Posted on 12/01/2003 8:01:35 AM PST by presidio9
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:31 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Not at all.
Then I don't understand why you raise the issue about governments falling when people face hard times. I guess I suffer from the expectation that when a person bring an assertion into a discussion that the assertion was actually intended to have a bearing on the discussion.
I can always count on you to start making idiotic points that let me know that you have progressed into "arguing for argument's sake" territory. Of course the doctors are better in wealthy urban areas. Which rural areas do you suppose have the better doctors, the rich ones or the poor ones? Do you imagine Greenwich (Ct) Hospital has a decent staff?
The point remains: The best doctors tend to be found in urban areas. Now stop wasting our time. It's ok to be wrong occasionally.
On that, we can agree.
I would argue that it is up to the government to decide how much it will cut from each budget line item...and no category should be expemp from scrutiny. It us up to each individual recipient of the reduced government outlays to decide how to manage with the amount they receive. If some find it best to cut 15% of their labor force, so be it. It others find it best to reduce salaries and expenses be 15% across the board without eliminating jobs, so be it. In the end, such decisions depend on factors local to the entity.
Using tax dollars to provide services is inherently less efficient than a free market. I think it's not hard for you to agree that, for individual service, the more centralized the govt, the less efficient it becomes. Ultimately, if it were at all possible, the responsible individual making knowledgeable and adequate use of insurance options, will be the most efficient provider of service.
With a few exceptions, were govt staffed only by angels in the business of really educating consumers on how to provide for themselves -- rather than infested by too many looking for an excuse to build their powerbase -- would not the liberal intent would be better served?
:)
I made that "remark" because I'm really not sure of what effect the 15% cut will have. Why should I be if "professionals" disagree (we'd all be lost without the quotation marks)?
In an ideal world, laissez-faire capitalism would be the best, most efficient, most honest way of making use of resources.
But this isn't an ideal world and noone knows how to make it one. So we're all floundering around ... improvising.
To underline the difficulties a government faces when it imposes hard times.
The quickest and surest way to solve our current financial problems is to shut down govnerment until the debt is paid. Taxes coming in + Nothing going out = No debt in record time.
Try it.
With regard to healthcare:
- Everyone should have the best, especially if you can't afford it and even if you don't need it.
- Government should pay for it, even if government can't afford it.
- Government should control it so private sector competition can't undercut the government.
- Prices should be artificially low so that government can appear to affort it and at the same time appear to its constituents to be fighting the good fight against the evil privateer seeking profit. (After all, NO ONE should make a profit on heath care... that's imoral! )
The net result is that hospitals that eak out a living on Medicare/Medical payments are living on artifically low incomes; can't afford the latest equipment; provide services that a paying customer would otherwise avoid; and are often the only game in town since the artificial business conditions disuade competition.
Many of these same ills stem from "overinsurance" in the private sector as well. Anytime you give your market power over to another entity, you are no longer in control of your best interests. Since we've given over our health care market power to the government and private insurers, we no longer are individually in control of our best interests. We get what they give...
...and we lose what they take away.
The budget crisis is only the flock coming home to roost in the coop we've built for ourselves. With the clarity of hindsight, it's hard to see how it could have turned out any other way.
Another red herring...and a rather stupid one at that. The discussion is about DEFICIT not DEBT. And shutting down the government even long enough to eliminate the deficit doesn't fix the problem. Unless significant "structural" changes are made to the way government collects and spends our money, the problem will immediately recur.
Aren't you the one who called for moderating the rhetoric?
The government isn't imposing hard times ... unless you count artifically depressing healthcare prices, confiscatory tax policies, overbearing regulation, and unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into personal lives. Hard times are imposed by the cycle of business boom and bust; and hard is relative.
The government created this problem by growing beyond resonable bounds. I argue that government created the problem by ignoring the inevitability of the bust part of the cycle and building in spending that was guaranteed to outstrip revenue.
Many, or most, rural areas are facing declining populations and tax bases because their economies are dying. Without government support their towns, along with their hospitals, would have died long ago.
Does society have an interest in preserving at least some of those places, over and above what the market dictates?
I don't know.
That's fair.
I was trying to say that a society can tolerate only so much of hard times. A government which wants to survive will try not to let it get too close to the limit.
I was indulging in hyperbole to illustrate my point - government can cut spending only so much. Beyond that point it risks destabilization and revolt.
How many doctorates does it take to figure that out?
But the costs of the cuts should be honestly portrayed...which means that the public should be aware that some will suffer no loss of income at all and others will be hurt catastrophically.
Those two statements together are non-sensical.
No cut whatsoever is possible without affecting some people's income 100%.
Your logic argues both that you support (15%) cuts, but not if it means reducing anybody's income more than 15%.
That's neither reasonable nor possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.