The False Emotional Appeal of Health Care Reform

Health Care SymbolAs I monitored the comments to yesterday’s article on the public option, I was saddened to see some of the folks who discussed things fall into the common trap of using an emotional appeal in order to attempt to win a debate. Unfortunately, the entire health care reform debate has become little more than an emotional argument along the same lines of so many other political topics and debates. I won’t attempt to say that the GOP arguments are not also just as emotional in their “appeals”. The GOP is just as guilty in this tactic as the Democrats are. I am going to point out a few emotional appeals that are flawed positions from the GOP. And then I am going to delve in to the health care discussions here lately, and point out the emotional appeals. I will also point out where a few of them are fatally flawed. But what I would like to do is point out to everyone that these emotional appeals are quite effective rhetoric, but completely useless against those who use reason and logic as their starting point.

Why Medicare Appeal AdThe fact is that emotional appeals are the most effective weapons that the politicians have at their disposal. The problem with this tactic is that the emotional appeal throws out the most effective and necessary part of problem solving… logic. As many of you know, I am a fan of logic. I am not interested in emotions. Emotions have absolutely zero place in the realm of political discourse, and I do my best to eliminate them whenever I can. The use of emotional appeals has found a true home in the Democratic party. That is not meant as a shot at the party, just a recognition of the reality of today’s liberal politicians and their supporters. They are called “bleeding heart liberals” for a reason after all. The appeals to environmental changes, the appeals to welfare extensions, the appeals to financial regulation of business, and now the mass appeals to government run health care.

But let’s not leave out the right on the use of emotional appeals in order to further the cause with the less logically adept fan base. We have the appeals around the right to life movement, which include grotesque pictures of aborted fetuses have no bearing on the argument, but are meant to do little more than shock the senses and appeal to emotion. Where the warmongering party really makes its hay, however, is in the use of an entirely different emotion: fear.

The GOP has made an art out of using fear to get the public to go along with the outlandish plans that they come up with for global domination and citizen control. This has been a long standing tradition within the Republican party. And one that I am ashamed to admit for many years I fell for, hook, line and sinker.

A quick sidebar here: Due to the nature of my previous career, I am well versed and certainly aware of the very real threats to the United States and her citizens. I urge you to not discount these threats. Instead, acknowledge them, and then seek to deal with them in a far better way than the federal government’s policies of the past. The threats are often real. The solutions offered by the government to deal with those threats are often not the best solutions, however. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Japan War AppealJust think about the justification that we see from the GOP when it comes to the general tactic of going to war or attacking someone or continuing the war. For that matter, they get right down to using fear in the election cycle by proclaiming that we will be attacked or in danger if we are so bold as to select a Democrat to lead the country. After 9/11, we decided we had to go on the offensive and wage a “war on terror,” proclaiming to the world that “you are either with us, or with the terrorists.” (unfortunately (or fortunately) the world decided that they did not have to choose one of those two options). They got Americans to go along by using an emotional appeal to fear. We invaded Afghanistan. Then we decided Iraq was next. “If we don’t attack these countries, the terrorists are coming to get you!” Perhaps if we did less attacking of countries the terrorists wouldn’t really care enough to come and get us.

And even further, the GOP went a step further in using the fear tactic to impose stifling legislation designed to infringe on the civil liberties of the American citizen. They created the PATRIOT Act. Aptly named, it immediately took away the ability for anyone in the country to be a true patriot. “If we don’t have these broad powers to wiretap without warrants and investigate whomever we want whenever we want, the terrorists are going to get you!” I will go on record and say that the PATRIOT Act was one of the first indicators for me that I didn’t belong in the Republican party. I believe it is one of the top three reasons that people abandoned the GOP. And when the GOP makes a resurgence, and they will, it will be a rebuke of the Democratic Party rather than a feeling that they have righted their listing ship.


Polar Bears Appeal

They are almost out of time... Sign Kyoto Quick!

But the true masters of the emotional appeal are the bleeding heart liberals. There is always a call for them that the rest of us have to wake up and do what is right, while simultaneously offering solutions that are anything but right (sorry I couldn’t help myself there, but saying that I need to do what is right and take care of people and then saying the way to do that is to take my money by force and give it to someone who didn’t earn it is not right). The left is full of emotional appeals and it is my belief that they use this tactic so often because without an appeal to emotion there is absolutely no moral ground for them to argue for the solutions that they want to implement. The environmental group uses emotional appeal because the science to back up their claims simply isn’t there. The Welfare groups use emotional appeal because there is no other way to convince people that it is OK to take their money and “redistribute” it to someone else who didn’t earn it. The housing folks discuss the poor families losing their homes while ignoring the fact that they bought homes they couldn’t afford and did so with contracts they didn’t take the time to read.


But my focus from this point forward in this article is the health care debate. Because nowhere is emotional appeal used in place of logic, reason, and principles than the health care debate. The GOP has attempted to use the emotional appeals lately in this arena as well. Sarah Palin and the “death panel” stuff was an emotional appeal. There was nothing that could prove the existence of such a thing. The simple fact that opponents called it a death panel was proof of an appeal to emotion.

Health Care GravesBut the lion’s share of emotional appeal in the health care debate goes to the Democrats. It started with manipulation of numbers… 47 million uninsured who will die in the street if we don’t pass health care reform. I have already debunked the reason and logic behind this claim by relying on facts. But it was a pure emotional appeal. Every speech that Obama has given on the health care issue has offered some tearjerking examples of those without health care forced to live or die so tragically. The initial push for health care reform was a pure emotional appeal. The facts simply weren’t good enough to convince America that such massive legislation was necessary, so the facts got inflated and manipulated. It worked.

Yesterday’s emotional outbursts focused on the insurance companies and what animals they are. Mathius and Buck declared that they were price gouging, service denying bureaucracies. I am not going to make the entire argument over and over that the insurance companies are a business that provides a service, and they do it more efficiently and effectively than the federal government could ever do it. I won’t waste my time. But I will say that it is pretty easy to attack the insurance companies. They are not a person. And therefore it is far too easy to attack them and overlook all the good things that the insurance agencies have done.

Dems Sick Kids HC AppealWhat those emotional appeals lacked was an acknowledgement of the fact that the rate of denied claims for Medicare is higher than the rate of denied claims in the private insurance industry. And believe me, I have read countless articles trying to spin that data in favor of Medicare. But manipulating numbers and saying that the insurance companies deny for a “more mean” reason than Medicare denies doesn’t change the fact that the rate of denial for the government run health care we have now, which already operates on a vastly limited segment of the population, is higher than the private insurers. Can you imagine how much worse that would be when the entire population is under that care and resources become more scarce? I tried hard to find solid numbers on the claim denial rates in Canada, the UK, Australia, and France, without much luck. I hope someone who has them will share. Additionally, I would point out that the other government run health care program, the Veteran’s Administration has initial claim denial rate that averaged 49.8% over the last ten years.

The bottom line on that particular emotional appeal…. it is somewhat tired. I will tell you that you will miss the private insurance companies greatly if they disappear and the federal government is responsible for your health care. That old saying “you don’t know what you got till its gone” applies. The federal government has made a killing by denying citizens for a long, long time. And the fact that you somehow think that this is going to change in the world of government run health insurance is somewhat baffling.

SCHIP AppealAnother emotional appeal that I saw extensively yesterday and for many arguments in the past is the appeal that those without health care a being denied a basic human right. This is an emotional appeal as no person wants to deny someone their rights. The problem is that health insurance and health care are not a right. They are a service that is available. Attempting to put them into the category of a right is false. And I reject the attempts to do so. You have no right to health care any more than you have a right to electricity. It sure is nice and we all want to have it, but it isn’t a right.

And what is more baffling to me is the fact that those who claim it is a right believe that in order to provide this right (which isn’t a right) to others, they have justification to take away something that really IS a right: The right to live my life as I see fit so long as I don’t impose on another. You have the right to jump off a cliff. You don’t have the right to take me with you. And you don’t have a right to force me to pay to fix you if you happen to survive the exercising of your right to jump.

The other big emotional appeal that I hear regularly from those in support of all the government “gimme” programs is that those who don’t support them simply don’t care about people who are less well off. That is a pure emotional appeal and I liken it to when the term “racist” is thrown around. No one wants to be accused of not caring about those who honestly struggle despite their best efforts. The reality is that most of us who oppose the government handout programs do care very much about people. But that doesn’t mean that we are going to support a solution that is either unconstitutional, in-efficient, ineffective, or that violates the rights of others. The bottom line is that there is not an easy fix to the health care problems in America. And I don’t have to have a perfect solution to know that the ones being proposed in Congress currently are not good solutions. Reason, logic, and ethics tell me that they are not good solutions. The existence of a bad situation and the emotional appeal that results from that situation is not a sufficient argument for implementing any solution. Come up with a solution that doesn’t take money from one group and give to another who didn’t earn it and you might be surprised to find many people would support it.

Spock Logic BegninningThe point of the article is this… Emotional appeals are the tool of those who don’t have a logical argument. Remember that. I am not opposed to anyone’s ideas. I welcome them all. But I go to great pains to eliminate emotion from my thinking when I get into the world of public policy. I am not always successful, but I try. I am open to debating health care, but I will do it based on logic, on reason, on reality, and most importantly, on principle. I want to make the world a better place. But I am not going to sacrifice liberty or freedom in order to do it. That is supposed to be the beauty of America, we have liberty and we are free. We have too often allowed politicians to inject emotion into our discussions and they have used it to gain power, take way our liberties, and limit our potential.

And if anyone disagrees with me it is because you are a racist, you hate America, and you want the terrorists to win. Was that emotional enough? I know I can count on Mathius to offer something far more outrageous and comical, but I had to try. As a bonus I included some of the emotional appeal ads I have seen and giggled at, along with some satirical ones that I liked as well. The Japanese Soldier one is my favorite.


  1. Buon Giorno, USW.

    My guy in Jersey was thoroughly marginalized by the two buffoons (Corzine and Christie) and we wound up with 2,064 votes (charge!), but I give the extreme right credit here in Jersey for not bringing pictures of Dachau to protest national healthcare (talk about emotional appeals and one that has zilch to do with healthcare even in Nazi Germany).

    Okay, on to your post (while I have time): The left is full of emotional appeals and it is my belief that they use this tactic so often because without an appeal to emotion there is absolutely no moral ground for them to argue for the solutions that they want to implement.

    I agree emotional appeals are effective and overused but I disagree with the “no moral ground” part (as I so often do). I don’t see how you separate morality (my view of it) from helping others. I understand you prefer to do so without the government telling you to. Fair enough. I guess I doubt charity would cover those who couldn’t help themselves.

    As to national healthcare and its cost … of course I’m all for it, but I would stipulate the government reduce medicaid fraud by a very significant margin before any implementation of national healch care. It baffles me how these clowns (Reps & Dems) currently in Congress gave all that money away without stipulations to protect the American worker and we have a medicaid fraud division that is understaffed administration after administration after administration (which hurts any proponent of Government run anything by showing how inept they are). I think it can be cured pretty quick by hiring people (perhaps those on welfare?) to check on each and every claim but that makes way too much sense. In any event, I doubt after Tuesday Obama will get a public option (I’m for single payor) … and things will remain as they are.

    Quick note: HBO is showing a terrific documentary on the garment district in New York. The Shmatta Business: Rags to Riches to Rags. It shows pretty effectively how the free market and outsourcing destroyed that business (similar to the way it is destroying the technology industry today).

    Have a good weekend if I can’t catch up with yous gals/pals.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      It is impossible to say if private charities could in any way take care of the problem or not, because significant restrictions have been placed on the private charities.

      I think that the government has done this in order to set itself up as “the only viable solution”.

      As far as cutting waste, fraud, and mismanagement in government programs, that would be an excellent start. The problem is, what incentive does the government have to actually cut waste, mismanagement, and fraud? Most government programs are run by bureaucrats who litterally have to rape or murder someone (or utter a racist remark in the workplace) in order to even have the potential to lose their job. Elected officials have precious little control over this, so no matter who gets elected, the bureaucracy still runs itself as its own set of “little independent kingdoms” which are largely insulated against any meaningful change in the way that they operate.

      Consistently, the answer to ANY government agency that isn’t running well/efficiently is “Throw more money at it!” Throwing more money at it just encourages MORE inefficiency and waste – not the opposite.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Charlie, I’m beginning to love you. Imagine, the government actually chasing down the fakers, who woulda thought. What I hear in NY and NJ is that it would be too expensive to have an adequately staffed fraud unit. They just don’t get it do they?

      My guy Dagget lost too. I knew that his numbers would fall at the end, always happens with third party candidates. There are those who would rather “not waste their vote” as opposed to voting for principle. As for myself, there was a lot of last minute agita around the house. The wife despised Corzine and feared his re-election. She also was not terribly happy with Dagget’s stand on abortion which I can agree with her on but I’ve never really been a good single issue voter. Only time single issues rule for me is when the candidate lies. Lying will not be tolerated around here.

      Back in the 19th century, the Catholic Church in NY did an excellent job in the charity business. Catholic schools, orphanages and hospitals were all a result of that. While I am most familiar with my own church, other religions and even NRI’s were no slouches either. The last half of the 20th century saw this huge increase in compulsory charity (government programs). This got some of the religious institutions off the hook and assuaged the consciences of the cheap SOB’s who never contributed anyway.

      With the late, lamented end of welfare reform, we are going backward at warp speed. As a society, we seem to learn very little from our mistakes. The little we do learn seems to stay with us only so long before it is lost deliberately or accidentally in the fog of time (usually about five years). Then, we proceed to re-invent the wheel.

      I did see the HBO special, it was excellent although it could be criticized from the left and the right. The basic truth though, the one that has still not been publicly identified I think, is that the country deliberately through greed (everyone’s greed, labor, management and consumers) allowed the manufacturing base to slip away. This was also partially a short sighted nod to the great benefits of globalization.

      We, here in the US were all supposed to happily run off and become service providers in our new service economy. This was based on the assumption that there could not be a significant economic downturn ever again and that everyone would always need and be able to afford those services we were to provide. How’s that for dope smoking stupidity?

      • I hear you brother. I was working 6 and 7 days a week for 3 years until April (lost my weekend gig) … now I can still lose my full-time gig.

        That medicaid fraud special really opened my eyes. It was painful to imagine how long that crap is going on (with so many out of work and the gov’t funding welfare AND the fraud!!!!).

        The world is upside down sometimes, I guess.

        What made me insane about the bailouts was the lack of protection for workers (they can take OUR money and continue to outsource our jobs). I think we have to think within the box (at least the USA) and hammer firms/companies/producers who outsource American jobs … at least tax them enough so it isn’t economical for them to do so. And if they choose to pick up and go, fine. We nationalize them one by one and put people back to work.

