HillaryCare- The Dark Side

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Regulations must always be weighed against what is considered socially acceptable.

A theoretical example: Take the construction industry. A complete lack of regulation with free market theory would result in unscrupulous builders who build with inexpensive materials and shoddy quality being 'weeded out' of the free market when the homes they built collapse during a storm and kill people. The free market does always correct itself, but the correction process frequently involves loss of life and/or property. As a society, we've decided we don't want to pay that cost. And therefore, we regulate.

What happens if we over regulated the construction industry? It becomes too expensive to build. Builders no longer have sufficient ROI to justify their investments and new building stock plummets. Older construction goes unrenovated over time, becoming less and less safe. As the population increases, they all crowd into existing construction creating overcrowding and generally unhygienic living conditions. Land is plentiful, as is capital, but over-regulation has killed the ROI of private builders.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, it's really an argument over semantics. Nobody wants an over-regulated market and nobody really wants an under-regulated or free market. You say you do, but not really. I've used this analogy before but it strikes true - imagine if the Super Bowl was played without referees, and we just 'let the teams play it out.' It's really nonsensical to actually argue that a market could ever be totally free of any governmental oversight. Just in terms of national security and laws, how do you suppose that would pan out? You only need to apply your ideal to real world situations to realize that believing in a totally free market is just pie in sky thinking.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, it's really an argument over semantics. Nobody wants an over-regulated market and nobody really wants an under-regulated or free market. You say you do, but not really. I've used this analogy before but it strikes true - imagine if the Super Bowl was played without referees, and we just 'let the teams play it out.' It's really nonsensical to actually argue that a market could ever be totally free of any governmental oversight. Just in terms of national security and laws, how do you suppose that would pan out? You only need to apply your ideal to real world situations to realize that believing in a totally free market is just pie in sky thinking.

I guess it's a matter of degree. I want the minimum necessary to keep things safe. Others want to regulate in an attempt to make things "fair". When you try to make things fair you end up making it unfair for everyone.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I guess it's a matter of degree. I want the minimum necessary to keep things safe. Others want to regulate in an attempt to make things "fair". When you try to make things fair you end up making it unfair for everyone.

Depends on what 'fair' means. If 'fair' means making sure the business landscape isn't stuck in a static state with no hope for newer players to emerge, then it is very important to protect that. If 'fair' means tugging at ones emotions and using capital in a sub-optimal manner, then you are right.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Actually Japan is the leader in medical technology. But then technology doesn't nessiarly mean healthier population.

Well, I suppose it depends what data you look at and which technologies regarding the U.S. and Japan. But you're absolutely right that technology doesn't necessarily equate to a healthier population.

Food production shouldn't just be left in the hands of big business. You only have to look at what passes for food these days to see that.

I agree; however, I doubt that we'd fare much better if food were left solely in the hands of the government. Look at the former Soviet Union to see how well that worked out.

That's true - and it is troubling that for all its technology, that the US as a nation still has disproportionately high infant mortality rates, and low life-expectancy compared with other developed nations.

I can't help but think that the healthcare system is one of the reasons for that.

While I agree that the U.S. healthcare system needs some modifications performed on it, I think some of the statistics surrounding medicine are potentially flawed. Using "infant mortality rates" and "life-expectancy" as examples, we have to ask ourselves where the researchers collected their data. For instance, you'd likely discover much different findings at a private hospital in a wealthy residential area versus a publicly-funded hospital in a poor inner-city one. If the researchers neglect to make this information known, then it would seem to the reader that all data was gathered from an even playing field, when such was not the case.

So while it's certainly possible that the U.S. has an incredibly high infant mortality rate and low life-expectancy rate (when compared to other nations of it's caliber), without knowing all of the variables from the studies performed, it's impossible to say for sure.

We also know that people who don't eat a nutritionally sound diet end up sick which relates back to health care.

This is quite true. But wouldn't you say that this is the responsibility of the individual-in-question and not private business, government or anyone else?

I don't think people should eat at McDonald's every day or feed on sugar as their primary source of "nutrition." However, it's not my place nor the government's place, to tell others what they may and may not eat. If a restaurant wishes to sell it (and it's legally edible), then nothing is stopping people from having it -- provided they have the necessary funds, of course.

This is one of the soundest arguments against a single-tier (government-run) healthcare system. If everyone is paying the government to operate healthcare through their taxes, then that means you and I would pay for "Joe down the block" who decided to eat nothing but pizza his whole life and now needs to be hospitalized due to numerous cardiovascular problems. Obviously, that would upset us -- and many others who see their taxes going to pay for "Joe" as well -- so under pressure, the government might pass a law restricting or even banning junk food.

