Why Are Your Views Better?

[schrauper]

My views are ‘better’ because they are essentially anti-left, and history hasn’t exactly been kind to them or their ideas. Why? Because the lefties push for more and more of human activity to be controlled by centralization and coercion. Given human nature and what individuals are capable of, that has led and will lead to everything from slaughter, deprivation, and starvation, to sub-optimal outcomes given available alternatives to the simply ridiculous.

Take Lumpy, and his screed on healthcare distribution, for instance. He conjures up a noxious brew of ignorance, idiocy, and holier than thou pomposity masquerading as superior morality. Given the last couple of sentences, and who they are aimed at, I feel quite comfortable stating that.

Anyway, one doesn’have to be a Big Meanie to oppose socialized healthcare. One can review the economic theory behind it and against it, as well as the studies on it, and quickly form an opinion opposing it.
Healthcare isn’t free. It is a matter of who pays and how much. If the actions of the users and payers are distanced in cause and effect too much, rationing will result. And who bares the brunt of the rationing? The same types of people who end up in the emergency room and leave everyone else with the bill. In the meantime, however, the rate of innovation has slowed or stopped, and the quality of the care has diminished. In the former USSR for instance, the joke was do we treat the patient or do we want him to live? In Britain, if you are 70 or over and need kidney dialysis, well, the system that has taken your money for many moons tells you sorry, it’s not for you. In Canada, check out the wait times for procedures that are considered life-saving.

High-quality, universal healthcare is an oxymoron. Experience has shown that the steps taken to make it universal dimish the quality.

Why are perscription drugs so expensive? In part, and probably not a small one, because the United States is the “capture market.” We are the only country that is willing to pay the cost of researching, developing, testing, and marketing expensive new drugs. Everybody else piggy-backs on us, negotiating a lower price for current medications or shunning new ones. Given the relative sizes of the Canadian market and the US one, how long do you think it will take before the drug companies sacrifice the Canooks to keep the return on the Yankees?

So, the closer we get to a one-size-fits-all, single-payer system (centralization), funded by new taxation (coercion), the more quality and innovation we will lose. Those bearing the highest implicit and explicit costs, as in outcomes forgone or care denied, will be those with the least opportunities (the poorest) or those with the worst health.

I am not suggesting that a more free market approach will not come without costs. I do think that the evidence strongly suggests that the set of trade-offs faced will be the most bearable overall.

While I have run into some people on the left that sincerely believe in humanity and equality and all things good, I have also encountered more than a few who basically don’t like lots of people, mainly those with more material wealth than them. If it weren’t tragic to some extent, it certainly is comical to listen to someone with an intellect that stopped developing their sophomore year of college go on and on and on about how much better the world would be if only they had more power to re-arrange it. The fact that many of them had completely fucked-up personal lives made their rants that much more ludicrous.

So, if you have the time or the inclination, go read say, some of the Austrian School economists of yore, and then contrast their works with the lefists of the day, and see whose views have been shown to be closer to the mark.

[The_Mage]

One of the things people don’t understand is that the right and the left believe in improving the lives of everybody. If you don’t see that then you are blinded by ideology.

Too often what seems like the right thing to do is actually the wrong thing to do, and visa versa. Just like cutting taxes often increases the amount of tax revenue. Seems counter intuitive, but it works. It makes sense if you look deeper.

The same with trying to get the government to help people. Exactly how many things can you point to that the government does that it doesn’t just fuck up? (In bureaucracy we trust.) After the new deal, poverty was supposed to plunge, if not vanish. But after dropping for most of the 1900’s, it suddenly flattened out, and has remained relatively steady.

If the government starts paying the bill, the doctors will get the government to pay as much as possible. But if people start moving to a medical savings account, (I forget the current term) people suddenly start watching what they pay for, and the healthcare industry will have to modify their practices, and make things cheaper.

Many people who have no health care still buy new cars, I know a few. But these same people could buy catastrophic care where they pay only 1/5 of the normal costs, but have a high deductible. (5 to 10 grand.) If you can afford that much for a stupid car, you can afford that much for your health.

The biggest problems in this country are not that the government is not taking care of people, (like a “Big Brother” would,) but people don’t know how to manage their money. This should be a basic part of school. We should have the safety nets to protect people, but only as a last resort.

In the short run a universal healthcare system might benefit some, but in the long run it would not work. People in Canada are still spending money to come here. Nurses train in Canada, and move here to work.

