Disqus - Friends of jurisnaturalist

Re: Beat the Defense Budget into a Plowshare

xfree9 — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:02:21 -0000

I've never heard those stats before... do you have some links or sources? I don't doubt you; I'm reminded of the old cliché, "Jesus talked more about hell than heaven," yet it's like a 20:1 ration the other way around.

Just asking for sources cuz I'm truly interested.

Re: The Power of Story

xfree9 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:46:23 -0000

No, I think we all resonate with stories. That's why we remember sermons where the pastor tells a story that we particular remember. Even if we don't remember "the point," we are experiencing it in certain aspects by virtue that it resonated with us and remained in our memories.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:35:23 -0000

...which is exactly the problem with our current "system," whatever you wanna call it. Corporatocracy, maybe?

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:51:34 -0000

Yep, you're right on that [last part].

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:53:46 -0000

Did you just admit conservatives "know economics"? Are you running a fever? j/k

Actually, "knowing economics" is different from knowing how to play the corporatism game when you have legislative power. Most libertarians are against the latter.

Re: An Evangelical Trojan Horse in the Democratic Party?

xfree9 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:24:42 -0000

I don't really care for the Sojo political methodology, but McLaren seems to "get it" when it comes to not supporting a party necessarily but supporting any party that follows principled ethics and is faithful to the Scriptures. I'm not sure Sojourners as an organization does this very well, but their philosophy is properly on course.

Re: An Evangelical Trojan Horse in the Democratic Party?

xfree9 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:22:59 -0000

I wholeheartedly agree with your response... (for a change!)

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:05:36 -0000

I understand. My RSS reader currently has 89 unread items... and I carry it around in my pocket, so it's very time-consuming to have "unread items." I hope the discussion wasn't a waste of time for you, though. It was not for me.

Blessings!

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:41:59 -0000

For any market to work, and for greed to be channeled, as I stated, rule of law must exist. I'm very familiar with WV and the coal industry, and the things you described are not a failure of markets, but a failure of the state government to protect the private property of those around the coal plants and rivers. So because there were/are no lawful protections of citizens (again, a gov't failure), it was profitable for companies to harmfully aggress against their neighbors.

My assumption in what you stated was the presence of rule of law, where fraud, harm, and theft are protected against or punished when committed.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:28:23 -0000

I've only been here a few years... last I checked, a senator running agains Specter said there were only 2 or 3 insurance companies. He wanted one more, and I was thinking, "Why just one more? Why not many more?"

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:25:42 -0000

Yes, I am critical. Most libertarians are not pro Big Business... at least not none that I come across. Conservatives are because they don't understand economics very well.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:45:29 -0000

For further reading on sweatshops

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:42:01 -0000

Those are good responses. My response to yours is that we need to get back to first principles. Individuals should have maximum control over their life decisions, especially those related to health care. When a person's health care is tied to his/her employment, that creates an issue of portability, thus resulting in a pre-existing condition. If I develop a condition post-insurance, but lose insurance due to loss of employment, the obvious problem is not a policy on pre-existing conditions, it's tying health insurance to employment. Purchasing health insurance apart from employment would solve that problem. Lest you counter that it's too expensive, competition would solve part of the problem, and adding tax credits to medical insurance would solve another part of the problem. Again, competition produces lower costs. Period.

As to your big business buying out all the competition... first of all, that's not inherently a bad thing. Large companies have vulnerabilities that small companies do not have, and likewise. United States history has shown that when companies buy out others, it is normally a good result to consumers because of lower prices. Monopolies can only be sustained with government support. Remember the "giant" IBM? Guess what, no government protection led to it not being quite so large forever. Government-business partnership is the definition of fascism, as stated by Mussolini. I'm firmly against that.

Insurance is a hedge against risk. In the health care industry, it has become what people consider should "pay for my health care." When somebody else pays for something, we spend less time considering the costs and more time consuming. So when we rely upon a third-party payer to pay for things we want, we aren't considering the costs incurred to ourselves, our neighbors, or the payer.

There are numerous layers to our health care "crisis": health care services are expensive because most of us do not have to even consider the costs because our insurance pays for it. So we consume more health care services and spend energy eating better, living better, and doing things that develop good health. Why work out when somebody else pays for our ______ pills? Why eat better when I can go to the doctor for a prescription for a pill that lowers my cholesterol? So one layer is that we pay more because others are paying, and the providers are willing and able to charge more. Rather than compete for our money at the lowest possible cost, they charge whatever the insurance companies are willing to pay.

Another layer is that for legitimate insurance, insurance companies cannot operate across state borders. This limits competition, so we have fewer choices to work with when we do purchase insurance.

A third layer I already mentioned: tying insurance to employment. Not only do we pay for it in lower wages, we get fewer choices otherwise, and we "lose it" when we switch jobs or become unemployed. The problem lies in the connection, not the severance afterward.

In the end, here's where I stand: if the reform proposals actually addressed the reason for rises in cost, promoted competition, and gave more and more choice and control over health care to individuals, and required employers to drop health insurance but pay it to employees in higher wages (with accompanying requirement for insurers to "keep" employed persons), you'd have a massive reduction in the uninsured and underinsured. That's basic economics in action. And I'm actually willing to concede that the government can step in and take care of the rest. Not only would costs be lower for all of us, the government would have less to pay for those whom it covers, which costs the taxpayers less. And for the record, I don't have a problem with government-provided insurance for disabilities or children who are unable to work (I'd prefer to say "under 18" but I didn't want to put an age on it—so don't count me as saying 10 year olds should work!).

