to cut all but 3,600 dealerships. Many of the remaining cuts will be dealers trading exclusively in the Saturn, Saab, Hummer and Pontiac brands GM intends to put to pasture."
http://www.newser.com/story/59117/gm-to-close-1100-dealerships.html

This is the kind of stuff I've been seeing. Treasury advisors all through the process, and the Administration pressuring for their policy to be adopted.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

JKIDDO

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:24 AM

Quote:
But private insurance companies don't have the ability to control people themselves.

You're assuming that their ability to control people is based on competition, that is, if one insurance company sets onerous requirements then the customer can always choose another. That unfortunately is not the case. Most people get their insurance through work, which offers only one or two plans. In addition, health insurance carriers are getting bigger and bigger in their never-ending quest for profit

Quote:

Health insurance industry consolidation a potential threat to providers
April 8, 2009

The nation's largest health insurance companies are poised to consolidate, although Aetna and UnitedHealth Group, among others, have not confirmed wide-held suspicions, reports the Chicago Tribune. Consolidation could provide already large players with economies of scale, and significant and arguably overwhelming leverage toward establishing reimbursement rates with doctors and hospitals. UnitedHealth is rumored to be interested in acquiring Coventry Health Care, while Aetna is reportedly keen to buy Humana. At the same time, smaller yet significant players such as Health Net are looking to divest themselves of some of their members that could be attractive to larger firms.

"In general, hospitals do worry if the super-insurers get bigger," said Melinda Hatton, general counsel for the American Hospital Association. The American Medical Association reports that one in six metropolitan areas in more than 300 U.S. markets is dominated by a single health insurer that covers at least 70 percent of patients enrolled in HMOs or PPOs.

"It becomes difficult for patients to have choice and doctors to get their patients the care that is needed because a monopoly has been created," Dr. James Rohack, a Texas cardiologist and AMA president-elect said. "Patients don't have as many other options."

www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/health-insurance-industry-consolidation
-potential-threat-providers/2009-04-08?utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss&cmp-id=OTC-RSS-FH0

And while you're worried about theoretical intrusion into your life by government, the business is far ahead of you....

Quote:
The Health Coach/Insurance Company – Employer plan to uses devices and phones for employees to prove their physical activity. So here we are thinking that monitors are only for seniors and children, well think again as here comes the health coach, reduced premiums for participating and showing proof of what you are doing, electronically. The Muve Gruve Device Measures your Inactivity –

... This device will even keep track of your sleep too, so how far will devices go?
The Human Audit Trail to automatically track your fitness and sleep and a few other things…It does sound a lot like big brother. The map is fine and pretty standard with many other sites and plans, but the human audit trail is still a bit scary, but if you go along, you earn a few dollars, so there’s an incentive to go along with the electronic umbilical cord and everybody gets to be friends with their running partners (in the video on the site). Many employers who still provide insurance are now requiring participation in their wellness programs for coverage. Risk management for the employer might reduce the rates if employees electronically connect to the audit trail.

http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2009/04/health-coachinsurance-company-e
mployer.html

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
You're assuming that their ability to control people is based on competition

Hmmm... no, I'm not.

Quote:

Health insurance industry consolidation a potential threat to providers
April 8, 2009

The nation's largest health insurance companies are poised to consolidate, although Aetna and UnitedHealth Group, among others, have not confirmed wide-held suspicions, reports the Chicago Tribune.

Yeah... the consolidation trend is bad news all around.

Quote:
And while you're worried about theoretical intrusion into your life by government, the business is far ahead of you....

So, that makes it ok for the government?? Not clear what position you're taking here.

It's funny how, whenever anyone complains about government intrusion, big-government fans start harping about the evils of corporate excess - as though that justifies the government doing it too. How's about neither?

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

GEEZER

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
It's funny how, whenever anyone complains about government intrusion, big-government fans start harping about the evils of corporate excess - as though that justifies the government doing it too. How's about neither?

What's really funny is how the same folk who are absolutely horrified at the government when it goes to war or tries to maintain national security are the ones who would absolutely trust it to perfectly run national health care or the national economy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
it is if the debt is based on a bubble, like a real estate or stock bubble. If I borrow $100,000 against a house which is valued at $500,000 and on which I owe a $400,000 mortgage, and the value of the house drops to $400,000, that $100,000 which I spent no longer exists.

No, the house is no longer worth $500,000, but the money still exists. It's in the bank account of the person you bought the house from. The only end effect is that YOU no longer have that money, either in capitol or in assets, but the money still exists somewhere. If you had a $400,000 mortgage, someone gave you $400,000 of real money, which you gave to someone else for the asset. That the asset has subsequently devalued, doesn't mean money has evaporated.

That $100,000 still exists, you can check the bank accounts of the people you paid to confirm.

Quote:
Banks routinely lend out money which does not exist. They lend out based on their capital (which is "real money"- typically about 5% of bank value) plus their assets- ie performing loans. If those assets should go under that money has in effect evaporated. I know its a screwed system, but that's the way it currently works.

You're talking about leverage, and no the money is real. The banks can't just make money up on the spot, what sort of economic system could we possibly have where money can be made up? If a private bank can do it, why not a private citizen? "No I don't like only having $20 in my account, I think I'm going to add a few zeros to the end of that number." The value of money would be meaningless, in fact non-existent. In fact everywhere would be like Zimbabwe if what you said were true.

No banks don't lend imaginary money. Through leverage banks lend money they themselves have borrowed from other people, but at no point is that money imaginary. It is real and it comes from somewhere, always.

JKIDDO

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:21 AM

Quote:
what sort of economic system could we possibly have where money can be made up?

It's the one we have today. Speculative value forms an alternate currency with all the functions. The only difference is that the government has less control of it.

JKIDDO

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:26 AM

Quote:
It's funny how, whenever anyone complains about government intrusion, big-government fans start harping about the evils of corporate excess - as though that justifies the government doing it too. How's about neither?

Yes, now about neither? But you seem to always harp on the evils of government, and only when your nose is rubbed in it will you look at the mess corporations have made. Mostly, you seem to trust business. Haven't you noticed each business exists to maximize profit and take over the market? Where does that leave you?

Quote:
What's really funny is how the same folk who are absolutely horrified at the government when it goes to war or tries to maintain national security are the ones who would absolutely trust it to perfectly run national health care or the national economy.

It seems to work reasonably well in other countries- certainly better than in America.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
It's the one we have today. Speculative value forms an alternate currency with all the functions. The only difference is that the government has less control of it.

No, you're getting confused between speculation, futures markets, and real money. Debt isn't inventing money, it people who have money, but don't need it, giving it too people who don't have money but need it, on the promise it'll be paid back, with a further payment for the service (interest) at a later date. Try it out, go into a shop and say "I'd like to buy that, I'm betting I'll have the money next week". Even when you buy things hire purchase, or on instalments, it doesn't work that way.

PREV PAGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NEXT PAGE