On the surface, it sounds fine. People would eat healthier and need less medical attention, right? Well, yes... that's true; however, that's not the point, is it? The point is that one of the great ideas behind the United States is freedom of choice and that includes the ability to choose what you want to eat. That doesn't always mean it'll be a smart choice, but it'll still be your choice nonetheless.

[Peikko 1,575]

Health care should not be on an economic platform, well not in absolute terms at least. Health care goes wonky if you treat healthcare as a commodity. Business may well win, but people lose right down the line.

[Peikko 1,575]

The point is that one of the great ideas behind the United States is freedom of choice and that includes the ability to choose what you want to eat

That only works if what is being sold is honestly represented. That is simply not the case. People don't make food choices based on information, they make them based on what tastes good, often because they things they are literally 'addicted' to and of course the cost factor.

How can one possibly argue that it's ok to sell 'food' that's created from ingredients that just shouldn't be eaten no matter what they taste like? It might make economic sense, but really, to me it's despicable.

Edited January 30, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[DeadPoolX 9]

The point is that one of the great ideas behind the United States is freedom of choice and that includes the ability to choose what you want to eat

That only works if what is being sold is honestly represented. That is simply not the case. People don't make food choices based on information, they make them based on what tastes good, often because they things they are literally 'addicted' to and of course the cost factor.

How can one possibly argue that it's ok to sell 'food' that's created from ingredients that just shouldn't be eaten no matter what they taste like? It might make economic sense, but really, to me it's despicable.

Okay... so when you go out to a restaurant to eat, you don't make your selections by "what tastes good?" Do you demand to see the chef and know what every little ingredient is in each of the options represented on the menu? If you do, then I hope you at least leave a very good tip.

However, I have a feeling you were talking more about grocery shopping. I agree that many items on the shelves today have ingredients with either unusually scientific-sounding or nebulous names. After all, does anyone know what "Yellow Dye 5" really is? I've seen this in items from soda to tortilla chips and the name suggests it's some sort of colored dye, but what does it do? The can of soda or bag of chips certainly won't tell you.

Well, once again it comes down to a little something called "personal responsibility" and it's on the part of the consumer. If I'm going to purchase something, then it's my job to make sure I know as much about it as possible. The company selling it to me has one -- and only one -- duty and that is to make their product as appealing to the populous as they can. That doesn't mean they should out-and-out lie (they can and will get in trouble for that), but they can gloss over whatever negative areas their products may have while promoting the positive ones. That's something advertising and it's been going on for ages and it'll only get worse, so get used to it.

If the "average Joe or Jane" don't bother to do a little light research on the Internet (where practically everything is at your fingertips, especially with user-friendly search engines like Google) and buy products solely based on whether or not the item tastes good, ignoring whatever health consequences it may have, then it's their problem; not mine and not the product's company either. Companies are not parents nor babysitters -- we have the ability to be intelligent, rational and use sound judgment when we want, so instead of immediately grabbing that double-bacon cheeseburger or piece of chocolate cake, we should stop a moment and think over our actions. The only one who can decide if we're making the right move is ourselves.

Edited January 30, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

It is the people in the middle that really have the hardest time. When I made 6 dollars an hour managing a small grocery store for a Korean family is when I didn't have any health care. But these jobs are only a stepping stone. The real goal is to keep a vibrant economy through low taxes and limited government so the people can move up the ladder to the next level.

If you get your wish, I hope you enjoy working at that grocery store, as that is likely where you would stay. Low taxes do not help the average citizen. It may encourage economic growth, but it will be to the benefit of the wealthy, not the society.

You might want to take a look at history. There are reasons why many of the progressive programs were created. Why unions organized. And why we regulate companies and the economy. Maybe you prefer to go back to the world where an average person worked 60-80 hours a week, and just barely had enough money to survive. Asking for a raise, either got you fired, or in some cases killed.

But over time, because of the social programs, unions, and regulation of the economy, workers were able to work a 40 hour week, and actually have a decent standard of living. But ever since Regan took office, with the promise of smaller government, lower taxes and all that. That ideal has been lost. There are now many working poor, who work 2-3 jobs, and still hardly make enough to feed themselves or their families. Working professionals, while getting paid more, are expected to work 60+ plus weeks with no overtime. Not doing so, gets you first on the list to be let go, when the company needs to make cuts.