        I can see both sides of the argument (for and against) government making a lot of sense and having a lot of negatives … it’s frustrating, that’s for sure.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          The American people are going to have to decide that if they want those jobs back they are going to have to give up the seventeen televisions twenty nine pairs of shoes, three cars in the driveway and a whole lot of other stuff. They might have to go back to the “Leave it To Beaver Days”, which to my recollection was not a particularly bad time. Mind you I grew up in a two bedroom NYC apartment not the suburbs but my folks and I strived for that little cape cod. They never got it, I did.

          Maybe we can paraphrase that German Pastor, “When the machinists job was eliminated, I did nothing, when the autoworkers job went overseas I said nothing, when the textile worker got laid off down the block I did nothing. Now that my little appliance store is closing there is nobody with enough money left to buy my products.”

          • We do not want those jobs back.

            This is not an act of force, like the source of the paraphrasing.

            This is an act of economics.

            Jobs leaving are jobs of a working class. The jobs left are jobs of the thinking and innovative class.


            Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom.

            Move up the scale and logarithmically there is a wealth increase.

            Free ourselves from mere Data, and move to Information.

            Free ourselves from mere Information and move to Knowledge.

            Free ourselves from mere Knowledge and seize Wisdom.

            Remember buggy whips.

            Trying to hold back the car so that the buggy whip manufacturers had jobs…what would that have done to the nation?

            • Trying to hold back the car so that the buggy whip manufacturers had jobs…what would that have done to the nation?

              Nothing compared to what these “free markets” are doing now … 10% unemployment may well become the norm.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              The buggy whip manufacturing jobs, The carriage manufacturing jobs, the wheel manufacturing jobs were all manufacturing jobs that were replaced with the accelerator pedal manufacturing jobs, the auto body manufacturing jobs and the tire manufacturing jobs.

              WARNING Will Robinson, WARNING, Does not compute.

              I seem to remember that when the manufacturing jobs went overseas so that stockholders could have bigger profits and we consumers could have some more mass quantitiues of cheap Chinese junk, we were told that we were now a service economy. That to me is Disneyworld jobs. No future in them.

              As a great supporter of free market capitalism I hearken back to that racist (supposedly) SOB Henry Ford who when asked by the heads of GM and Chrysler why he paid his non-unonized employees so much, answered, “So they could afford to buy my cars”.

              What exactly are we supposed to do with all this wonderful stuff we intellectuals think up when no one can afford to buy it?

              Hey, check out Argentina, a country full of intellectuals and no plumbers.

              Question: what is the most important job in mankind?

              Answer: the plumber, without him we would all be dead of some very nasty diseases.

              Always remember these magic words “enlightened self interest”.

  2. Good Morning!

    I’m posting for comments, as they should be interesting today.

    Last night on my way to bed, daughter, doing homework, asked “what discovery in the future are you most looking forward to?” The question itself is illogical, but that’s public schools for ya. Off the top of my head, as I walked up the steps, I answered “an Intelligent Democrat!”, she wrote it down.


  3. Buck the Wala says:

    Very interesting thread today, and I hope I have enough time while at work to post some comments. If not though, allow me to provide some quick and dirty thoughts (haven’t had time to fully wake up yet).

    USW, you are certainly right – both sides of the aisle use emotion to appeal to voters. And as you rightly point out, the Right’s emotion of choice is Fear. Dubya and Cheney used fear to promote their agenda. Fear that we would be attacked again if we didn’t do exactly as we said. Fear that many of us would be killed if we didn’t vote them back into office. Fear that if health care is reformed, the government will step in and kill grandma. This is completely unacceptable – it is not based in any facts whatsoever, just a guttural sense of fear and doom to convince people to go along with the administration’s claims.

    The Left relies on a very different emotion – Compassion. While it is arguable that the Left has relied a bit too much on compassion, the left has also relied on facts and numbers. 47 Million Americans are uninsured. That is a fact. Millions of Americans die each and every year because they lack health insurance or health care costs are unaffordable. I can’t remember the exact statistic, so I’m hoping someone will correct me with the actual numbers, but something along the lines of 60% of bankruptcies filed in the US are spurred by health care costs. Further, I believe it is nearly in 80% of those cases where the individual did have health insurance.

    Does the Left use these numbers in a way designed to appeal to emotion? Yes. But you know what, I am not ok with 47 Million Americans being uninsured, with Millions of Americans dying as a result.

    • I’m sorry, Buck, I’m just having trouble remembering something.. maybe you can remind us..

      When those bankruptcies occur, who gets left holding the bag? I can’t seem to recall..

      Adding, 47mm is a big number. I’ve seen it thrown out, but the real number is substantially smaller than that. The 47, I believe, includes illegal immigrants (who should but won’t be able to join this plan) and a few million more people who can afford health care but for whatever reason choose not to. So the more realistic number I’ve seen is around 20. Still too high and unacceptable, but probably more accurate.

      Also adding, in a large portion of the 60% number, the lack of health care (or insufficient health care) was really just the tipping point. They were already underwater and the medical bills just put them over the edge. I still don’t think this should happen, but a better number is probably around half of that, or 30%.* Still too high and unacceptable, but probably more accurate.

      The problem is that we, you and I, view health care as everyone’s problem whereas they see it as the problem of the people who have a problem. I shudder to think where we would be if people thought and acted this way in all aspects of life. If a man is being mugged, do you not have a moral obligation to try to intervene? I would say yes, but many here would say no. Therein lies the difference. Millions of Americans will die or go broker because of flaws in the current health care system*. Why, oh why, does the right hate these people?

      The last think I’d like to add is this:USW Said

      And therefore it is far too easy to attack them [insurance companies] and overlook all the good things that the insurance agencies have done.

      They provide a service (risk mitigation) for a fee. They do not do a good job for many people and we have little to no choice, because the alternative to dealing with them is to run the risk of catastrophic bankruptcy in the event of a medical problem. This, to me, is an unacceptable risk. And because we, The People, have so few options, they set premiums and deductibles that are prohibitive for many people, thus excluding them. Further, they occasionally fail to pay due to technicalities after you’ve been paying your premiums for years. This would not be tollerated in any other industry. Ever. The good things they do are not something I’m going to applauded. The good things they do are why I am paying them in the first place. I would not congratulate Optimum if they successfully provide me cable, but I’m sure going to complain if they stop doing it and continue to try to collect my monthly payment.

      *I pulled this number out of my ass.
      **Yes, I know, there will inevitably be flaws in the new system as well. The question is if they will be worse.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        I admit that the 47 Million is a bit inflated due to the fact that a portion of those are individuals who have made the decision to forego health insurance. Though from my understanding it does not include illegal immigrants. I read something that the ‘real’ number so to speak is around 32 Million. Again, regardless of the exact number, you and I both agree that it is too high and completely unacceptable.

        Regarding bankruptcies, again I don’t have the precise numbers. I tried looking it up this morning and I was right on the approximate 60% / 80% numbers I threw out there this morning, but could not find anything on the precise extent health care costs played into the bankruptcy. The 60% figure is those bankruptcies ‘motivated by health care costs’. Not sure exactly what that means.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          The difference between 20 and 47 million is not a “bit” to anyone except the mathematically challenged.

          Let us all agree that before we change the entire health care system in the country forever, or at least as long as the republic lasts, we do the simple stuff first.

          1. Elimination of Fraud and Waste.

          2. No restrictions on purchasing coverage across state lines.

          3. Allowing you to “tailor” your coverage taking into account your own needs and lifestyles. Skiers should pay more for broken bone insurance, not?

          4. Tort reform.

          If we all signed on to the above, in a very short period of time, four to five years I would think, we could get a true sense of the need for nationalized insurance. This however, would involve compromise on the left (I can’t see the right having any problem with it). As a sop to the left, I might include an assigned risk type program for those with pre-existing conditions.

          I do not expect Nancy Pelosi to be knocking on my door to run with this one. My own opinion of the left revolves around that Stalinist staple,” What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is up for negotiation”.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            I’m stuck at work and relatively busy at the moment so forgive the VERY brief nature of my reply. I’m mostly just reading for the rest of the afternoon so I’m hoping someone else (read: Mathius) takes up these points in greater detail:

            1) You got my vote – this is a major problem and does need to be addressed.

            2) Simply lifting these state-based restrictions will result in all insurance companies basing themselves out of those states that require the most minimal amount of insurance coverage in order to maximize their profits.

            3) Some extent of tailoring would probably be a good thing; dont’ have much insight into this issue as I haven’t spent much time thinking about it. Interesting idea though.

            4) Tort reform is just a small drop in the bucket, not to mention the majority of states have some form of med mal tort reform (e.g., shorter limitations periods which start upon the injury as opposed to upon reasonable discovery). Going much further, like capping damages across the board, is unfair and unjust to those that do have real damages.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              On # 2 don’t think so. I think that competition would solve the problem. Again, we can at least TRY before we take the irreversible chance of screwing up what we have. For the record, I have done my share of battles with insurance companies. Frustrating, absolutely but I usually have come out ok. My many friends with possible agent orange related health problems from being in the Nam back in ’65, ’66’ and ’67 have not been near as lucky with the VA. Some have won coverage and some, including my cousin have just died and solved the problem for Uncle.

              Re: # 4, No F—— lawyer anywhere should get 33 and 1/3 percent of a settlement. That is just plain obscene. I think particularly of one John Edwards whom I consider to be a bottom feeding son of a bitch who cheats on a dying wife (and they said Newt Gingrich had issues, at least she wasn’t dying). Seriously, can anyone justify the 1/3-2/3 split.

              We had a problem, I did most of the legwork for the lawyer. The first one kept confusing me with the defendant. I wanted a reasonable settlement from the beginning, not the lottery and he got to walk away with $ 22,000 plus charging me for his faxes and phone calls. I would have split his portion with the insurance company had they been willing to listen to me from the beginning.

              I am also very fond of loser pays. This would cut down dramatically on bogus cases. Of course there are problems with it but they pale in comparison with the problems we have now.

              Regarding lawsuits and fraud in general. I do not particularly care if it costs us $ 1.50 to catch someone who stole $ 1.00. That is a specious argument. How many potential crooks would be scared away from the fraud if they knew that justice was just around the corner? That’s one of those unknowable statistics. Just like all those jobs Americans won’t take because the wage scale has been so depressed by the flood of starving illegals.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                The 1/3 to 2/3 split does seem absolutely ridiculous at first blush, and in some cases it is. There are those cases that quickly settle with the atty doing little to no work. However, there are other cases that become protracted for years on end, going through negotiations and trials. In those cases, after spending months or years working on these cases, for NO MONEY from the client throughout that time period, it could still go either way – the plaintiff could win a boatload of money, the plaintiff can win minor damages, or the plaintiff could lose. The 1/3 represents, in part, the risk the atty takes in taking on these cases.

                Perhaps a tiered or tabulated compensation structure could work better, based on amount of time expended and amount of total recovery? Not sure exactly how that would look, but could address some of your concerns.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                See, now I have you thinking. Lets see how many of these things we can “fix” before we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

                Back in the day, I can remember my history teacher say that no bill is better than a bad bill. After 40 some years and after watchingnumerous “bad” bills with loads of unintended consequences come down the pike, I most heartily agree with him. Off the top of my head I think of Title IX, ADA and the whole stupid EPA fiasco.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Nope, now you’ve lost me — Title IX, ADA, EPA – all good as far as I’m concerned.

                Some problems with those bills (as with any) of course, but a bill with some problems that addresses some real concerns and makes some real progress, is much better than no bill.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:


      • Buck The Wala says:

        To Mathius’ point about the health insurance companies, I would just like to add a number I came across this morning on Morning Joe — 94%

        94% of consumer markets nationally are NON-COMPETITIVE in the health insurance industry. Many people talk about the importance of a free market and individual choice, but in many consumer markets there is no choice.

        • Common Man says:


          And why do you suppose that is the case? Is it because the insurance company’s want a lock on a particular area or state, or is because the government passed laws and constraints to control a “Free Trade” market?

          In my state (MI) every insurance company selling to Michigan residents or company’s must provide a specific kind/amount of coverage regardless of the individual need. Therefore I pay for services I don’t need or want. This is unfair to me since I am paying for something I don’t use. If I was able to shop any insurance company and customise my plan around only the services I wanted to pay for, I would pay less.


          • Buck The Wala says:

            And what is that minimum required amount of coverage? Just because a state requires a minimum amount of coverage does not mean that that minimum is adequate. I can almost guarantee that in those markets where there is no competition, the insurance companies are providing that minimum and no more. Hopefully I am wrong on that point.

            • Actually I am in favor of minimum amount of insurance – only for a major illness or accident. My family would be much better off paying for doctors visits by cash and having insurance for the majors.

              We do have an HSA which is getting closer to what I’d like to see.

              However, I do not see that the government should be involved in any of these decisions. I would like to shop around for the best situation that matches my needs, just like almost every other purchase I make. Unfortunately, due to government mandates and intervention, we can’t shop for health insurance this way.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                If you want a really quick education, go to your doctor for something fairly routine, such as an annual physical exam or a case of the flu.

                Ask your doctor what they will charge you if you pay in cash versus what they will bill your insurance company for exactly the same service.

                You will quickly find out that if you have “catastrophic health coverage” and pay for everything else in cash out of your own pocket or out of and HSA, you can probably save yourself a ton of money.

              • Well, first you will hear, “well you have insurance, so the cost to you doesn’t matter” or, “well we really don’t know what the cost will be”.

                Part of the equation is to become a better consumer. Ask ?’s and know what you are buying. Demand answers and our doctors/clinics/hospitals will also start to become better and more efficient.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Yes, it is true that 94% of the health market is “non-competitive”. This is largely due to the fact that government regulation prevents health insurance companies from operating accross State lines.

          This is part of the reason that a huge insurer like Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shield has offices in many States and each office is “independent”.

          The lack of a free and competitive market is directly attributable to the existing government regulations.

      • Common Man says:


        You fellows seem to have great compassion for your fellow human beings, and that is a noble trait. That trait however does not give either of you, or the government, the right to take that which is mine and give it to who you like. In principle it is no different than me deciding my son needs a new car, and since you have one, and can afford to buy another, I take it from you and give it to him.

        Please explain to me the difference in the two senerios? I can’t see a difference.

        The bigest problem that liberals have is their desire to take from those more fortunate and give to the less fortunate, because they believe that is how ALL people should be. That thought and logic is also a violation of individual rights.

        Interestingly enough the majority seated as representatives these days don’t see any reason they should give up any of their money, power, influence or authority, but are happy to take whatever they believe is adequate to further their authority to continue to do so.

        Your arguments are that we ALL should do whatever we can to assist the downtrodden and forlorn, and since only the government can see the entire big picture, they should be the ones in charge of dispencing the wealth. That thought process, although a right we all have as freemen, is easily corrupted into a violation of my rights should I chose not to agree.

        You cannot violate any individuals rights to justify providing for another; it goes against Universial Law.

        AS fellow freemen you are entitled to give as much as you want to those less fortunate, but insisting the government enforce likewise is morally wrong.