I invite you to respond on my blog (www.liveloud.net) and we can exchange a bit more... or even email. I recently wrote 2 posts on health care.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:08:03 -0000

This is a great report about the benefits of healthcare when guarantees are made by the government. There's also a paragraph that mentions how companies already have to compete by lowering prices because insurance doesn't allow them to charge what they want. And, to my knowledge, this link is not a conservative/libertarian source.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:40:21 -0000

The phrase "too much government" is not about the mere number of layers of government. It's about concentration of power in the hands of a few. I'm much less concerned with state governments, or municipal governments, trying and legislating things that we've been debating about lately. It's the states' responsibility anyway, as stated in the Constitution. The federal government has enumerated powers, and all others are to be granted to the states.

But America is no less fascist than most other countries anymore, because Big [Whatever] has hold of the power of politicians. That's why some banks got bailed out and some didn't. That's why some companies get federal funds and some don't. It's all about the political connection.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:35:57 -0000

Yes, and this context is not our context. The prophets were calling Israel to her vocation as a nation to bless the world. Neither modern individualism nor modern collectivism accounts for this. It was the task and purpose of Israel to be God's people on earth. That is not the same of America. To declare that government has an obligation to do what the prophets told Israel to do is to enforce upon others to live according to your ethics and goals.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:32:41 -0000

My point about the gospel and government is not that it cannot persuade government, but that the mechanism of government action—force and violence—is contrary to Kingdom ethics.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:31:06 -0000

What do you mean "the biggest drain on resources"?

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:29:50 -0000

To answer your final question, my answer is "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton). The free market gives no power without a collusion of government and business, which is why our country has the problems it has. Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Banking... all have government protecting them from competition and from failure, and that is an injustice. With banking it creates a moral hazard.

In a market economy, bad businesses will ultimately fail because they are stewarding resources poorly, or aren't providing a service to society that society wants. Further, when government makes an incorrect choice, it affects all of us without recourse. In a market, it affects me negatively to make incorrect choices for myself.

I'm not sure what you mean by "eliminate care for the most expensive cases." Could you elaborate? It is impossible for a market to "insure everyone," because the notion of pre-existing conditions negates the definition of "insurance." You can't insure a burnt-down house. Now, we can debate the merits of caring for those with pre-existing conditions, but you cannot call it "insurance."

As for your fleece sweaters, the moral answer is obvious: the $5 is a more moral choice. I'd rather give my money to a 10 year old in Vietnam who otherwise would be prostituted or not help her family whatsoever than give an absurd amount of money to a unionized worker who makes twice as much as I do in a state whose median income is $10k less than mine. Resources are scarce, and if the fleece can be made with fewer resources which have alternative uses, that is an indicator of stewardship. Yes, there is unjust treatment, but "sweatshop" is a subjective and slippery term and defined as compared to 21st century Western standards. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the union workers whose work is overpaid in a country where the "extra pay" gets them a nicer car. That 10-year old is struggling to survive in a culture of poverty. Her job, however cheap it pays, is much better than the alternative of sexual slavery or no job at all. I've been to neighboring Cambodia, and that's life over there. A job for children is a job out of poverty and sexual slavery. It's sickening to see. Be careful how you casually treat such cases, because you don't know the full story (neither do I, but I have a specific heartache for these cases). And further, why the xenophobia of giving a job outside the US? What's wrong with a non-American citizen having that job? Why not apply that principle to jobs outside your state? Or outside your county? Or outside your city? Try it. You'll have full employment cuz you'll be working your butt off, but you'll also be much poorer.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:17:53 -0000

three is not competition when there are hundreds of companies in the US. Yet our state (PA) limits the number of insurance companies allowed to operate within its borders. Imagine only having only three companies making cars, or three companies making appliances, or three companies making computers.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0000

Single-payer is a monopoly. Competition lowers costs.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:15:58 -0000

Totally wrong. Besides, it simply begs the question: what allowed and permitted this greed? Was it because they could get away with charging whatever because there was no competition? Blaming it on greed is not an answer, because greed is a symptom of a larger problem in economics. People are permitted to be greedy when systems are in place that allow them to be so.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:00:49 -0000

Speculation has its proper function in a market economy, and is not as bad as you might believe. But I agree: take out Wall Street, and things will change drastically. But again, health insurance companies have no competition, therefore no incentive to lower costs like in every other industry (other than education).

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:34:51 -0000

I would first ask two questions: why is it costly? Is it because of regulation and costly procedural limitation? Is it because of protectionism?

In other words, why is the list you wrote only so long? Why aren't more companies being started and investing in capital resources to provide a less expensive solution. Protectionism plays a large role in that; those companies have no natural incentive to compete for our dollars at lower costs because most of us don't have to worry about the costs... when we don't worry about the costs, we are charged whatever they can get away with.

Re: Freedom from Fear in the Health Care Debate

xfree9 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:32:07 -0000

The free market is amoral. But under whose morals should we make decisions? Yours? Mine? What happens if immoral folks start dictating how businesses should run? Men are not angels, no matter how great some of us may be. Barack Obama may have the greatest of intentions and abilities, but he will one day not be President. Then what?

What isn't driven by profit? You cannot separate profit from stewardship because profit is an indicator that scarce resources are being used wisely. That is an ethical and moral outcome of profit-driven business. It does not facilitate greed; it channels it into productive uses rather than abusive ones.

In a truly free market, in health insurance and health care at least, it is a race to serve other people at the lowest possible cost. Retail companies drop prices to compete because they all want our money (greed); yet they have to appeal to our willingness to choose them as opposed to another provider/producer. Prices fall. This is economics 101. But in health care, because we're stuck in a paradigm of insurance and having other people pay for it, costs have risen because there is no incentive for health care providers to compete for our hard-earned income. While this is of course a moral issue, you still must provide support for why your outcome and method of achieving that outcome are the moral solution. I would contend for various reasons that a single-payer system or insurance-based system is immoral because it wastes resources, which is ultimately harmful to the environment and the economy.