Single-Payer Groceries, Anyone?

[Niels Bohr 72]

OMFG! When I thought Matt was an intellectual from acadamia, I thought wrong.

American Socialist Party? This guy is getting information from Wikipedia that was manipulated by the right wing exremist. Ridiculous. Well, Matt wouldn't do that, but the author of that article would.

[NickD 203]

Not sure what we got, our highway system is government controlled and we all pay a stiff gas tax, but with Kennedy having supreme power in the senate, a lot of our gas tax money is being shifted to Boston for that tunnel where we end up with pot holes. Same with Reagan and starwars, thousands of jobs were created in California for his program, when Bush came into office, those thousands were laid off. Reagan had a bug in Latin America, that also ended as Bush had a bug with the middle east.

But this is how this country was formed, 13 colonies, or more precisely 13 countries had to get together of fight off British control, but the larger colonies had far more say in this matter that turned out to be 13 not so united states.

Would the same thing happen with health care, would Chicago that has the worse now as they did for years, now have the best? Refering to those without health care. And what is socialism, and is it good or bad? In the nineteenth century just a handful of guys owned all the corporations in this country, the rest of the people were salves to these corporations. Theodore Roosevelt did a lot to change that. So is this socialism or equality? Socialism only lasted a couple of years in the USSR, got paid the same whether you worked or not, then quickly became a dictatorship, but unlike this country in the nineteenth where a handful of guys controlled this country with more power than the US government, the government was in charge.

Often ask my wife, why are we working our cans off, our tax structure inherited by the previous administrations along what we are paying for health care, and property taxes leaves us in the position of those earning far less, and she sees people getting free health care. The deductions we get for our own kids is criminal, I feel the government is screwing us royally, we don't have the privilege of hanging around under a street lamp, always working our cans off with little to show for it. So what kind of government do we have today? Do I have to drive to Boston to skip pot holes? And rich kids weren't drafted, just the poorer ones, more inequality, thank God with finally got rid of a spoiled brat in the White House.

Would be happy with a government that just gave us a level playing field and got rid of all the new agencies created since the 70's that are causing more harm than good. And we no longer have a free market society, Reagan set us back to the nineteenth century with the Bush's and Clinton making it worse.

Giving the president power to veto makes him a dictator, not much different than Stalin or Hitler, and we sure need term limits in congress. Government by representation is pure BS.

[mRx 16]

Your author is the same douche who wrote 'Lincoln Unmasked' to which this reviewer wrote:

Book Review – Lincoln Unmasked by Thomas DiLorenzo

June 28, 2009 05:41 AM EDT views: 325 | rating: 8.9/10 (15 votes) | comments: 66

Lincoln Unmasked should really have been titled "Libertarianism Unmasked. It is really just a transparent state's rights libertarian manifesto, with Lincoln only used as an occasional foil for the author's ideological rantings. It is thankfully short - 175 pages of text, with small format pages and large typeset, into which the author crams 19 chapters. Most of the chapters are necessarily short, and many appear to have been written in a single stream-of-consciousness sitting (perhaps as brief as an hour for a couple of chapters). Some chapters barely even mention Lincoln. To critique its shortcomings would necessarily take more length than the book itself. Suffice to say, the author chooses to cherry pick factoids, many of which he either doesn't understand or chooses not to understand, and twists his thesis around them for the desired effect. Where he does raise legitimate points, he presents them as if they were somehow "hidden" by "Lincoln cultists," when in truth they are well known to anyone who has more than a passing understanding of Lincoln.

The author, whom I met when he inscribed his first book to me, spends his time in this follow up book doing nothing but ranting and raising straw men to pull down. As an act of scholarship, this book ranks at the level of a high school middling student's senior paper, one perhaps written largely the night before it was due. Some sections are actually more like 8th grade scholarship in their lack of support for the ideological screed presented. The lack of scholastic integrity with respect to his topic is embarrassing for a published author. I have no compunction saying that this book should be ignored, as the reader can find any number of books that address the real issues about Lincoln, and all of them will do a much better job.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?a...281474977723478

Sort of sums up your professor's views on most things it would appear.

Have you read the book?

It's definitely on my reading list.

Don't let this review deter you. It's nonspecificity makes me question whether the review actually read the book.

I don't understand your logic of judging this article by attacking another article.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Jesus - the guy's conclusion is "its communism".

Brilliant

[mRx 16]

By Thomas DiLorenzo

The American Socialist Party (ASP), whose members entertainingly call themselves "Democrats,"...

Enough read. If he wants to be taken seriously, then he ought to put forth a serious argument rather than starting with an incorrect premise.

Too bad. He makes a very nice comparison.

Maybe next time he'll be able to reign in his temper and start with a reasonable premise. I'll be happy to entertain his argument then.

Hard to see an overt temper in those words, I'll be honest. From an ideological perspective, the differences betweens Liberal Progressives and Socialists are dwindling, but I won't deny that the GOP beats it around so much, that it's more cliche now than anything. I don't think that's an unfair assessment.