        • Buck The Wala says:

          I will let Matt get more into this, but there is a HUGE difference between the two scenarios you highlight. Regarding the car for your son, that is theft, pure and simple.

          Regarding the payment of taxes for the common good is not theft, but the cost of living in society. I can easily take your argument and apply it to the military — you are violating my individual rights by forcing me to pay for something I do not wish my money to go towards. Why should it be that my hard earned money goes towards a military budget which I may disagree with?

          • Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr Said:

            Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society

            • Buck The Wala says:


            • I think Texas has not state income tax, which is why a lot of people re-locate there.

              Since they don’t have taxes, does that make them un-civilized?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                There are a number of states that do not have state income taxes. Of course, residents still pay federal taxes and federal taxes, in part, are distributed to the states.

                Even without state income tax, there are other sources of income — real property tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, estate tax, etc.

              • Do not forget, my friend, that we also have tort reform as well. The highest award available is $250,000. That is it. That helped reduce insurance rates quite a bit.

                But, if we are uncivilized…then so be it. We also balance our budget and have a constitutional law that we cannot have deficit spending. We are uncivilized.

                We also turned down all government stimulus money that required federal Government interference. (ie. unemployment stimulus money that required we keep the program going after the initial money ran out). We are uncivilized. We ship illegal immigrants back to the border, insist that English be spoken and actually have our State welfare in control and actually check to see if they are eligible….We are uncivilized.


              • Buck The Wala says:

                The tort reform bit sounds a little uncivilized. What of the patient who is truly deserving of a multi-million dollar award due to his doctor’s sheer negligence?

                I know those cases are few and far between, but imagine if you were unfortunately in that situation, to be told oh, too bad, I know the doctor made a huge error that goes against all standard medical practices, but you can only get $250K for your injuries.

              • The $250K is lost wages is it not? Being permanently messed up or dead is another matter and litigation entirely.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’m not sure how Texas actually caps the damages. But even if just representing lost wages, I can easily see imagine a hypothetical case where the patient would suffer far in excess of $250K in lost wages throughout his life.

            • Wendall Holmes was a paid mouth piece, tax-eater and supporter of government violence. You don’t become a Supreme by denying government.

              It would have been earth-shattering if he had said:

              “Government is a protection racket that makes the Mafia look like babies in a daycare”

          • Common Man says:


            I am sure the pirate will chime in here eventually, but let me be the first to say you are incorrect relative to the car verses taxes senerio; stealing is stealing regardless of the entities involved.


            • Buck The Wala says:

              I will point you to Matt’s Oliver Wendell Holmes quote above.

              • Common Man says:


                A thief cannot justify his actions by making eloquent statements.

                “The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are wlling to work and give it to those who would not” – Thomas Jefferson


              • “President Obama’s heath reform bill represents the greatest hope for the American people. It is a moral obligation of society to provide for the needy. Oh, and Pelosi is a tool.” – Ben Franklin

              • v. Holland says:

                Matt-do you actually believe that this bill should pass-I understand you are for a public option or one payer but do you really support this bill or just the idea of government insurance.

              • I don’t think I support the current bill. I am still on the fence (and am likely to stay there for years after it passes), but am leaning toward no. But I do like the idea of government insurance, and single payer much more so. But we’ll see..

              • v. Holland says:

                If you don’t support what is actually going to be implemented, don’t you think you should demand that your reps. shouldn’t sign it. Haven’t we the people allowed our reps. to sign into law crap that no one agrees with for too long-laws that we have to live with. Aren’t you tired of compromised laws that don’t work, that people support just because they want to support their party.

          • Your logic is faulty….healthcare only helps certain people….the military protect all of us. Now it is not a matter of if we agree it is a matter of if the benefit is equal to all.
            Since all this trillions of tax dollars is only going to help a small percent of our population and that the militarys job is to protect ALL US citizens then I would say that comparing healthcare to the military is not on equal comparison.
            The idea on being a benefit to society should be that it benefits all of society not just a select few.

            • 1. Not true. The population centers benefit much more from the military than the boonies. Consider, who would bother attacking Wyoming? But New York? They would be worth invading. Thus, not everyone benefits equally as they did not have equal risk beforehand and now all have low risk.

              2. Once again, a great argument for single payer. We should levy a tax and provide universal Canada-style health care for everyone. Since, according to your argument, “it is a matter of if the benefit is equal to all.” That would make this qualification work, no?

              • Does not matter the risk…it is afford you at 100% without you doing one thing….you do not have to sign papers to get protected by the military, or change states to get protected….if your governor asks they are there….risk is nothing you are given it as a US citizen…..who would have thought NO would have needed the military? Funny but if you think about it due to weather and mother nature…AR is just as likely to need the military as CA. SO once again this is faulty thinking when you try to compare oranges to apples. You can’t do it…there is way to much space between benefit to some and benefit to all.

              • The odds of AR being equally needy of military protection as CA are exactly nothing. They could be close, one or the other could be greater, but not exactly equal. Especially when you look at the 50 states. So my logic is not faulty. They are not at equal risk.

                And they do not pay into the system equally. Some states pay far more in taxes than others.

                I defy you to show me that the amount payed by states correlates exactly to their military risk profile. Some states are being subsidized by other states.

                Put another way: from each according to its abilities, to each according to its need. Now what does that sound like to you……..

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                The odds of one State needing military “protection” vs. the odds of another State needing military “protection” are irrelevant, because an attack on any sinlular location in the country is seen as an attack on the entire countyr.

              • So what? Shouldn’t the subsidized states have to pay more then? If they increase the odds of the whole being attacked, then they should have to accordingly pay more. Otherwise, it smacks of communism.

                Think about it. Without certain states, it seems probable that the US would need less military than it currently has, no? After all, why would anyone attack Oklahoma? So if our tax dollars aren’t correlated to the added risk of a state on the need for a military for the entire country, then they are paying less than/more than their respective share of the military budget. Thus, the military is a communist institution!* GASP!

                *USW, I hope this satisfies your request for something outrageous and comical 🙂

              • Not really….because I don’t think the good people of the US will stand for a 100% government run healthcare system. Especially since that would divide the rich from the poor more…because the rich would go get there healthcare else where….look at the plan, your Reps are exempt from the system they are putting in place.

              • I don’t think government employees should be exempt from using the plan. I think that should be absolutely mandatory. But I don’t make the laws. Alas.

              • Common Man says:


                You realize of course that a great many or our enemies nuclear missels were pointed at our nuclear missles in addition to major metro areas; at least prior to this latest threat. Folks like BF and JAC were going to be some of the first to be vaporized living in the “boonies”.

              • Good point.. so by that argument, the military actually makes Flag and JAC less safe, but they still pay equally. Interesting..

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                You never saw “Red Dawn”.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              The military is just one example. Take anything your tax dollars go towards. Education – you can send your child to a private school, you can homeschool your child, however, you are still paying for the public school down the street.

              • Yep but it is your choice to send your kids to private school or home school… is still a benefit to all even if you do not choose to use it. This health care will not be a benefit to all I will not be afforded the opportunity to use the government healthcare and neither will you.

              • Would you feel better about it if everyone could use the government health care plan? I would certainly prefer it.

              • No I would not. I don’t not believe the government runs anything efficiently or effectiverly. Way to much waste and overhead.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                And with the public option it would be your choice to enroll. Or you can go out on the market and purchase your own plan from an insurance company.

              • Common Man says:


                When do you two feel taxes (governments lawful theft) should be limited? If I pay 39% am I paying enough? If Bob, a third generation wellfare recipient pays 0% is he a thief or just disadvantaged?

                What rights, liberties and freedoms are you willing to sacrifice to ensure Bob and those like him have healthcare, food, shelter and other government imposed rights?

                If the government decided that we all need to drive “green cars” because CO2 is killiing the planet, would you happily allow them to take your non-green car?

                How about giving up your current home to justify building a half-way house to benefit and give equal opportunity to the junkies living near you.

                Is it a right of the forlorn to impose hardship upon another so that the forlorn have more?

                When does it become an individual’s responsibility to support themselves and leave you to live the life you choose supported by your individual efforts?

                Why does a government designed as a Republic have the right to penalize me for the benefit of another?


          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Taxation is NOT the method that the government uses to fund day-to-day operations and government programs.

            If that were true, the Treasury would not have to sell debt to the Federal Reserve and to foreign nations.

            Very little of government “funding” actually comes from taxation.

            The purpose of taxation; therefore, is not for you and I to pay for government programs and services, since these can demonstrably be funded by the sale of government debt.

            If the government made a list of services offered, broke it down into how much each individual was being charged for the provision of those services, and all government operations and services were 100% funded by tax dollars, then your position would be a lot more defensible.

        • CM said

          In principle it is no different than me deciding my son needs a new car, and since you have one, and can afford to buy another, I take it from you and give it to him.

          No. Because if your son does not have a car he will not DIE. He may suffer some loss of popularity, or he won’t have quite as successful of a date with that girl he likes.. but he lives.

          And, by the way, this is, again, a false equivalency. I am not taking the entire amount from you and giving to him. Your analogy is like saying “he needed a house, so I took yours,” but a better analogy is, “he needed a house, so I took one brick each from a million people and made him one.” Through the magic of wide disbursement, everyone only pays a small piece instead of one poor schlubb paying the full amount.

          Now you’ll contend that, even in that case, I still do not have the right to take the single brick. And you can make that argument, and then I’ll say “a small ‘theft’ from you is less important than that other guy’s life.” We have had this debate before. Your move..

          • Common Man says:


            “Now you’ll contend that, even in that case, I still do not have the right to take the single brick. And you can make that argument, and then I’ll say “a small ‘theft’ from you is less important than that other guy’s life.” We have had this debate before. Your move..”

            Over the last several years (FDR forward) the government has taken more and more “bricks” from my house to build other homes for those in need. As a result I have been forced to replace those bricks to insure the stability of my house. I was not asked to “gift” those bricks, I was forced to do so.

            My rights as a freeman were violated. Are those that benefited better off because the government insisted my rights were less important than those who got my bricks, maybe. However we are all less free and as a result we have all lost liberties and begrudgently given away freedoms.

            Once again, you cannot take from one that which is his, give it to another and call it righteous; it is and always will be theft.


          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            When the little turd who hit my wife head on while he was drag racing and almost killed her and three of my kids, the prosecutor wanted to suspend his license. The judge considered his car, (the new one, not the one he wrecked) to be a necessity so that he could continue at college without taking a bus. Based on that piece of Judicial wisdom, a car is a necessity which insures that you get a better education which guarantees a better job and therefore your ability to eat better, even in times of economic strife. So let’s not have any of that not a necessity stuff.

        • Please explain to me the difference in the two senerios? I can’t see a difference.

          Insurance = necessary for survival.
          new car = a trophy (and should he need it for work, perhaps there should be a government loan for him that won’t bankrupt him while he pays it off).

          Capitalism is the culprit here, fellas. In a global economy, the have nots don’t stand a chance over the long haul.

          This morning I had to put up with 10,000 Skankie fans on the staten island ferry on their way to the dopey parade. How many of those kids (who aren’t in school today) you think attended any of those tournament games? How many you think could afford to? Each one of them was wearing some form of Skankie garb … $20 million per player, new stadium subsidized by the citizens … except citizens can’t go see a game (or watch it on tv without skankie cable).

          Imagine what the owners of that team are bringing in day-to-day … for what, all the sweat they put into “earning” those dollars? Steinbrenner had the capital, he bought into a team and scored (if that equates to “earning” … I don’t know what to tell you).

          No citizen living in this country should have to do without health insurance. It is criminal, pure and simple.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Well said!

            And as a Yankees fan, I can attest that I was unable to go to a single game this year due to the high cost of tickets…

            • And, as a Dodger fan, I can attest to the fact that WE GOT TORRE!! BWA HA HA!!

              We’ll get you next time, Gadget, next time!

              • Buck The Wala says:

                It would have been great to see a Yankees-Dodgers Series. Would have loved to have Torre around.

              • Oh, but you would have had a conniption if we’d have won.. Could you imagine? The Yankees lose to Torre’s Brooklyn Dodgers?

                Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow
                Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
                Til the last syllable of recorded time.
                And all our yesterdays light fools the way to dusty death.
                Out, out, brief candle, life is but a walking shadow,
                A poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage
                Then is heard no more.
                It is a tale told by an idiot,
                Full of sound and fury,
                We’ll get you next year

              • Buck The Wala says:

                But we wouldn’t have lost. nice try.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Insurance is NOT necessary for survival. Medical care could certainly be seen as “necessary for survival”. People obviously can “survive” without medical care, but of course the quality and duration of the average person’s life would be significantly reduced in the absence of medical care.

            The way the system currently exists, medical care would be completely unaffordable to most people if they did not have health insurance. However, what are the reasons for this?

            It is a very complex situation because in less than 100 years we have gone from doctors who had very rudimentary tools and medicines who made house calls and took chickens in trade for their services all the way to the massively technological highly specialized medical care system which we now have.

            Because many people feel that access to the best medical care possible should be available to “everyone” and all of the great technology involves expensive machinery, highly specialized training, etc, medical care is now tremendously expensive.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              But if medical care is necessary for survival, then shouldn’t everyone have access to the best medical care possible?

              Why should only the rich have access to the best medical care?

              • And what exactly do you think is going to change about that equation under the current plans of Congress? Do you actually believe that the rich won’t still have access to the best medical care?


              • Distribute the wealth (ducking thrown objects) … nobody needs 60 gazillion dollars (or what A-Fraud makes for playing 3rd base). It’s absurd.

              • You call what he does at 3rd base playing? Tremendous hitter, but I could play 3rd better than him.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            “No citizen living in this country should have to do without health insurance. It is criminal, pure and simple.”


            What would be criminal is you stealing money from me to pay for your own healthcare.

            If you do not have the means to pay for your own healthcare, and I CHOOSE to help you, then that is laudible. If I CHOOSE not to help you, then that MIGHT make me a selfish bastard (or it might not, depending on my own circumstances).

            However, you DEMANDING that I help pay for your healthcare and using force to MAKE ME pay for your healthcare IS criminal.

            • Peter, I understand your argument and it is a valid one. Where I disagree (not that your argument isn’t valid here as well) is where wealth can be redistributed (maybe not from those “earning” somewhat above a good living but certainly those with absurd wealth they couldn’t possibly “earn” (in the traditional sense). And yes, there would be a crime there (taking that wealth), which is why nationalization of such industries with a much more stratified (but fair) income level would be required.

              I’m sure by now you’re ready to shoot me … fear not, it won’t happen here in our lifetime, but neither will a government-free society either. The money is already in place. Until there are enough people in a 1930-like depression state (which may or may not happen) there won’t be any revolutions. Our children (and society) is way to brain dead from electronics …

              Lets Go Mets!

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                Many of the things that people say “won’t happen in my lifetime” usually find a way of happening in your lifetime 🙂

                Truth be told, when I was in my late teens and early 20’s I was quite the little socialist/communist. At that time, I would have whole-heartedly agreed with you that NO ONE should be entitled to anything above $X amount of money, because nobody NEEDS more that $X in order to live a very good lifestyle. Therefore, if you make more than $X, just give the rest of it to the government, and they can use it to pay for healthcare and other services “for the poor”.