I am now in the aerospace industry making around 80k, And I do work 60+ hours a week, with the most I have ever worked being 91 hours in a week. This is by choice. Not by necessity. And the vibrant economy that the George W. Bush tax cuts enabled me to work all those hours, and to better myself. When Clinton was leaving office we cut our work force by 1/3 and were given temporary revolving lay offs to keep us in the company and our stock price was around 20 dollars. Since the Bush tax cuts our business has more than doubled. We have hired 50% more people than we had at our previous peak and our stock has split once then rose to 150 dollars and has now settled back to 120 dollars. Our biggest problem now is that our 4 Plants in the Portland area are constrained by capacity size and we cannot find anyone that is willing to show up everyday and on time for 20 bucks an hour with an all time historically low unemployment rate of 5.5%. The quality of the labor pool has been contaminated by the free lunch of the welfare state and the entitlement mentality.

Why don't you go ask France or Germany how they would like to have an unemployment rate of 5.5%. If they had a rate like that maybe their people would not be rioting and burning cars, especially the immigrant populations that are suffering under the socialist system.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

While I agree that the U.S. healthcare system needs some modifications performed on it, I think some of the statistics surrounding medicine are potentially flawed. Using "infant mortality rates" and "life-expectancy" as examples, we have to ask ourselves where the researchers collected their data. For instance, you'd likely discover much different findings at a private hospital in a wealthy residential area versus a publicly-funded hospital in a poor inner-city one. If the researchers neglect to make this information known, then it would seem to the reader that all data was gathered from an even playing field, when such was not the case.

So while it's certainly possible that the U.S. has an incredibly high infant mortality rate and low life-expectancy rate (when compared to other nations of it's caliber), without knowing all of the variables from the studies performed, it's impossible to say for sure.

True - but I think thats muddying the waters somewhat, as surely the same arguments would apply to the collection of the same data from European countries. Either way the question still remains why different countries show markedly different results on mortality rates and life expectancy.

Besides, its not incredibly high (we're not talking Sudan here) - just higher in comparison with European countries.

Also I'm not saying its the only factor here indicative of a failing health system - only that infant mortality and life expectancy are one measurement of average living standards.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Number 6 do you ever sleep? Do you ever work? You are always here! I wish I had a job like that!

[Peikko 1,575]

So, according to you, it's ok for business not to have any 'responsibility' because, hey, it's the free market. It's solely the responsibility of the consumer to ensure that what they are eating is actually food?

That's just hogwash. The food business should not be allowed to sell anything that isn't food as if it were food.

I'll ignore the tosh about my demanding whatever in restaurants as irrelevant.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Number 6 do you ever sleep? Do you ever work? You are always here! I wish I had a job like that!

Do you?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Number 6 do you ever sleep? Do you ever work? You are always here! I wish I had a job like that!

Do you?

You two are drawn to each others threads like moths to flames.

Don, I always thought it was odd that a hardcore conservative like you was happy living amongst those fruity hippies in the pacific NW but now it makes sense.

[DeadPoolX 9]

So, according to you, it's ok for business not to have any 'responsibility' because, hey, it's the free market. It's solely the responsibility of the consumer to ensure that what they are eating is actually food?

That's just hogwash. The food business should not be allowed to sell anything that isn't food as if it were food.

I'll ignore the tosh about my demanding whatever in restaurants as irrelevant.

You're running on the assumption that everyone has exactly the same definition of food.

I, for one, dislike the idea of eating cloned animals, but I know of many other people (my brother included) who either don't care or think it's perfectly fine. I have a strong feeling that a very large segment of the population in the United States shares this sentiment. If that's true (and neither you nor I can confirm or deny it at this point), then why would the U.S. government step into the affairs of private business, disallowing companies from selling a product that supposedly many consumers want?

We need to be honest here: if someone wants to eat something, they will eat it, whether or not it may have potentially serious negative side-effects. We see this everyday. You don't need to be a "certified MENSA-level PhD" to figure this one out. Take one look at that double-bacon cheeseburger (with fries and a soda, both of which are the largest size too!) and you'll know that isn't good for you. Yet I don't see sales figures going down by any appreciable margin for major fast-food chains, like McDonald's or Burger King.

There will always be food products that are "unsafe" or "unhealthy" for us, no matter what we do. We can't prohibit them all; even if we tried, it would eventually fail. Most of the food that has these types of ingredients could be put under the umbrella term of "junk food." So unless you want a result similar to alcohol and Prohibition (only this time with food), I'd recommend the government stay away from turning well-used, well-liked food products illegal. If there was any plan that even a shred of hope to work, it would be by providing monetary incentives to businesses to "clean up their act."

Edited January 30, 2008 by DeadPoolX