The article attempts to show that markets are not compartmentalized. They still fall under the same economic laws as any other aspect of the economy. I know you use healthcare as your base for attack on capitalism and private enterprise. Unfortunately, your efforts are wasted.

For the food industry is as vital for life as healthcare. And it's unregulated and cut-throat market ensure that you can get an abundance of food for a price affordable by even the poorest. Big grocery stores must compete with each other, smaller grocery stores, produce stands, farm-direct sales, and even U-Pick venues. There's no Fruit and Vegetable Administration that operates under the guise of "protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of fruit and vegetables" ( I pulled this laughable quote from the FDA's mission statement). If reality, this FVA would crush the smaller grocers and monopolize the corporate grocery stores. For the sole reason that they have bigger pockets--which is vital fuel for political campaigns.

Face it, if regulation and legislature provided prosperity, affordability, and abundance, then the healthcare industry in America would be a staple of government-provided wonder. Consider the current regulatory mafia:

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): founded in 1965, oversee most of the regulations related directly to the healthcare system.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA): a major piece of healthcare regulation instituted to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the healthcare system – to “cut the fat” while at the same time protecting patients and providing better medical care.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ): conducts research aimed at improving the quality of healthcare, reducing its costs, and addressing patient safety and medical errors.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA): is the federal regulatory agency responsible for the controlling the safety and effectiveness of the country’s drug supply

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO): employs a system in which healthcare organizations are examined and then given a score between 1-100, with higher scores being better. These scores are important to healthcare organizations as they are a factor in reimbursement from Medicare.

The fact is, these regulations aren't enacted to fix the system for you, me, or the cancer patient with empty pockets. They forge a complex monopoly that extracts wealth from the working and sick, and transfers it to the politicians and bureaucrats.

If nothing else, these regulations provide the blood-on-hands proof that government is not the answer.

Just imagine, if the healthcare supply weren't protected by such barricades? One could only imagine what would come from forcing the healthcare industry to face the laws of economics--they're the same laws in the unregulated and cut-throat market that economically prevent Safeways from charging $12 for a Fuji apple

Bump for Big Dog.

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

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor.

Please refrain from factual arguments. It destroys the debate culture in OT.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

It seems many have the incapacity to multitask on VJ. Nothing but disillusional people.

Heck, social programs were around for years as you said. The government isn't controlling who is eating what. I still have not seen the government say anything about stopping people from eating Whoppers or Big Mac. Nothing but false premise.

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor.

Please refrain from factual arguments. It destroys the debate culture in OT.

[mRx 16]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

A debate in favor of such a small subsidization of a generally unimpeded market in no way can carry over to a defense of government regulation.

Edited August 9, 2009 by -Matt-

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

These programs would appear unnecessary though since the free market would address the issue sufficiently if left alone, right?

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

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

So how would the Fed acting as insurer like they do in Medicaid be any different? Does Medicaid dictate which doctor you see...any differently than private insurance companies?

[Niels Bohr 72]

My friend who is a surgeon said that the HMO will not provide coverage to her patient when she referrs the patient to another hospital who specializes in the patient's disease. That is another reason why the Health Insurers needs to be changed. Since for decades over this policy has not changed, her patient suffers from this disease for life without treatment.

Explain why it is not necessary to regulated Health Insurers or better yet, change their policy? Having a federal insurer would be best, does it not?

Edited August 9, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[mRx 16]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

So how would the Fed acting as insurer like they do in Medicaid be any different? Does Medicaid dictate which doctor you see...any differently than private insurance companies?

But as I've stated in the post above--the "elephant in the room that was intended for Big Dog"-- there is more intervention than just a small subsidation. There are active controls that together form a complex monopolization of the healthcare industry. There is no such government monopoly in the food industry (as I've attempted to illustrate with the hypothetical FVA example). We've seen the disastrous results from such attempts in the late '20's.

[mRx 16]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

These programs would appear unnecessary though since the free market would address the issue sufficiently if left alone, right?

The question is much more fundamental than that. Should we support a society that believes in charity by voluntary or by forcible means?

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

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

So how would the Fed acting as insurer like they do in Medicaid be any different? Does Medicaid dictate which doctor you see...any differently than private insurance companies?

But as I've stated in the post above--the "elephant in the room that was intended for Big Dog"-- there is more intervention than just a small subsidation. There are active controls that together form a complex monopolization of the healthcare industry. There is no such government monopoly in the food industry (as I've attempted to illustrate with the hypothetical FVA example). We've seen the disastrous results from such attempts in the late '20's.

I fail to see how a public insurance with a low overhead cannot compete with private insurance. But if you are thoroughly convinced that it would fail at providing quality insurance that is comparible to private, you'll have nothing to worry about because then you can say you told us so and we'll move this country back in the direction of privatization for everything.