                My question to you is this:

                Who determines what $X actually IS, and how do we know that the amount $X is determined fairly and is actually a reasonable number?

                My current position is that there is no moral way of determining $X, because no matter what value you assign to $X, you are advocating stealing money from people that have more than $X and giving that money to people who have not earned it.

                You may argue that anyone who has wealth in excess of $X could not possibly have obtained that amount of wealth honestly and morally. In SOME cases, you are probably correct.

                You may further argue that those that have more than $X amassed that kind of wealth by opressing the working class (or some similar argument). That may also be true in some cases.

                However, I think that you will find that in the majority of cases, most of the people that have more than $X have that kind of money because of direct government intervention in the marketplace, causing certain people and corporations to have unfair advantages which tilt the marketplace away from the concepts of free trade and competition.

                Look at Goldman Sachs for God’s sake! Could there be a corporation that gets MORE sweetheart deals from the government?? And notice that the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Fed both came from Goldman Sachs? Coincidence? But of COURSE!

          • “No citizen living in this country should have to do without health insurance. It is criminal, pure and simple.”

            Good then hold it out of their welfare checks or pay checks or unemployment checks….if it is more important for a person to have health insurance than to eat…..fine. But don’t make me pay for it….I am doing good to pay my own insurance and that of those that work for us.
            What is the difference in a need and a want?

    • The amazing thing is this will not change….these people can not afford insurance. This will not change even under the “new government plan” this healthcare will not be free. All we have done is allow an intrustion by the government into another sector of private business.
      The only way all these millions are going to be insured is for us to pay 100% and that is not going to happen unless we are willing to take the train with no brakes down the hill.
      Yes everyone should have access to healthcare…..but how are we going to do that when people will not pay the premiums, deductibles and co-pays.We have people in our company who will not take health insurance and we (the employer) pays 100% of the premium. They choose not to because if they have insurance they have to pay the deductible and co-pay, if they don’t have it the government pays the hospital or Dr and the hospital or Dr writes off what is not paid. Some of them do not take it because it will mess up the free healthcare for their kids. They won’t pay $30 aweek to insure their kids, but we expect them to get on a government plan that will probably cost them more than that a week.
      I honostly think our government is not really looking at the problems or the consequences of what they are doing.

      • Great argument for single payer. Glad to see you’re coming around 😉

        • So you think the government should pay everyones insurance???? LOL….ROFL….why don’t we all just quit working….and let the government pay for everything. Lets see I figure the government will fold in one day two tops.
          I personally have no intention of becoming a slave to the US government….or any other government… chains are gone!
          If you Math want to depend on the government to take care of you…be my guest, I personally prefer to take care of myself…no chains.

          • A slave to the government? Can’t you see? You’re already a slave. You were born into the slavery. That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.

            You pay taxes. You obey traffic laws. In a million other ways, you are a slave. Yet you complain about this as if it made the difference between libertarian paradise and the workers paradise.

            You depend on the government far more than you care to admit. It is the reason your air is safe, your food is safe, your drugs are safe, you roads paved, your house doesn’t burn down, criminals do not rob you. It is the reason you are safe in public. It is the reason you can say what you wish and do as you wish. It is the reason we have not been invaded by a foreign army since the British. If you would wish to throw off the chains that make this possible, then enjoy your flight to Somolia (government free since 1991!).

            • LOL….I am talking about the chains that tell me where I can live or the kind of home I can own, the chains that tell me what food I can purchase and eat, the chains that tell me when I can run my heat or Ac, the chains that tell me what Dr I can visit or the hospital I can go to….the chains that say do it the government way or die from heat or cold, lack of food, lack of housing, lack of healthcare.
              In order to live in society people will live inside laws that bind….laws that bind and government slavery to me is two different things.

            • I didn’t know I had it so good. When the house down the block burned down last year it must have been an act of god, otherwise the government would have prevented it. Also I thought all those news shows were real when they report about all those rapes, robberies, killing and so on that happen all the time. Who knew its all fake TV shows, it can’t happen because government protects us.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              “You depend on the government far more than you care to admit. It is the reason your air is safe, your food is safe, your drugs are safe, you roads paved, your house doesn’t burn down, criminals do not rob you. It is the reason you are safe in public. It is the reason you can say what you wish and do as you wish. It is the reason we have not been invaded by a foreign army since the British.”


              Absent government regulations, there are PLENTY of ways that the air we breathe COULD be safe. Yes, it would take EFFORT to ensure that the air was safe, but it could be done.

              In spite of governent regulations, there are plenty of examples of food NOT being safe. E Coli outbreaks happen all the time. Salmonella happens, other food-bourne illnesses happen. Do you have evidence that outbreaks of these food-bourne illnesses would be GREATER without government regulation?

              In spite of government regulation, plenty of unsafe drugs still make it to the market. Some even remain on the market for YEARS in spite of all government regulations. Do you have any actual EVIDENCE that drugs would be LESS SAFE absent the government?

              Is there any reason to think that roads could not be paved by private industry? I doubt that government has a monopoly on concrete and asphalt.

              In spite of the government, houses burn down all of the time. Many communities have ALL VOLUNTEER fire departments that are not even subsidised by the federal government. The equipment might be payed for by LOCAL taxes, or it might not. However, having a government PROVIDES NO GUARANTEE THAT YOUR HOUSE WILL NOT BURN DOWN.

              Criminals rob people all of the time. Ask your police department if their job is to PREVENT you from being robbed. They will FLAT OUT tell you NO. The only way to TRY to prevent yourself from being robbed it to own a firearm, get an alarm on your house, and maybe even hire PRIVATE security.

              The reason that you are “safe” in public is probably that you are smart enough not to put yourself into places or situations that would be dangerous. I am certain that there are areas of your city that you would not walk alone in at 3:00AM. It doesn’t take the government to help you to figure this out. The other reason you are “safe” in public is that the majority of people still have a basic moral foundation and choose to not initiate violence against the non-violent. In spite of this, you could still get mugged, robbed, shot, or any number of other things at random while you were “in public”, and the government does NOTHING to prevent it from happening.

              The reason I can say what I wish and the reason that I can do what I wish (as long as my action does not impose upon another) is because I am free. Government only recognizes (or fails to recognize) this freedom. It does not CAUSE this freedom to exist. Freedom exists IN SPITE of government, not because of government.

              The only place where I MIGHT agree with you is on National Defense. Yes, the government DOES provide this service, and some sort of societal structure is probably necessary for providing defense of a large area of land. However, I would prefer it if such and entity were truly designed and used for defensive purposes only.

              Any other questions?

          • This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the Municipal Water Utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

            At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

            After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s valuables thanks to the local police department.

            I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on and fox news forums about how socialism in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              Too bad all of the services you mention could easily be managed privately and this would probably result in them running more efficiently and at less cost to the user/consumer.

              • Yeah, like baseball tickets … they’re so cheap now.

                Come on … business left on its own is a disaster.

              • The market place is

                “Highest bid wins”

                You’re complaint about baseball, Charlie, exists because baseball does not need you.

                Your government has funded all baseball stadiums. The baseball teams then can spend their earnings differently – they do not need your attendance to make a “go of it” – government is doing that for them.

                With nearly free facilities, baseball can sell TV rights – and earn more money from people NOT in the park than they ever could do inside the park.

                Without requiring attendance, they can make such attendance the privilege of the rich.

                Now, get your Stastists out of baseball – then what would happen.

                Without a place to play, there is no TV rights to sell. The facility suddenly becomes incredibly important. Seats need to be sold – 100% of the time, to pay for it. Suddenly, being there is more important that not being there but watching TV.

                Until government gets its paws out of business, you will always suffer bizarre distortions, Charlie. It is like trying to figure out why their is turbulence ‘over here’ – it is not easy to understand it is because of a rock in the river way over there.

              • You’re complaint about baseball, Charlie, exists because baseball does not need you.

                Exactamundo … the same way Garment Producers no longer needed the 750,000 workers they dismissed because it’s cheaper to make clothes in India. Great … that’s 750,000 out of work employees with what to do next? Unfortunately, because of advances in technology, less and less lost jobs return as new ones.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Charlie, and WHY did those 750,000 jobs go to India? Perhaps because the cost of labor there was significantly lower?

              • But that argue does not hold up to reality, Charlie.

                The US is 300+ million people – while the number of agriculture and industrial jobs has fallen.

                Yet, prior to current economic problems, unemployment was low.

                More jobs must have been created far in excess of lost.

                Do you complain if a industrial plants moves from Texas to Idaho?


                So why should it matter if it moves to India?

                Yes, economic disturbance occurs – but that cannot be helped if you want progress – if you do not want disruption, then you must equally accept stagnation

                Economic disturbances always resolve positively with progress.

                Stagnation kills.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Baseball has never been a “business left to its own”. Baseball is a government protected monopoly, which is precisely why you cannot afford tickets.

            • Great, Bob. Thanks!

            • All the things you list are conveniences that make life easier. Also actually State DOTs
              do not build roads anymore. Road constructions (and most government projects) are done by private contractors with the government entities acting as paper pushers handling all the bureaucratic crap thought up and passed by Washington. You err when you think government builds or produces something, they do no. They are middle men that clog up, inflate the price and slow down progress; it is the nature of the beast of government.

            • Common Man says:


              This morning I was awoken by my subliminal alarm at my normal 5:30 am powered by my mind. I then took a hot shower fueled by my wood stove, which I stoked the night before using clean water from my well. As I drink my coffee heated and brewed by my wood burning stove I look out my west facing kitchen window at clouds forming in the distance, notice the frost formed upon the grass and plan for snow. I then go about making my families breakfast of homemade venison sausage, eggs gathered from my chickens, potatoes harvested from my garden and toast made from the wheat purchased from neighbor.

              Upon cleaning up and re-stocking the stove and wood-burner located some 30 yards from my house, I adorn appropriate cloths to maintain body warmth and set out to tend to my domestic chores. This includes feeding the chickens, cattle and horses I purchased from neighbors with money I earned practicing my trade.

              This involves getting inot my US manufactured truck, which is kept running by my neighbor who is a mechanic, and in turn I supply with beef I raised, but not inspected by the Department of Agriculture, and drive down the road that I developed to my barn, which was built by my neighbor who is a carpenter.

              Once I have attended to my daily chores I return to my home and practice the trade in which I am skilled.

              Along about 3:30 pm I change into my hunting cloths, get back into my US made and neighbor maintained truck, which takes me to my tree stand located on my property. Around 5:45 a large whitetail wanders within bow range and I harvest the animal with one arrown. I then return to the barn my carpenter neighbor help build and dress the harvested animal. As a result of my efforts a dinner is prepared for my family using fresh, chemical free venison, coupled with chemical free home grown vegitables.

              Once the dinner dishes are cleaned and the wood burner re-stoked I set down with my lovely wife and discuss the days events.

              Prior to going to bed I check the east and west windows, let the dogs out and place the Glock model 22 on the bedside table.

              I don’t worry about anyone invaiding my home as the two dogs will provide ample warning and I am a very good shot.

              My need for government, or at least the amount of government you require is nill

              Who is a more free man?


              • CM….a man after my own heart!!
                We live the good life don’t we!
                Dumb city slickers have to depend on the government for everything….LOL

              • Common Man says:


                I am not sure how one maintains sanity living in a metro area like NY, it would drive me crazy. I will however take my wife to a Tiger’s game in the summer, but that is pure love; wife and baseball.

                BTW: Matt/Buck/USW Our household HATES the DAMN Yankee’s.


                I am making some Venison Jerky using my smoker and the big doe I harvested 2 weeks ago.

                It is fun experimenting with new recipies.

                BTW; I am not sure but someone mentioned canning meat in this site. Do you have any knowlede in that area?

                I also want to see if there is a way to can bacon if anybody out there knows.

                BTW: I also remember being able to buy canned bacon some years back. Does anybody know if you can still buy that.

                USW: sorry about getting off track, but BF says we need to prepare.


              • below

              • Gold crossed $1099/oz.

                Up, up and away!

              • Also, what is of important note, Gold went up, but Silver and Platinum went down.

                What does this mean, you ask?

                It means that Gold is becoming “uncoupled” from commodity status and turning into a inflation hedge.

                This is Warning #251….

          • This has been great guys but I have to run….the job requires my undivided attention for several hours….maybe I will bet back on later tonight……have a wonderful day!!!!!

        • People do not realize that a single-payer system is a monopoly, just like a single-supplier system; and as a cartel, suffers exactly the same devastating defects as any monopoly – lowering quality and quantity at ever increasing prices.

    • Good morning, Buck. I will have to find the actual statistics again (it has been posted here several times)..there are NOT 47 millions without insurance. It is much lower than that but I will find the pages and post here.

      I did post some actual numbers on bankruptcy and health costs awhile back. Consider this…as this is an emotion. A family of four is hocked to the hilt on credit card debt. They have zero room for tolerance on their credit cards. They have health insurance. All of a sudden someone gets sick and runs up a lot of bills. They file bankruptcy because they ran up bills that they cannot pay because they were already in debt to their eyeballs. Now, emotionally speaking, they would surmise that those “damned health bills put me under”. Damn doctors and costs…I had to file bankruptcy because I got sick. I could not cover the doctor bills.

      Logically speaking, they had to file bankruptcy because they did not plan properly, misused their credit and lived beyond their means, and had no savings. Getting sick was the catalyst….not the reason for bankruptcy. They could not cover the doctor bills because they were maxed out on credit and had no savings or emergency funds. It is a matter of priority. It is logic.

      The wall Street Journal (I believe it was an article last year) pointed out that of the actual family bankruptcies, less than 5% were due directly to health related costs….meaning that a family had no significant debt but lacked the resources to finance a severe health issue. These are the exceptions and not the rule. You do not change a system because of the exceptions. Assume that your 49 million is correct(it is not but let’s assume that it is)…and the population of the US is 307,872,027 (US Census as of 11/6/09, the census clock)or 15.9% if the population does not have health insurance. Logic would dictate to leave the system alone that covers 84.1%. Now, let’s use numbers that I feel actually reflect the situation. Again, as of 11/06/09, the US Census Bureau claims that there are 14,800,000 illegal immigrants in this country that are in the uninsured numbers. The CBO also estimates that there are 11,112,314 uninsured people that are that way by choice.( I do not know where they got these numbers). So, 49,000,000 – 25,912,314 = 23,087,686 or 7.49% of the population. Why wreck a system that now covers 92.1%? Is this not pure logic? No emotion, no remorse…just numbers.

      USW is quite correct on one thing in my opinion. Logic should always prevail. Since I am Libra (for those who delve into the astrological world) my sign is a scale. Logic dictates that I stack the pros on one side and the cons on the other side and whichever way the scales go…so does logic. But, USW, is also correct that emotional appeal is very persuasive. (Did you not use it above in your answer?). Did I not just use it in my logic explanation?