What people are not thinking of is this. What happens when you just give people stuff? People complain about children acting spoiled when they get everything they want without earning it. But then these same people want to just give things to people, like health care.

You cannot solve a problem by throwing money at it. Businesses have actually failed because they had a lot of money. Instead of finding a solution to their problem, they just financed it away. Unfortunately too many people think that way. Why solve a problem when you can just pay extra to cover it up?

This is the liposuction solution. Instead of exercising off the fat, they just go in for a “little procedure”. I presume people have seen those artificial biceps posted in the poll section. Guess what, I can’t afford them, so I have to lift weights to get them. Who is better off?

[bluey]

People are going to support whatever political ideology that best represents their interests.

For example if I thought that government was an advocate for me I would be the biggest pro-government supporter in the world.

But in my view government does not represent my interests and as such I am very anti-government.

This is no different for anyone else.

Anyone who starts talkiing about the “right” or “moral” thing do do IMHO is just trying to manipulate you in to supporting their interests not yours.

The only problem is that a large % of people don’t think about their interests at all. Instead they let themselves be told what are their interest by the media and government.

For me, my views are better simply because they represent my interest. Now for someone else this would not be the case. Their views would be better if they represented their interests (of course they would have to think about what their interests are).

[Fonebone]

Thank you, guys, for the interesting and well thought out replies. I am in the process of thinking through what I want to say (and it’s sure to make me the most popular person on this site…NOT). I was hoping that once we get some thoughts from around the spectrum, we could open another thread (or continue with this one, as convenience and load times allow) and discuss agreements/disagreements with specific points others have made. Hopefully it won’t turn into just another hatefest, but an interesting and challenging discussion. Come on, all you politico-junkies!

[biltritewave]

I received a wallet sized reminder yesterday from the Republican Study Committee which does a good job of summarizing what the party stands for. Its basically a credit card with 6 tenets writeen on it…meant for congressman to look over before deciding on a bill. For those that dont know, the RSC is a group in the House that are the true conservatives of the Republican party, often vote again pet projects of the party because they cost too much etc…
Here is their website.

http://johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/index.htm

And here is a summary of the cards.

(Washington, D.C.) ? Today, U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), along with Representative Sue Myrick (R-NC) and other conservatives, unveiled the new Republican Study Committee (RSC) “Conservative Check Card.” The cards are based on the “Principles Cards” that Feeney used while he was Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and allow members to check if legislation adheres to conservative principles.

Feeney said, “In Tallahassee the cards were such a successful tool for legislators and staff that I decided to shares the idea with my colleagues and other conservatives in Washington.”

The wallet-sized cards have six conservative principles printed on them and serve as a constant reminder of the conservative beliefs held by Feeney and other RSC members. The cards are a great tool in communicating the conservative message to constituents, colleagues, lobbyists, and other interested parties.

Feeney also added “Our nation was not founded by an accident of geography, but based on enduring principles that all who have become Americans can be proud of. I believe in these principles and have used them to guide me throughout my career. These cards are a unique instrument in promoting legislation consistent with these principles.”

?Rep. Feeney has done a great job in creating these conservative check cards. If Members vote based on the card?s principles, we can make America a stronger and more prosperous nation,? said RSC Chairman Representative Sue Myrick.

President of the Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist, who attended the press conference, said ?George Orwell once told us that the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. These cards will help conservatives help remember why it was that they came to Washington.?

The press conference was also attended by Representatives George Radanovich (R-CA), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Joe Wilson (R-SC). Additionally the following representatives from the following conservative organizations spoke in support of the cards: Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform), Stuart Butler (Heritage Foundation), Tom Schatz (Citizens Against Government Waste), Richard Lessner (American Conservative Union), Tad DeHaven (National Taxpayer Union).

The cards are printed with the following 6 principles on them:

1. Less Government

Does the bill tend to reduce government regulations, size of government, eliminate entitlements, or unnecessary programs?

2. Lower Taxes

Does the bill promote individual responsibility in spending, or reduce taxes or fees?

3. Personal Responsibility

Does the bill encourage responsible behavior by individuals and families and encourage them to provide for their own health, safety, education, moral fortitude, or general welfare?

4. Individual Freedom

Does the bill increase opportunities for individuals or families to decide, without hindrance or coercion from government, how to conduct their own lives and make personal choices?

5. Stronger Families

Does the bill enhance the traditional American family and its power to rear children without excessive interference from the government?

6. Domestic Tranquility, National Defense

Does the bill enhance American security without unduly burdening civil liberty?