      Health care is a necessity to me. It is not a right. I do not expect the government to give me a handout. If I am destitute, I will hope that my family will step in or that charity will prevail…I would never expect you or anyone else to take care of me. That is not your responsibility. New cars, WiFi, Guitar Magic, computers, gaming, vacations, I phones, cable Tv, movies, eating out all the time, $110 green fees, spa trips, Gucci handbags, etc…are not necessities. Logic dictates that I will eventually get sick. So, I plan for it financially and I do not have health insurance. I do have the Veterans Care for wounds and illness issues as a result of military service so I plan for and buy supplemental insurance through USAA and TriCare for the rest of it. It is costly but I choose health over material goods.

      Both fear and compassion are emotional appeals. Both are equally wrong, in my opinion. Using logic, as USW does, and I concur, means that there is a scale and the pros and cons are weighed accordingly and decisions made based on facts. What you can see, feel, hear, and touch. It is that simple. Now, don’t get me wrong, because neither USW or myself are void of emotion. We both have plenty to go around…but I will bet that we both control it and not let it control us. Some will say that is terrible but the battlefield taught me that emotion leads to loss of self control and leads bad decisions. Feel it but control it.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Thank you for digging up that added information on bankruptcies. I do agree that that 60% figure is inflated from people already in debt who then got sick and could not afford health care, thus filed for bankruptcy. I remember the WSJ article you are talking about and remember reading from another source its flawed math. I’ll try to find that article for you. I like Matt’s ballshot 30% figure – shows that 60% is inflated, but 5% is deflated.

        But even given that 30% of bankruptcies are driven by health costs, that is an absurd number. Nobody in America should have to file for bankruptcy because they get sick. Is this an emotional reaction? Of course. But emotions drive us as humans; emotions will play a card in everything.

        You say health care is a necessity — I agree. And because it is a necessity, we as a society should be making sure every American has adequate and affordable health care.

        • Affordable,,,,agreed but not National. Open the markets and let the marketplace rule. Let States compete, have full and total tort reform…try this first……by the way, my figures actually came from the US Census and the CBO. I used their numbers.

      • D13, Sorry, but your numbers are wrong. Illegals will be covered.

        According to lawyer and judge, Andrew Napolitano, what the liberals and Dems fail to tell you is that the United States is bound by the U.S. Constitution to provide medical care to citizens and non-citizens alike should the Federal Government of the United States mandate and manage health care. According to the U.S. Constitution, if one class of people are to receive benefits under Federal law, then all classes of people, REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP, are required to receive fair and equitable treatment. This goes for health care and anything else.

        • Excuse me….I want to see that wording in the constitution “According to the U.S. Constitution, if one class of people are to receive benefits under Federal law, then all classes of people, REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP,”…….GRRRRRRRRRR

          • This is the reason illegals take their children to school. The Supreme Court ruled the wording in the Constitution (people) means any and everyone in the US. If the government provides any service to citizens, it is illegal to deny it to any person in the US.

          • “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Amazed, the Constitution is very specific in separating People in its jurisdiction and CITIZENS of that jurisdiction.

            This clause is direct. No PERSON can be denied the protection of the law.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “47 Million Americans are uninsured. That is a fact.” Buck, if that is a “fact” why has Obama even admitted that the actual number of uninsured in America is much lower?

      There were 45,657,000 people without insurance in the 2007 Census estimate. 12,388,000 of those were foreign born, and 9,737,000 were not citizens, leaving 33,269,000.

      So yes, of all PEOPLE in this country, 45,657,000 was (according to the 2007 Census estimate) the number of uninsured. I believe that the most current estimate raises this number to something like 46.3 million or perhaps even a few more. However, Obama routinely claims that the “public option” is not going to cover “non-citizens” anyway, so my question is, should non-citizens be included in the number or not?

      The number also does not take into acount people who could afford health insurance and are able to obtain coverage, but choose not to obtain coverage.

      So, on the face of it, I suppose that the claim that “there are 46 million uninsured people in this country” may technically be correct by some measure, but it is somewhat misleading.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        I believe I did adjust down to around 32 Million in my first post…

        And I’ll say again, 32 Million is still too many to be uninsured in this country.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Yes, we can choose to make the JUDGEMENT that 32 million is too large of a number of people to be uninsured in this country. It is a great country with lots of wealth, resources, etc. etc.

          The only problem is, by what right do you claim the ability to force me to pay for someone else’s healthcare?

          The typical Statist claim is that absent the coercive force of government, absolutely no one would actually help other people who needed help. This is what I like to call the “selfish bastard rule”.

          The “selfish bastard rule” states that anyone who has a great deal of wealth got it by immoral means, and therefore the wealthy are all immoral people, and, as we all know, only moral people are charitable, so the wealthy (being immoral as they all are) cannot be trusted to be charitable.

          This has been further reinforced by the invention and intervention of government programs which do (in some cases) help those who are truly in need, but in many cases simply reward people for being lazy and engaging in bad behavior.

          This results in both the middle-class and the wealthy resenting “the poor” because while some recipients of government largesse clearly are “poor”, many others would be perfectly capable of supporting themselves and their families, but actively CHOOSE not to do so because being on the government dole requires far less effort and is equally profitable (if not more profitable).

          So, by the very nature of the current government programs, the government has fostered a resentment of the “poor” among the people that actually pay taxes, and this has the net effect of DISCOURAGING CHARITY.

          The average person starts to have the distinction blurred between someone who is actually needy, and someone who has learned to take advantage of the system. Because government programs are run so poorly, and because government programs fail to make the distinction, the taxpayers begin to think that if they give to charitable organizations, these are likely to fail at making the distinction as well. The taxpayer begins to RATIONALIZE, “Well, I already give all of this money to the government, a portion of which goes to “helping the poor”, and much of that money is wasted, so why should I give even MORE money to charity, when that might just be wasted as well?”

          Thus, even though we all KNOW that the government programs are not run well, private charitable contributions SHRINK, which eventually allows the government to have a monopoly on “helping the poor”, even though everyone knows that the government does a terrible job of this.

          Joseph Heller would be proud.

  4. USW, consider this. Everytime you disagree with a democrat, God kills a kitten. So please, agree for the kittens.

    • Actually, when you disagree with a Democrat, God sets a kitten on fire. They don’t always die.

    • “Too damned many cats anyway”…..Right Wing enthusiast.

      “We need to protect the cats as they are unable to protect themselves”…..Left Wing enthusiast.

      “Let’s give them medical care, free food, tie up the dogs, and provide free shelter, and tax the horse and dog owners”….. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etal.

      “Let’s throw a party at the white house for all the cat owners and serve $140 per pound beef steak and sing Kumbaya. The public will never know”……..Barrack Obama

      “Bomb the friggin cats”…..Dick Cheney

      “What are cats?”….George Bush

      “Let’s set up a global catastrophe and claim that all cats are doomed to extinction and make billions”….. Al Gore

      “Don’t forget the emptying of the cat boxes creates methane and global warming. We must have Cap and Trade. Tax the uninformed public”…. another left wing enthusiast.

      “I told you to kill the damned cats”….another right wing enthusiast.

      Atlas cannot shrug any longer as his shoulders are tired….and Rome still burns.

      D13, gets on the horse and rides into the sunset, shaking his head and wondering where the logic went. I have gone to look for myself. Should I get back before I return, please..ask me to wait.

  5. WHAT CIVILIZED SOCIETY, after listening to and hearing all the heartache and problems this Muslim made for over 43 soldiers and their families, I am not sure what kind of society we have. When in a presidential election years ago, only 33% of eligible voters actually voted, I say we Americans have brought a lot of this on ourselves, lazy, only concerned with pleasure, we have voted these rats into positions of power and what have we got. Violence, I read somebody said the Koran was not violent, yes, yes, it is very violent, when a teenager is so afraid of her father she runs away because she accepted Jesus as her savior and she is afraid her father will kill her, yes the religion, or whatever it is called is based on beheadings. I have never heard or seen Jesus advocate killing anbody who doesnt believe in Him. Him is our Light and when the righ time comes, God knows when that is, He will come and right all wrongs, such as killing soldiers that the killer had served with. That is the ultimate betrayal. Of course I am just an old, disabled veteran of U.S. Marine Corps. we were never instructed to kill, unless in self defense, but as a female, I never had to do any. All I can say, is God Bless America and some of our disgusted citizens who do not know just what is happening. WAKE UP ALL

    • WHAT CIVILIZED SOCIETY The one that allows you to write tirade like that one. The one where you’re safe to go out at night. The one where you can practice the religion of your choice. Et cetera.

      after listening to and hearing all the heartache and problems this Muslim made He’s not a Muslim. Please show me one speck of evidence that he’s a Muslim that hasn’t been thoroughly debunked. Also, so what if he were? Is there something wrong with being Muslim?

      for over 43 soldiers and their families, Not sure what this is in reference to.. can you clarify?

      Violence, I read somebody said the Koran was not violent, yes, yes, it is very violent, when a teenager is so afraid of her father she runs away because she accepted Jesus as her savior and she is afraid her father will kill her, yes the religion, or whatever it is called is based on beheadings. This is just plain wrong. There is plenty of violence in the Koran, but there is also plenty of violence in the old and new testaments as well. The religion is as violent as culture of the people who practice it. The problem is the only Muslims you seem to be able to think about are the radical ones. There are nearly a billion Muslims and the vast, overwhelming majority of them are peaceful and tolerant. You are objecting to a cultural problem and conflating it with a religious one.

      I have never heard or seen Jesus advocate killing anbody [sic] who doesnt [sic] believe in Him. Him [sic] is our Light and when the righ [sic] time comes, God knows when that is, He will come and right all wrongs, such as killing soldiers that the killer had served with. That is the ultimate betrayal. Jesus, himself, may not have advocated for killing, but there is plenty in the bible. He did not want to heal a pagan and had to be talked into it – I can’t find the quote, but he said something along the lines of “why should I bother with this heathen.” So if he thinks it’s perfectly ok to just let the heathens die when he could easily cure them, how is that any different than killing them himself? Also, Moses(?) instructed his soldiers to kill the male survivors of a city and “take” the women.. we can guess what take means, but I don’t think any interpretation is peaceful. Then there was the time he told a town that he would spare them if the men all had circumcisions. The town agreed. Then while the men were recovering, he attacked the town anyway and killed them. Oh, and don’t forget how Lot was a good man for offering his virgin daughters up to be raped by Sodomites. Yours is no better than theirs. Get off your high horse.

      • Ummmm….Matt…..yeah, he is. His own family is all over the TV saying that he is a practicing (whatever that means) Muslim. However, the Army took him, trained him, assigned him….knowing all of this. As you state, what difference does it make? It makes none…except now, a bigger target has been painted on the backs of all Muslims and those that practice the Islamic faith. Sad, but true. But not for discussion this day.

        • Wait, is she referring to the Fort Hood, guy? I thought she was talking about Obama. If so, I retract my statement. I haven’t had a chance yet to read up on what happened yesterday, so I can’t speculate with that regard.

          Apologies for the misunderstanding.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Why does the fact that there is violence in the old and new testaments serve to JUSTIFY violence in the Koran?

        It should be WRONG in both cases, yes? Last I heard, 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

        I believe the reference to “over 43 soldiers and their families” was related to the current count (last I saw) that 13 were dead and 30 injured.

        You make some good points, but trying to use the existence of violence in the old and new testaments as a justification or excuse for violence in the koran is kinda silly.

        Also, one must remember that every religion (and associated scripture) contains many references to violence, because the writings depict supposedly real events, and no matter what the historical timeframe, violent and horrible events happen throughout history.

        • The fact that there is violence in both excuses nothing. But the actions of the followers of those books cannot be blamed on the writings. All three contain messages of peace and of war. The choice to follow one path or the other is the responsibility of the individual. She treats all Muslims as terrorists and talks as if being a Christianity is the “good” religion. And I simply have to throw the BS flag on that.

          When she says things about women being persecuted, or beheadings, or Christians being oppressed, it is because of the society not the religion – the religion is being used as an excuse*. And I think it highly unfair to conflate the two. Further, it is hypocritical to treat all of Islam as violent and evil and then blast Muslims for hatred towards Christians, no?

          This is no different than how the Klan claimed the right to kill Blacks based on Christianity.

        • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

          Here’s an interesting one for you. Inside the church they preach peace. Just outside the are passing out flyers that all Americans are targets. But they are protected by the first amendment.

          Wow. Sounds like the Muslims speak out of both sides of their mouth. I can honestly say I have never seen or heard of people passing out flyers advocating the death of muslims at any christian church.

          I guess its just my Texas upbrining. If they were at my church someone should call HPD right away as there is about to be a problem.

          As a side note. BF says the government “owns” my 401K. I would like to know the details behind that. I have read many economics journals and consider myself fairly knowledgeable on the topic.

          • Every religion talks out of both sides of their mouth. I remember when a group of evangelists came to my college. They said “God is love, and this is his word.” When I politely declined, they asked why. “Because I am Jewish,” I replied. “Well then you are doomed to burn in the fires of Hell for all time,” they told me. A word-for-word account of the actual conversation.

            Back in the Crusades, recall, the Christians forcefully converted and/or killed thousands of Jews and Muslims. All the while, preaching the same “God is love” message. The problem is cultural, not religious. The Christian faith hasn’t changed much from those days but the culture no longer permits this kind of action.

            • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

              I get your point. However, it is hard to take your position seriously. You are comparing religions stating both are equally as bad. Yet your examples of christian wrong doings are ancient and old. I can turn on the TV daily “right now” and see bombings of innocents because “allah” said to do it. Any book that can be distorted to the point that terrorism is good thing and then accepted by the masses of that religion has issues. I dont recall any christians running into the market blowing themselves up and killing innocents. So I guess the book cannot be perverted in that way. Not now anyway.

              People can practice any religion they want. However, if it advocates killing everyone who is not of that religion I cannot sit quietly by and let you call two them equally as bad.

              The point is use examples of the last 10-20 years. You know the ones that matter to people writing in this blog. You are going down the rathole of the sins of my fathers, fathers, fathers, fathers, father are my obligation. No they are not. I am judged by my actions as I judge those of my generations. My generations actions while not without some bad have not demonstrated a burning desire to kill the masses.

              • You’re missing it. The bible can be misinterpreted that way. It was before in the crusades. Just because they were a long time ago means nothing. It was the same book. It is the society that determines how the book is read.

                But if you want a current example, try these:
                “Ashley John Appoo, 40, pleaded guilty in a court in Brisbane, Australia, to the manslaughter death of John Leslie McDonald, and to cause grievous bodily harm to McDonald’s wife, Alois, during an ax attack in November 2001. Appoo, a hitchhiker whom McDonald picked up and befriended, went berserk when Ms. McDonald mentioned they were atheists. Described as a “proud Christian whose bible was one of his most precious possessions,” Appoo grabbed an ax and began attacking the couple. Source: Daily Telegraph, Dec. 23, 2004″


                “On October 18, 2004, Arthur Shelton, a self described Christian and Eagle Scout, murdered his friend and roommate, Larry Hooper, because Hooper didn’t believe in God.”

                Or this one: Matthew Shepard.

                No one is innocent. So, I repeat, get off your high horse.

              • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

                I think it is you who are missing it. 3 individuals are your reference, who killed a sum total of 5 people. Turn on the news 7 dead 20 wounded. All this just yesterday. While I will give ground that the books can be perverted one seems to go to the extreme — today. Not 120 years ago. Most of the Christian wackos today are 1 here 1 there. The muslim wackos are on everyday killing masses. Can you make that distinction or is the argument you make solely on the fact that the books “can be distorted”? Anything can be distorted. Lets meausre the distortion and tell me which one is causing the most grief — Today.

              • Sure, let’s do that.

                +/- 200,000 US/NATO troops running around killing +/- 450,000 Iraqi and Afghan civilians, while provocating an invasion of Iran.

                Onward Christian solider!

              • You ignore this, Mike, because you are fooled by one man wearing a rag on his head being called a fanatic, where you see another man wearing Kevlar on his head being called a hero.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                However, the NATO soldiers make absolutely NO CLAIM of being Christian, or religion being the REASON for their actions, so unless you can prove that the NATO soldiers are killing Muslims because the NATO soldiers are, in fact, Christian, your argument is a fallacy.


                Mansfield examines the religious nature of the warrior ethic today

              • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

                Well I dont remember any of those soldiers claiming “jiahd” or whatever that may be called in Christianity. They are not fighting a holy war. Lets not confuse what is happening in the middle east with the discussion we are having about perverting “the book”.

              • Mike,

                If there is one book that has been used to pervert more nations and destroy more people over a longer time, it is the Testaments.

              • Oh, you stepped in it now, Mike.. you got the pirate involved.. just lie very still..

          • The government is the entity that sets all the rules on your 401(k).

            They can only be invested or used in a manner so dictated by the government.

            Already in sub-committee there has been talk about forcing 401(k) into “special retirement bonds”, a way for the government to seize the capital of the 401(k) in trade for another worthless redemption promise from the government.

            I expect the government will eventually confiscate half or more of the money.

            I would offer this as an idea – cash in the 401(k) and use the money to start a business. This is a far better use of capital. It will provide income even in high inflationary times and save your current capital from evaporating.

            • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

              Something to think about. Thanks for the reply.

            • Black Flag: Is my IRA also controlled by the government? Can they take that from me?

              • Birdman

                Sorry, this slipped under the radar.

                Not as easily – it is closer to your hands.

                However, keep in mind these are all government rules on how to use these vehicles and they can change on a whisper.

                Be aware and prepared.

            • I’ve been hearing little bits and pieces about that for about a year now. Next time I get something on it, I’ll post here. Our Congress critters are keeping it low profile, for good reason. They’re going to steal our life savings.

            • You are closer than you think, BF. Senator Baucus is heading a sub committee…right this minute, to not only limit the 401(k) but to change the rules to limit investments to Government infrastructure to be the only tax deductible items….ie. Social Security, etal. The liquidity of most 401’s is very appealing and it is ready cash. The premise he is using, is the IRS rules for establishing deductions in the 401 as the catalyst. Also, in sub committee, is the proposition to change the early withdrawal penalty to 40%.

              • D13,

                Do you have a link that discusses about Senator Baucus and what he is doing on this? I’m still trying to get through to my Obot boyfriend on just how we’re getting screwed. He’s wearing some pretty big blinders that have the Obama logo stamped on them.

              • Hey, Cyndi….I did not get it off the internet. It was an article in the Wall Street Journal….I will get you the date and author.

              • Thank you. I look forward to it. It doesn’t seem to be very well known. We need to get the word out.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              It sounds like a good option would be to roll your 401k into a self-directed IRA and discontinue participation in a 401k plan… at least assuming that they are not going to try the same tactic with IRAs.

              Everyone should find it criminal that you can work for a company for many years, EARN the money that is in your 401k plan, your employer can choose to match a portion of your contributions as an added benefit of your employment, and then the government can go in and change the rules mid-game as to which “investments” will be tax-deferred and which are no longer eligible.

              Of COURSE the government is now going to say that only “investments” which fund the government are allowable! They are running out of other ways to pay for anything!

              Come on Buck and Mathius, and maybe Charlie too, if they do make this change to 401k law, please explain to me how this is not theft?

              We already know that the government has well over a 1 trillion dollar deficit, and has debt and unfunded mandates totalling somewhere upwards of 63 trillion dollars, so how are they going to provide any sort of guarantee of any appreciable return on our investment (hell, how are they going to guarantee they even return our “investment” at all???)”

              Come on, I am sure you Statists out there can spin this in some way to make it sound like it is a good idea, or at least that it is “for the greater good”.

              I anxiously await your feverish attempts at justifications of this that actually attempt to sound good 🙂

              • The silence is deafening.

              • If you retire from or quit your current job, you can and should roll your 401K into an IRA rather than leave it in the company plan. Most company plans have hefty management fees. Other than emergencies or first time home purchase, I am not sure you can extract money from the 401K plans. I would hope that if Congress moves to appropriate our funds that the reponse would make the current tea parties appear tepid.

  6. It’s about choice. I am responsible for the choices I make and am not responsible for the choices of others. I do not want the government deciding my choices or forcing me to be responsible for others choices. It’s really as simple as that.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      God gave us free will.

      Every day the government does what it can to limit our free will.

      • Or, we evolved with free will and every day we look toward some form of social contract (i.e., government) to keep us from killing one another.

        • And, Charlie, by building a King to rule over you, you ask a man – who you are afraid of as an individual – to protect you as a King.

          The consequence – a slaughter of one man is measured, at most, in 2 digits.

          A slaughter by your King is measured in 9 digits.

          • And, Charlie, by building a King to rule over you, you ask a man – who you are afraid of as an individual – to protect you as a King.

            BF, the goal would be that the other 8 would keep the king from going bonkers. Whereas, once the King (the fittest, so to speak) in a non-government society, would be free to whack the other 8 (or however many he chose).

            • It doesn’t work that way, Charlie.

              Once you designate a King, you also demand loyalty to his order – called “Duty”.

              The demands of “Duty” replace the “call to conscience” – so that a man, doing his duty, will turn a key and obliterate entire cities in a 30 minutes.

              No “King” of the fittest could ever command such destruction – because he cannot command “duty”. His only threat is his own strength – and the 9 other guys can easily overwhelm that.

  7. Both parties do use emotion but I believe that left statists use it more than right statists. The attack on 9/11 was an emotional experience for America. Right statists did use it to pass the Patriot Act but the left statists and Obama are continuing it. Emotion works well to get people wound up on any issue.

    The left statist health care bill is unconstitutional. If Congress wants to impose nationalized health care in the USA then they need to pursue it through the Constitutional amendment process and not through a majority vote.

    We cannot afford any health care bill at this time. We have social security, Medicare and Medicaid, welfare, SCHIP, CHIP and other programs that are not properly funded now yet Congress wants to add more spending. Insanity!

    A tax is theft. When the government steals they call it a tax but it is theft. Look at California and how they are taking more money from employees pay checks (borrowing money) and then returning it (maybe) next year (an interest free loan). That is theft in my book. What you see happening in California will happen throughout the US as our debt and spending continues to grow.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      As I have said before, the only way that taxation would NOT be theft is if the government provided a list of services offered, precisely what they proposed to charge you for each service, and then gave you a choice of which services you wished to pay for and which you did not.

      They could even include a disclaimer stating, “If you choose not to purchase this service from the government, you must either find a way to provide this service for yourself (either through your own means or through paying for private provision of said service), or you must forego this service.

  8. Medicare and Gag Orders
    Humana gets whacked for telling the truth, AARP gets a pass for spreading falsehoods.

    Maybe Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus should put a gag order on Douglas Elmendorf too. On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office director told Mr. Baucus’s committee that its plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage—the program that gives almost one-fourth of seniors private health-insurance options—will result in lower benefits and some 2.7 million people losing this coverage.
    Imagine that. Last week Mr. Baucus ordered Medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish Humana Inc. for trying to educate enrollees in its Advantage plans about precisely this fact. Jonathan Blum, acting director of a regulatory office in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said that a mailer Humana sent its customers was “misleading and confusing to beneficiaries, who may believe that it represents official communication about the Medicare Advantage program.”
    Mr. Blum has also banned all Advantage contractors from telling their customers what Mr. Elmendorf has just told Congress. Mr. Blum happens to be a former senior aide to Mr. Baucus and a health adviser on the Obama transition team.
    Meanwhile, we have the case of the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP), and its fanciful Medicare claims. The self-styled seniors lobby is using all its money and influence to cheer on ObamaCare, even though polls show that most retired persons oppose it. AARP has spent millions of dollars on its TV ad campaign and bulletins and newsletters to its members, including eight million direct-mail letters over Labor Day. The AARP Web site claims that it is a “myth” that “health care reform will hurt Medicare,” while it is a “fact” that “none of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress will cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs.”
    So why hasn’t AARP also come under CMS scrutiny? Could that be because AARP, which markets its own branded Advantage plans with United HealthCare that have 1.7 million enrollees, is a reliable liberal ally? Certainly its claims are “misleading and confusing”—given that in this instance it is empirically untrue, unlike Humana’s attempt at edification. Seniors might even think AARP’s falsehoods represent official communication about the Medicare Advantage program. But don’t expect Mr. Baucus or CMS to impose its gag rule on the AARP’s pro-ObamaCare advocacy.
    We don’t think AARP should be muzzled in a political debate, but neither should the insurance industry—especially by an influential Senator getting favors from his crony in a supposedly impartial regulatory agency that has enormous power to harm or destroy private companies. Seniors have a right to know how they may be affected by Washington’s health-care planning.
    So, for the record, CBO’s Mr. Elmendorf says that cuts to Medicare Advantage “could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the program.”

    Would this be emotional?

    • No, no no….Buck said above that the left uses facts. So while Humana efforts were emotional, AARPs are factual.

      What a bunch of bunk.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Clearly, if you state facts which do not support the view that “everything’s coming up roses” you will be punished, but if you state a bunch of BS that goes right along with “government policy” you will be rewarded. Why would this be surprising to anyone?

  9. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    If the government were truly out to protect the people from the “evils of private enterprise”, then the people who took out adjustable-rate mortgages on houses that they could not really afford would have been bailed out by Washington.

    Instead, the fat-cat banks got bailed out, while the private citizen, the consumer, was given a poorly run and under-funded program that offered little or no help in restructuring the consumer’s mortgage.

    The banks, which were in danger of failing, were given nearly a trillion dollars by the government. The people were given 15 billion. Now the government is proposing to give the people another 25 billion or so, which will still only raise the total amount to 40 billion, vs the nearly 1 trillion which was given directly to the mega-banks.

    Given these indisputable facts, please explain to me WHY I should believe that the government has my best interests at heart when they propose to run the national healthcare system?

  10. Hi All

    Democrats mandate – coverage or taxes
    Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 11/6/2009 9:25:00

    The ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee believes the individual mandate included in Democrats’ healthcare bill is an unconstitutional overreach of government.

    Health care moneyIndividuals are required to purchase health insurance under the Democrats’ healthcare bill, or they will face a tax penalty of 2.5 percent of income. Employers are required to buy insurance for their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll.

    However, some critics of the legislation argue that auditing self-insured employers and mandating that people buy insurance is beyond the authority of the federal government, and therefore it is unconstitutional.

    Senator GrassleySenator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) agrees, but notes there is no legal precedent that would indicate how the Supreme Court may rule on the matter.

    “Starting with a philosophy that the federal government is a government of limited power – they can’t do anything that’s not in the Constitution, and the states can do anything that’s not prohibited in the Constitution – then I can say that under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government doesn’t have the authority to make you buy anything or keep you from buying anything,” regards Grassley. “And particularly that’s true of guns now because we recently had a Supreme Court [ruling] in that particular case of guns.”

    Grassley says states could require people to purchase health insurance, as they do car insurance, because states have broader legislative authority than the federal government does.

  11. Healthcare bill – the end of physician ‘right of conscience’
    Pete Chagnon – OneNewsNow – 11/6/2009 6:30:00

    DoctorThe CEO of the Christian Medical Association says government-run healthcare will mean the end of right of conscience for physicians.

    David Stevens (CMDA)The House promises a vote on healthcare reform by Saturday, although a version of the bill would still need to be approved by the Senate. Dr. David Stevens warns if that happens, many will feel inclined to leave the medical profession.

    “It’s going to damage right of conscience for faith-based healthcare professionals. We actually surveyed 2,800 faith-based doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals, and 95 percent of them said they will leave healthcare if it came down to violating their conscience on abortion, human cloning, physician-assisted suicide, and other issues,” Stevens reports. “And this bill, particularly the one in the Senate, provides absolutely no protection, even though it’s guaranteed to us in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.”

  12. v. Holland says:

    Seems to me the major question isn’t what is right or wrong but whether or not the problems of mankind can be addressed without government power being involved-I personally think most can be handled by man. The next important question IMO is how much power can the government be given before we become a dictatorship and yes I believe the degree of governmental power does matter, at least if one has any interest in actually having any freedom. I believe we have to have government to live in a society which means giving up some freedom but the people who don’t look at this lose of freedom with concern and with the thought of as little loss as possible scare me. To just shrug their shoulders and say who cares we are already slaves, it doesn’t matter how much power we give the government, I can’t help but believe that they have no idea what they are giving up but they will sure as heck miss it when it’s gone.

    • The question, V. Holland is how do you enforce yourself (ie: Joe Public) upon the government so to control government power?

      Republican Democracy theory is based on the power of the vote.

      It’s theory is that one does not need to change government, but simply change the people in government. It believes the new crop of people will act “better” than the old crop.

      What it fails to explain is how the ‘old crop’ got in, if they were bad.

      It also fails to explain how one can examine the new crop so that it isn’t a repeat of the old crop (or worse).

      So, to start V., you must provide a coherent theoretical base for your type of government, one that answers the questions you yourself have asked.

      Good luck – 10,000 years of brilliant thinkers have all failed – all government forms have fallen into absolute tyranny. If you succeed, your name will be heralded for infinity.

      • v. Holland says:

        I suspect all the ideas old and new will have pot holes and they all end in a cliff, if the attitudes of the people doesn’t return to freedom first we will go over that cliff. I fear that we have reached a point where too many people have taken freedom for granted and either don’t recognize it’s importance or don’t believe they can lose it. So in the name of not just helping people but in the government specifically helping people, we have slowly been taking away everyone’s most precious gift-freedom. People look at the way things are now and think government intrusion is what is needed instead of seeing that it was government involvement(pot holes) that caused most of the problems-We are at the cliff-Are we gonna go over?

        • But that’s the point, V.!

          You said this: I believe we have to have government to live in a society which means giving up some freedom

          Then you said this: if the attitudes of the people doesn’t return to freedom first we will go over that cliff

          You said “give up freedom” then “return to freedom”.

          You cannot give up what you want to have!

          As long as you hold on to a contradiction, the Universe will harm you.

          • v. Holland says:

            We have had this discussion and I acknowledge that you make a valid point but I still believe that no plan comes without some loss of freedom even no government-If I had to choose between what we are becoming and no government I would choose no government but I would feel compelled to go out and buy many guns to go along with this decision. My point is that our societies attitude seems to be changing and it is that attitude that will lead to our total loss of freedom. If the majority holds to freedom first -we will fight and die for it-even against our own government-if not-we are doomed.

            • Yes, we have and the contradiction remains unresolved.

              You will perpetually disappointed and dismayed. You cannot have freedom while accepting a loss of freedom.

              • v. Holland says:

                Absolutes are hard to come by my friend-sometimes it takes a little compromise to live in peace or to have the ability to actually enjoy your freedom-but in the end-the compromises would have to be pretty small-if man held freedom as the most important instead of thinking that security is.

              • There can be no compromise between freedom and slavery – any compromise is called slavery.

                As you’ve read from me before, compromise of principles -regardless of ‘size’ – is the Original sin. It was “only an apple” in Eden. How ‘big’ was that?

                All evil is borne from a contradiction made manifest.

                Thus, trying to be free while destroying freedom can only manifest evil.

                You will never find peace, for you are willing compromise a principle for it.

              • What did Ayn Rand say: “You cannot compromise with poison. Death always wins.”

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Many will give up a “portion” of their one true right (freedom) in exchange for “security”, especially if they can be convinced that “security” is a right.

            What those many do not realize is that you cannot give up a “portion” of a right. Once you have given someone else the authority to abrogate your right, you have given them that authority absolutely. Half-measures are merely an illusion.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Why are we having so much difficulty devising a moral way to organize society which is not based upon the premise that “In order for everyone to live happily together in peace and harmony, it is necessary to give up SOME freedom”????

            No such requirement exists.

            The ONLY way to give humanity THE BEST OPPORTUNITY to live harmoniously together is for ALL of humanity to be free.

            Freedom does not ENSURE that we will all be happy and all get along, but it does provide the optimal conditions that promote these things.

            “I’m free to do what I want any old time” – The Rolling Stones

            “I’m free to do what I want any old time – provided my actions do not impose on anyone else” – Black Flag


            • v. Holland says:

              All I know is in order for man to live in any kind of freedom and peace there has to be some definitions of what is imposing and what is not. Which in my mind, means we have to have some kind of laws and some way to enforce them or we are left with chaos. Does that mean we have lost freedom, maybe some, but I see no way around it. I only know that the less the better and freedom should be the measuring stick we use as a society to make these decisions. If that is a contradiction, I see it as an unavoidable one.

              • So, if you claim to use freedom as the measuring stick then use it – don’t break it when you suddenly find yourself faced with someone elses behavior that is horrible, but a behavior that does nothing to you.

                We do have laws – natural laws – which protect freedom perfectly.

                There exists NO NATURAL LAW that contradicts your freedom

                But as soon as anyone claims that the disagreeable, but non-violent, behavior of another suddenly becomes a matter of their concern and action – you will have destroyed everyone’s freedom.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                V. Holland,

                You have hit upon the key, which is “What is the definition of imposition?”

                The other key, of course, is, “If someone does impose upon me, what is my recourse?”

                Answer those 2 questions in a consistent manner and there is no contradiction needed!

                You need not even make it overly complicated. Usually the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) principle works just fine.

  13. John Stossel:

  14. Wall Street Journal excerpt:

    “[The executive] felt government doesn’t understand that business in America is run by people, by human beings. Sen. Frank must believe America is populated by high-achieving robots who will obey whatever command he and his friends issue.

    But of course they’re human, and they can become disheartened. They can pack it in, go elsewhere, quit what used to be called the rat race and might as well be called that again since the government seems to think they’re all rats.

    And here is the second part of the story. While Americans feel increasingly disheartened, their leaders evince a mindless . . . one almost calls it optimism, but it is not that.

    It is a curious thing that those who feel most mistily affectionate toward America, and most protective toward it, are the most aware of its vulnerabilities, the most aware that it can be harmed.

    They don’t see it as all-powerful, impregnable, unharmable. The loving have a sense of its limits.

    [But} when I see those in government, both locally and in Washington, spend and tax and come up each day with new ways to spend and tax—health care, cap and trade, etc.—I think: Why aren’t they worried about the impact of what they’re doing? Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse?

    I think I know part of the answer.

    It is that they’ve never seen things go dark. They came of age during the great abundance, circa 1980-2008 (or 1950-2008, take your pick), and they don’t have the habit of worry. They talk about their “concerns”—they’re big on that word.

    But they’re not really concerned. They think America is the goose that lays the golden egg. Why not? She laid it in their laps. She laid it in grandpa’s lap.

    They don’t feel anxious, because they never had anything to be anxious about.

    They grew up in an America surrounded by phrases—”strongest nation in the world,” “indispensable nation,” “unipolar power,” “highest standard of living”—and are not bright enough, or serious enough, to imagine that they can damage that, hurt it, even fatally.

    We are governed at all levels by America’s luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they’re not optimists—they’re unimaginative.

    They don’t have faith, they’ve just never been foreclosed on.

    They are stupid and they are callous, and they don’t mind it when people become disheartened.

    They don’t even notice. “

  15. Thought I would do a little research to see how we got to where we are with employer based health insurance. After reading a lot of stuff I grabbed parts of 3 articles that helps to understand that – wait for it – government interference with the free market got us here.

    Employment-based health benefit programs have existed in the United States for more than 130 years. In the 1870s, for example, railroad, mining, and other industries began to provide the services of company doctors to workers. In 1910, Montgomery Ward entered into one of the earliest group insurance contracts for its employees. Prior to World War II, few Americans had health insurance, and most policies covered only hospital room, board, and ancillary services. During
    World War II, the number of persons with employment-based health insurance coverage started to increase. When the National War Labor Board froze wages and a shortage of workers occurred, employers sought ways to get around the wage controls in order to attract scarce workers, and health insurance was often used in this way. Health insurance was an attractive
    means to recruit and retain workers during a labor shortage for two reasons: unions supported employment-based health insurance and workers’ health benefits were not subject to income tax or Social Security payroll taxes as cash wages were.

    In the beginning, there was a tax quirk, and the tax quirk was with employers, and the employers provided health care: Journey back with me, if you will, to a land before time, or at least digital clocks. World War II is raging, the Greatest Generation’s menfolk are proving themselves freedom’s ablest gladiators, and the women are riveting their pretty little hearts out. Do-gooder liberals, keen to protect against war profiteering, inflation, and labor unrest, institute wage and price controls, and heavy marginal tax rates on corporations. It is a great burden. But hark! There is a loophole in this here socialism: fringe benefits are not covered! Health care purchased by the employer is tax deductible! And with the GNP growing by 75 percent between 1939 and 1944, corporations vastly preferreth to plow their massive profits into benefits that help them attract workers, rather than taxes, which the Book of Burke have shown an abomination. And thus we had employer provided health care, and lo it was good.
    • This tax quirk, this heavenly gift of deductability, was retained by our benevolent government for society’s wide beneficence after the war. Then, the newly-formed National Labor Relations Board, in their infinite wisdom, ruled that any employer unwilling to bargain over health insurance was engaging in unfair labor practice, and were thus sinning before the eyes of the council, and could be punished by stoning* or fines. And so the unions joyously rushed forth, demanding health care for their members and their members only, and offering the merest sacrifices to the Truman and his dream of government provided health care. But lo, the sacrifices were poor, and they were not heeded by congressional Republicans, and so a darkness fell across the land. They would soon repent, but the spirits behind national insurance, once wronged, are not easily sated, and so despite many attempts at atonement, the unions have been forever stifled, and even now, are seeing their efforts strangled and twisted by the deterioration of the system they encouraged.

    The National War Labor Board was created by President Roosevelt, by executive order on January 12, 1942. The Board was established to determine procedures for settling disputes that might affect war production. The Board had the options of offering mediation, voluntary arbitration, and compulsory arbitration to try to resolve controversies but had no power to enforce its decisions. It was also authorized to approve all wage increases, where the total annual remuneration was below $5,000. The Board quickly adopted the so-called Little Steel formula for war time wage changes, i.e., based on a 15-percent rise in living costs from January 1, 1941, to May 1, 1942. In September 1942, the President was given the authority to stabilize wages and salaries, based on September 15, 1942 levels. As a result of wage restrictions, employers who needed to attract labor resorted to providing a growing range of fringe benefits, such as pensions, medical insurance, and paid holidays and vacations. These benefits were considered non-inflationary, as they were not paid in cash and, thus, did not violate the wage ceiling. Additionally, payments for overtime afforded extra income to workers, without violating the limits on hourly wage payments. During the late 1940s, fringe benefits became more common as part of settlements reached in collective bargaining. On June 25, 1943, Congress passed the War Labor Disputes (Smith-Connally) Act that authorized the President to take over plants needed for the war effort or in which war production had ceased because of a labor dispute.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Just another great example of how health care has never bourne any resmblance whatsoever to a “free market”. Pretty unsurprising.

  16. Putting aside deep philosophy for a moment and addressing the health insurance proposals at hand, I offer the following observations:

    1. Nothing in any of the current proposals will lower the cost of medical care and will likely increase it. Supply barely meets demand now; increased demand will cause prices to increase. No steps are proposed to increase supply, but government action would probably not be successful anyhow. The government may reduce the prices paid to providers, but this will not reduce costs; it will reduce supply and lead to cost increases and/or rationing.

    2. The current proposals will drastically reduce the available choices of insurance plans because all plans will have to meet minimum standards that will be quite stringent.

    3. The “savings” counted on to fund a large part of the new costs will never materialize. Fraud is a problem in all government giveaways, always has been, and always will be. Reduced fees to medicare providers will never happen because seniors vote in higher proportion than any other group.

    4. Receipts from increased taxes will never materialize because the calculations assume no change in behavior when the taxes actually go up. Experience shows otherwise.

    5. Even if the savings and tax increases happen as projected, the program will be in annual deficit starting in year 5 (more or less) and forever thereafter in increasing amounts.

    6. Inclusion of a “government option” will lead to a single payer system with no options but the government for health insurance. The government can never be “just another competitor” because it will never play by the same rules as everyone else. Private insurance will disappear.

    7. Even without a government option, the government will control health care. A government board will decide what insurance policies will cover. Insurance prices will skyrocket because of new requirements, and the temptation to set prices to be paid providers will be too great; the government will eventually do that. In a further futile attempt to control insurance premiums, the government will start limiting the care provided to certain classes of people, e.g., seniors.

    8. The best part of Medicare, Medicare advantage, will be effectively eliminated.

    9. High deductible insurance policies will be eliminated.

    Whatever the problems in the current system, perceived or real, they could be more effectively addressed in other ways at much lower cost. More importantly, some of the problems are not reasonably solvable; solutions would be worse than the problems.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Refusal to pay the actual cost of a good or service does not equate to “reducing the cost”. Refusal to pay the actual cost either causes that service to be eliminated, or defers the cost onto someone else who will end up paying that cost in some other way.

  17. Dems are short of votes in the House at present.

    • I can’t believe they scheduled a vote unless they were sure they could get the needed votes, unless it’s just a way to put more pressure on reluctant members. If it passes the house, it would seem to make many (40+?) Democrats more vulnerable in 2010. Even if a Democrat didn’t vote for it, opponents could point out that he/she voted for the leadership that was responsible for its passage.

  18. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    Mansfield examines the religious nature of the warrior ethic today”

    That is nice, but it doesnt prove your assertion BF, you were saying that NATO soldiers were “Christian Soldiers”, and this article only seems to assess American Soldiers. So, does this apply to European soldiers as well?

    You have asserted many times in the past, that the PEOPLE of the Middle East are peaceful and would leave us alone if we left them alone. I admit to the POSSIBILITY of this being true.

    I have one question for you though, because it is a source of a lot of debate, and I for one can admit that I do not really know the answer to the question. The question is this:

    Do you believe that Islam as a religion advocates peace, or do you believe that Islam as a religion advocates the forcible conversion of non-believers to Islam using coercion and actual violence? If Islam as a religion clearly advocates peace, then there is no problem. If Islam as a religion advocates the use of coercion and actual force to convert others to Islam, then we are talking about a religion that advocates the fundamental violation of human rights, and there is a problem there.

    Now, of course, you can point to many examples of many acts of violence being used by many religions, but that is not my core point here.

    My core point is that if Islam does indeed advocate coercion or actual violence in the conversion of other people to the faith, does not Islam need to be opposed on moral grounds, just as any other religion that does this would have to be opposed on moral grounds?

    • Do you believe that Islam as a religion advocates peace, or do you believe that Islam as a religion advocates the forcible conversion of non-believers to Islam using coercion and actual violence?

      At the core of all Earthly religions is a believe in the brotherhood of all men, their freedom and their search for peace.

      How any religion becomes perverted is the evil of institutionalization and the dogmatic and unthinking observance to arbitrary authority. All cults prey upon those who by trials and tribulations are weakened in mind and spirit.

      All cults operate on a split culture – endoteric and the esoteric. All initiates are drawn into the endoteric dogma, and as the initiation continues over the years, there is a search for the core “secert” that only the “pure” can achieve – the esoteric dogma – which is typically an almost inversion of the endoteric message!

      All religions, like cults, create the same system.

      Islam advocates for conversion to their religions no less than Christians on their “ministries” or any other formalized religion. The all attempt the same goal – a gathering of initiates to their religion.

      Thus, as you suggest, all institutionalized spirituality is, in one form or another, a method of seizure of the soul, spirit and the mind, and hence, must be resisted by free men.

  19. Bottom Line says:

    = : I have a propsal to make. We all like zero. He’s a good numeral. But he has nothing, …No value whatsoever. It’s not fair for him to do without when we have so much. I think we should each donate one to zero.

    + : Wow, me and the crew are gonna be busy as hell.

    – : Yeah we are.

    x : I’m exhausted. I’m already on overtime and I haven’t had a day off in weeks. I need a break.

    / : Me too.

    2 : No, I’m two.

    / : You know what I meant, smart-ass.

    2 : Lighten up divide, I was just kidding.

    1 : I don’t have anything to give. If I give one. I’ll be a zero. I will have no value. No offense zero.

    0 : None taken

    = : Okay, we should make an exception with you one.

    6 : Okay let me get this straight… everybody except one subtracts one and gives it to zero?

    = : That is correct six.

    6 : But that would mean that there would be two eights. Nine would become eight. And since eight of us would give zero one, then zero would also become eight.

    = : That’s also correct.

    5 : What happens if there is a need for a nine?

    9 : yeah what happens?

    = : Just take one away from one eight and give it to the other eight to make nine.

    8 : But which eight do we use? …zero or nine?

    7 : We sound like Abbot and Costello guys. I’m confused.

    4 : I second that seven.

    2 : How can YOU second that. That’s my job.

    4 : Oh F*&%# you two.

    7 : What do you mean “you two”? Dont drag me into it.

    4 : I wasn’t. I meant two, as in addressing him by name.

    7 : Oh, okay. I am getting even more confused.

    2 : Ya know four, I’m about sick of your sh*t. I’m sick of working double shifts to equal you.

    = : Knock it off guys, will ya. We need to figure this out.

    3 : I have a question…one, two, divided, and I usually get together on friday nights to play thirds. How can we still do that if I become two? Halves suxs.

    = : Halves aren’t that bad. I think it’s worth the sacrifice.

    2 : I just thought of something…If I give one then I become one. Since we’re not gonna take away from one, that would mean that there will be two ones.

    = : Yep, that’s right. Since there will be two ones and two eights, maybe we should use one of the two ones to give to one of the two eights to make nine instead of using one from one of the two eights.

    9 : But there won’t be two eights because eight will be seven.

    = : Yes there will be, because you will be eight, nine. And so will zero.

    7 : I’m way past confused.

    5 : Me too.

    2 : No, I’m two.

    5 : You already used that joke two. It’s old already.

    8 : What makes zero so special that he gets to be equal to me? It’s not fair to one through seven if 0 gets to have more than them.

    9 : But you’ll be seven, eight.

    8 : Sigh—, whatever nine…So what’s with the unfairness equals?

    = : We have a moral obligation to take care of zero, eight.

    8 : Not really, It’s not my fault he’s a nobody.

    0 : HEY! Easy eight.

    1 : I don’t want to have a twin. I like being alone.

    2 : What? Do you have a personal problem with me, one?

    1 : Not at all two, It’s just that I’m not used to company that’s all.

    4 : So what will 0+8 equal now? 15? Because if eight becomes seven and zero becomes eight, then zero plus eight will equal fifteen, …right?

    = : No four, 0+8 will still be eight.

    4 : Okay, but if zero becomes eight, then what will we use for zero.

    = : Nothing.

    4 : Nothing? How can we just not use anything? We need SOMETHING.

    = : Good point four. Maybe we’ll just work it like a bank account and let zero put eight in the bank when we need to use a zero.

    8 : I don’t want to go to the bank.

    9 : Eight, you’ll be seven remember. I think he means me.

    = : No, nine. I meant that zero will also be eight and HE can put his value in the bank.

    9 : Well, I’ll be eight too, so why cant I be zero?

    = : Zero is better at being zero than you are, nine.

    2 : I have a better idea, We’ll have two ones and no zeros, so why dont we take one away from one one and give it to nine? Nine will be eight and if we give one to nine, then nine will be nine again and one one will be zero.

    1 : You’ll be the one to give one two, because I wont.

    2 : Fine with me.

    3 : So what happens if we need a zero and a nine at the same time?

    = : We’ll take one from the one of the two ones and give it to one of the eights instead giving it to zero.

    7 : Okay, I know I’m the one that’s confused, but didn’t you just say that equals? I think you guys are talking in circles.

    2 : We’ve BEEN talking in circles the whole time.

    0 : Ya know, I never really asked for this. I don’t really mind staying right where I’m at. Besides, Isn’t it better to just keep everything simple and in it’s natural order?

    = : Okay then, We’ll take a vote. All those in favor of doing nothing say aye.

    ( + – x / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 ) : AYE!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      a = b
      a^2 = a*b
      a^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2
      (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
      (a+b) = b
      a+a = a
      2a = a
      2 = 1

    • My brain hurts…

    • “Zero” is conceptually is extremely hard, and probably beyond the understanding of most people.

      Yet most people use it perfectly well.

      This is a an example of people looking for “God” and missing “God” right before their eyes.

      If Zero is conceptually hard – what about a negative number?

      I can show you zero apples….which is precisely the same demonstration of showing you zero fire breathing dragons. Zero sits right on the edge of insanity and irrationality.

      But -1 is very rational. YET, my demonstration of negative one apples appears no different then the demonstration of zero apples!

      I cannot show you a negative physical object. YET, our universe depends on it! Our universe could not exist if the negative physical objects could not exist!

      Simple things like holograms would be imaginary – but because of negative space, we have holograms that appear before our very eyes! Without negative energy, positrons would not exist – yet they do and we can see them!

      We, as human existence, appear constrained by three dimensions in positive space. Yet, the universe is tells us that there exists many, many more dimensions and the existence of negative space.

      And there still exists people who can’t seem to see “God” right in front of them.

    • Girls = Time * Money
      Time is Money
      Girls = Money * Money
      Girls = Money^2

      Money is the Root of All Evil
      Girls = (Root of All Evil)^2
      Girls = All Evil


      • And, evil spelled backwards is live….so girls = evil turned upside and backwards = live…I will go for that. 🙂

  20. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I dunno why, but personally, I find this rather hillarious.

  21. Common Man says:


    Don’t you guys live in NY, specifically NY city? How do you feel about the handgun laws there?

    Just so you know I adorn my belt with a Leatherman, a Buck, a cell phone and a Glock model 22 or 1911 each morning when I dress. In addition I have a wallet and set of keys.

    I look at a stream, a woods and critters almost each morning I rise, what do you guys look at when you get up?


    • Common Man says:


      Just so you know I am not making fun or questioning your choices, just wanted to know how your suroundings influence your voice/thoughts.


      • CM

        They meet more women in New York then they would in the middle of a forest.

        • I’m married. Buck is engaged. We have no use for meeting women, but you speak the truth anyways.

          By the way, congratulate him.. he’s getting hitched next weekend!

        • Common Man says:


          Ha Ha. I guess that doesn’t really make much difference to me anymore since I am still mariied to my bride of 28 years; and yes it is still fantastic.

          BTW: I asked you about silver before, most of what I have is in coins (Morgans, silver eagles, etc.) Should I swap them for gold?


          • RE: Silver


            Gold is going through the roof and it is too late to chase it unless we are talking big, big bucks worthy of saving.

            Silver will do fine as a “tag along”.

    • I live in Westchester county (just a hair North of the city). I haven’t touched a gun since riflery in summer camp 15 years ago. I haven’t touched a knife (other than as an eating utensil) in the same amount of time. The gun laws in the city suit me just fine.

      When I get up, I see a city. When I go to work, I see a city. Just how I like it.

      Now, don’t be fooled. Buck (or Bunky, as I know him) was originally from New York, but he lives in New Jersey these days.. he just likes to think that’s he’s still a New Yorker 😛

      • Common Man says:


        The “Buck” I refered to in my post is a knife (kind of an industry standard in hunting knives)

        Glad you like the city son, I am not judging. Just wondered. I just find that people are a result of their surroundings and environment.

        I still suggest that you, and maybe your buddy Buck, visit my neck of the woods, or maybe JAC’s or D13’s if for no other reason than to garner another perspective.

        Come out my way and I will introduce you to my son, who is your age. I would promise to set by, and only listen as the two of you discuss some of the topics addressed in these pages.

        BTW: I have beer, Captain Morgan, Glenmorangie (18 year oak’en casket) and Tullamore Dew as libations for my guests.

        Come on out, set a spell


        • Common Man says:


          Gotta take my leave ya’ll, my dear wife is heading back to the homestead and I promised her a fine dinner.

          Pheasant Cordon Blue, twice baked potato’s and garden peas. We are spending the evening in

          Everyone have a great weekend


      • Buck The Wala says:

        I think I was just insulted for living in NJ — NJ is the land of married men from NYC who met a Jersey Girl. Go figure.

  22. CM

    Here’s a good place to start on canning deer. It’s not hard at all, just time consumiing, but taste’s great. I would think bacon would be done the same way, but have to check on thet.


    • Common Man says:


      Thanks buddy, I will let you now how it turns out.

      Mom and Grandma use to do all this stuff, but they are gone and no trace of the process anywhere.

      Have a great night


  23. Judy

    I forgot to add Marc Faber to the list of teachers of investment knowledge.

  24. In economic terms, the end of dollar dominance has momentous implications for the world’s political and economic arrangements.

    Price levels, interest rates, loans, asset prices, production facilities, trade arrangements, and much else all have been put into place based on the dollar as a reserve asset.

    Domestic political arrangements, promises, taxes, and programs are involved.

    All of these are in for adjustments.

    Some serious changes await us.

    Even if the changes are smooth and gradual, they are likely to be large.

    Large discontinuous changes cannot be ruled out.

  25. A Four-Step Health-Care Solution

    by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

    This essay was originally published in The Free Market in April 1993.

    It’s true that the U.S. health care system is a mess, but this demonstrates not market but government failure. To cure the problem requires not different or more government regulations and bureaucracies, as self-serving politicians want us to believe, but the elimination of all existing government controls.

    It’s time to get serious about health care reform. Tax credits, vouchers, and privatization will go a long way toward decentralizing the system and removing unnecessary burdens from business. But four additional steps must also be taken:

    1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

    Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing – if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

    Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a “national standard” of health care, they will increase their search costs and make more discriminating health care choices.

    2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.

    Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own – rather than the government’s – risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.

    3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one’s own hands to bring these events about.

    Because a person’s health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. “Insurance” against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person’s own responsibility.

    All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the “winners” and “losers” will be. “Winners” and “losers” are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If “winners” or “losers” could be systematically predicted, “losers” would not want to pool their risk with “winners,” but with other “losers,” because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

    Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers’ right of refusal – to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable – the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups’ risks.

    As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution – benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low-risk groups. Accordingly the industry’s prices are high and ballooning.

    To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.

    4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

    Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.

    • From 1993? If only we’d taken these steps then.

      • The myth and the fantasy that government has solutions is probably insurmountable.

        • The government isn’t the solution to the problem, government is the problem. When will people wake up and face the truth that you can’t believe one iota what they say. If everything they say they are doing is for the good of the country, then we’re are in sooooooo much trouble.

          They want to have this health care bill, but yet they won’t do it themselves. I like what Joe Wilson said, make it mandatory for them as well. If it’s good enough for this country and the people, then it’s good enough for them.

  26. “Nationalize as much as possible, even the currency, so as to make men love their country before their states. All private interests, all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals, everything, should be subordinate now to the interest of the government.”

    ~ Senator John Sherman (Brother of William Tecumseh Sherman)

  27. Obama creates 640,329 jobs at a cost of $323,739.83 per job

    With the “economy of scale” working in favor of the government, will have $1 million per job creation occurring early 2010.

    Woohoo! $300,000 to buy $35,000 job! Gotta be government alright!

    • I read one report where even this number is inflated, ie they counted raises given as jobs saved.

    • I say to that, BULL! We have 13.3% unemployment here in Nevada. I’d like to know where those jobs are at, I haven’t seen any. Been looking for another job myself, and unless you can speak Spanish, you’re kind of out luck there, and I don’t speak it. Two job openings came up at UNR, but you have to be bilingual, so that leaves me out.

      Created 640,329, or saved whatever how many, my foot.

    • Left unsaid is a great portion of those “jobs” are short term construction. They’ll be laid off the very second the job is done. A friend of mine in Tempe got on with such a “make work” project. A guaranteed 6 months roofing for 2/3 of what you get paid for that exact same job here in Saskatchewan. You’d have been better off with the government handing out 50K for 18 months of the 15 million unemployed’s time to pick garbage and maybe clean up New Orleans while they are at it.

  28. Harry Reid, himself, said he created jobs here in Nevada, more bunk. He doesn’t give a rats a$$ about the people here like he says he does.

  29. Washington is inching ever closer to taking over our health care, despite loud opposition by citizens of all stripes. Just yesterday, tens of thousands of average Americans made House Calls at Congressional offices around the country and at a huge demonstration on Capitol Hill, telling Congress: “Hands Off My Health Care!”

    But Nancy Pelosi’s response was not to slow down and listen to the public. Instead she is attempting to push her Washington takeover of health care through even more quickly. She scheduled the vote for tomorrow, Saturday, and is now frantically trying to twist arms and add special-interest provisions to get the votes to sneak it through, even though that breaks the clear promise she made to the American people to post the full bill online for 72 hours before holding a vote.

    The same government that has made a farce of allocating swine flu vaccine, putting Guantanamo detainees and Wall Street executives ahead of most Americans, wants to get in between patients and doctors. We can’t let this happen!

  30. I have a hypothetical question..(she said as she was into her third Macallan (yes LOI, I found something even tastier than Glenmorangie!) What if, I as a citizen, decided that since the kneecap and tax bill and the universal health bill, should not apply to me (the sovereign land of Willo) because it is not in the Constitution of the United States? I know, stupid but, don’t we all have the power to control our own destiny?
    Questions, comments, be pithy if you like 😉

  31. Hi Judy Just wonted to say hi thiws is Garys dsad miss out chats

  32. sent you a email Gar under Gmans name

  33. Ray Hawkins says:

    USW – one of the easy targets or falsehoods is that our elected leaders are most effective when logic is the only machinery by which decisions are made. Aspects of emotions in leaders is a tricky, emerging, but critical area to understand – to simply dismiss it as a tool of control is astonishingly shortsighted. Comprise your own list of great leaders (business, government or both). What attributes do they hold? Are all their neutral or good decisions based or rooted in logic? Go ahead – try it! In reading the works of folks like Kets de Vries, Parker Palmer, Jay Conger and others, it is clear that some extent at least, we need and require emotional traits in our leaders and for emotion to be an aspect of (but not the only aspect) of leadership decision making. We need a degree of extroversion, a dose of positive narcissism, avoidance of excessive mirroring, and so on. I may suggest that your beef is that you view every decision made as overly emotional or entirely emotional – if the former then in many cases you are probably not too far off, if the later then you stand corrected.

  34. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    Mr. Wala,

    The intents of bills are never whet you get in this country. You get what the courts say they are.

    Title 9 has guaranteed the elimination of numerous school sports because it is interpreted as requiring 100% equality in all things for male and female sports. I daresay, not an intent.

    The ADA covers druggies and drunks, not an intent. No less an authority than Bob Dole said this.

    The EPA is out to regulate everything, tobacco, guns, and what you can and can’t do with your backyard.

    It is time to put a hold on new “well intentioned” legislation until ramifications can be studied and an actual need for it can be established. That has been my whole point. Since no one, repeat no one is turned away from a hospital in this country, the solution to the “health care crisis” would seem to lie in some combination of retro fixes to whatever we got.

    I still see no one mentioning the issue of where are the millions of insurance workers going to go when the insurance companies (WHICH WE ALL OWN through our 401K’s, and investments) go under. Oh yes, they will go under. The program only ultimately works if they do go under

  35. This is some valuable information, I just completed my paper for class and think i may need to bookmark or save this for the second class lol. You may have just made me a regular 🙂

%d bloggers like this: