If you will forgive me for stealing a quote from Deane, I'd like to pose some questions about the highly polarized environment that we still live in. I had somewhat naively hoped that the polarization, ad-hominem attacks, and hatred that dominated political discourse during the Bush years would abate, at least temporarily. What, if anything, could restore some level of civility and depth to the political debate? Can't we all just get along?

---

I fancy myself as an independent critic in these political discussions, as I belong neither to Team Donkey or Team Elephant. I belong to one of the teams that never wins (let's call it Team Gribble). Some may laugh at me, but that is OK.

My analysis is that the nature of the insults and name-calling has changed, but the volume is just as high. To summarize--

Bush Years: Supporters of the President attacked critics as being milquetoast, soft-on-terrorism wimps. In some cases, they went as far as alleging that critics were treasonous sympathizers with the terrorists. Critics attacked the Presidential supporters as being hawkish, desk generals, imperialists, globalists, Zionists, or just rednecks who wanted to see the "good guys" kick some ass.

Today: Supporters of the President are attacking critics as being sore losers; there is a special level of opprobrium reserved for those who are perceived as a threat to the implementation of the social policies that the President's supporters have come to expect. The people who criticize or otherwise stand in the way of these policies are being attacked as being callous or as being too stupid or uninformed to realize that they should be supporting these policies. Critics of the President are resorting to name-calling (i.e. "socialist," "statist," etc.) or to looking for slip-ups, regardless of the actual severity, that they can then blow out of proportion.

Throughout, various media outlets and media personalities have been stirring the pot: Fox News, Daily Kos, Mike Malloy, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, et al.

I pretty much agree with all that.

Me too.

Although I had to go look up "opprobrium".

Had no clue what it meant!

You have a right to your opinion as long as it's mine. That's the conservative edict, right Skybill?

WOW!
Alfredo hits the nail square on the head! Thanks for shinning a better light on Deane's RADICAL EXTREME out of favor ideals.
WHEW!

"team Gribble"

OOOOOOH, OOOOOH, pick me, pick me!!!

You have a right to your opinion as long as it's mine. That's the conservative edict, right Skybill?

No.

When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you!!!

Just kidding.

Hey, you know what they say about opinions...They're jus like a$$ holes....Everybody has one!

Kidding again.

In all honesty, everyone is entiteld to their own opinion. Different than mine? OK, different than the next person's? That's OK too.

Alfredo, this is a big game and we are pawns.

They hope we get divided, unable to come together on our basic needs. This way, they can deny them to the maximum extent possible and maintain control.

That is, in the end, what it is about. Dollars are part of that control, so we can measure it in terms of dollars, but the real goal is control.

Control also requires dominance, and ego. Without the ego, the need for control is greatly diminished.

With an ego, comes the need to be "right".

So we all get our egos stroked this way and that, fanning the flames that make us forget about just being people.

I'm becoming a whole lot less materialistic these days. I have more freedom as a result.

The anthropologist will tell you that wealth is measured in terms of your time that you are free to do what you will with...

The control freak, will tell you that wealth is having the most dollars and some measure of power.

All I know is that life does not have to be as high risk as it is here, and as hard as it is here.

As people, we all share a common interest in addressing that.

>>I'm becoming a whole lot less materialistic these days. I have more freedom as a result

Kudos Missing...lots of wisdom in that statement and experiencing it in my life.

I'm becoming a whole lot less materialistic these days. I have more freedom as a result

Only if you call being blown around in your Geo by people still driving SUVs, "freedom".

I don't have a Geo!

It's a POS Toyota Corolla. Damn near the same thing though!

Well... I've had an SUV. They are nice, but the kids are getting old enough now that a very large car isn't worth as much.

Comes down to that monthly nut, and what you have to do to crack it.

If I end up with an SUV (and I can see that happening, depending on choices we make when Mrs KSKD gets better, it will be used, the simplest one I can fix, and then it's just a fuel trade-off.

Having cars without payments is ok. Insurance isn't a big deal, leaving a person to just drive the one they need.

I do need to point out, I get that 40Mpg @ about 70Mph on the freeway. There are not that many people that "blow by" me. Never has been!

My favorite is to lock them in, waiting.... drive about 53, maybe tap the brakes when I see them looking away from the road, get them just psyched!!! Then, speed up, move over and BAM, they floor it right into a ticket on one of the HWY 26 speed traps.

I've got two down so far, since moving.

That asshole that has to follow close, blink and flip me off, deserves it. Beaverton drivers are the worst around. That crap doesn't happen at 55. It happens at nearly 70! Are they f-ing kidding?

You have no idea how much I want to put a sign in the back, that I can pull something and have it flip up.

So they blink, flip off, get the tap, get super pissed, see the sign that says, "FAIL", floor it and have that in mind as they are getting their citation. (I will probably do this at one point, when I can totally afford the fallout, should it get ugly.)

I've no problem with fast, or big. I've done both, and will do it again. I've a problem with those things, plus "asshole"!

Being liberal has it's advantages

Missing, In reading your MANY thoughts I have come to the conclusion that while you have attached the label "Liberal" to yourself it is probably used as an accepted generalization. again going back to an either/or.

More decriptively I would call you a practical realist. Unfortunate there is no category for that but in reality the practical realists could be a major political power to recon with. The downside is we have no desire to organize just want to make sure our own world is secure. If on group or the other can meet enough of our needs without inflicting too much pain, we'll go along.

Hey I want a solar powered house. Can't afford it. I want a new car with better mileage, not in the budget right now. I want the medical insurance that we had 10 years ago. Pay the co-pay and the premium and we were good. Now it's this plan, that plan, this level, in network out, of network plan maximum HSA...........

I am Liberal because:

-I advocate for and support socially permissive environments. Worship what you want, or not, have sex with who you want to, or not, marry who you want to, or not, use language how you want to, or not.

-I believe expression should be the most protected thing we have, only constrained by demonstrated material harm. From there, words are words and as people, we can get over it, we can get along. Anything else is a crutch for not doing the work to get along.

-I advocate for strong social safety nets. I do not believe we are better served by this dog-eat-dog corporate culture, operating "there can be only one" Highlander style. Keep risk low, distribute it among the people, encourage profit for luxery items, work hard to keep it low for necessary items.

-I do not believe the executive has absolute power.

-I do not like authoriatrians. Either this is a free society, or it isn't. If it is, then we rule by strong consensus, not strong heiarchial means. That means the smallest of us is well within their rights to speak truth to power and not be discriminated against for it. I will go to the mat for this. (and have)

-I believe community efforts and community economies are the future.

-I believe in equality. I think I can prove that one too. We are simply people, period. Our entitlements are separate from that reality. This means there is no "ends justify means" for culturally acceptable discrimination. Dubai, for example, is in the wrong, because it builds on the discrimination of others, for example.

-Any person has the right to judge those abusing others core rights as people. See Dubai above.

-I do not believe in free and open trade between nations. Nations exist to serve their people and also compete with other nations. Where a nation has skill and a strong ability to produce value, that empowers it to serve it's people. Diluting that only lowers the quality of life for those people.

Those add up to strong left leaning values both socially and economically.

So, that's liberal --actually really freaking LIBERAL. It has a lot of advantages!

The realist in me, knows that what I just wrote is Liberal utopia. Won't happen. But, some of it can happen. So then, take hold of the closest party and hold their feet to the fire and get what we can get.

If we don't, some other clown will, and that's the game of politics right there.

Like I wrote to Alfredo, the game for the powerful among us is to keep us from realizing where our common interests lie. The game for us, is promoting that and being rational about that.

So then, saying "I'm Liberal" isn't divisive. It's a value statement that says where I am coming from. If another person says, "I'm Conservative", that is simply their value statement.

We still are on the same "I'm a Person" team, and people need stuff. Either we get along, and get that stuff, or we don't get along, and don't get that stuff.

Missing, when you get to this land you're seeking, I would suspect Judy Garland and the Tin Man will be there to greet you.

Missing, when you get to this land you're seeking, I would suspect Judy Garland and the Tin Man will be there to greet you.

It sure beats the land you're from Deane -- the one with Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales waiting to waterboard . . . ahem, I mean greet you.

"Missing, when you get to this land you're seeking, I would suspect Judy Garland and the Tin Man will be there to greet you."

Ok, Deane, Missing spelled out his rationale for being a self-perceived liberal. Not demonizing the term "liberal" like you seem to like to, or anything else, but outing himself as one, and with bullet points as to why.

Why don't you do the same for your self-perceived conservatism? Lay it out for us!

So, you are saying my description of you as a practical realist is wrong?

It's just like you libs to disagree with someone elses opinion if it differs from your own...

;-D

I do a self comparison with your values when I get a few minutes....

I like Brianl's challenge.

Yeah Deane. Lay it out for us. Hell, lay it out for you! Bet you can't do it.

Those things I wrote are the things I live by as best I can. Does it always happen? Is it always worth it?

Hell no. But, the idea of getting closer to there keeps me motivated. It's pretty goddamn tough to call me out on those things. Call it high ground. I've absolutely nothing to hide. Why bother? Really having stuff to hide, where one's core value statements are concerned, generally means they are a problem.

I take those and support who I support, do what I do, and I know EXACTLY why.

What have you got?

You are a Conservative because:

[insert value statements here]

No Roger, it's not wrong, just not inclusive. Took me a bit to sort it though.

Thought I would sort "liberal" from "practical realist". That took expressing "liberal" first. Then some thinking about "practical realist".

I'm pretty damn sure the "practical realist" can be any mix of liberal and conservative, and still PRACTICE a rational amount of REALISM in their life.

Why don't you do the same for your self-perceived conservatism? Lay it out for us!


Brian.... Your going to be waiting a LONG time!

Do it, Deane! It's not that hard....

"Do it, Deane! It's not that hard...."

And you think I'm dumb enough to take the bait?

"And you think I'm dumb enough to take the bait?"

No hidden agenda here Deane. I have no issues, no qualms, nothing to judge.

I promise you this - I can't speak for anyone else, but *I* won't use it against you, I won't judge you, or berate you on what you say. I might not agree with some of it, but I bet you I would agree with more of it than you think.

Instead of getting responses like "Missing, when you get to this land you're seeking, I would suspect Judy Garland and the Tin Man will be there to greet you", maybe some points of why you feel that your way is better for all of us than Missing's way, or any other pecereived "liberal" way. No name calling, no finger pointing on my end. I'm not fishing here, so there's no bait for you to take.

I would do the same.

I would add Deane, part of this is dealing with fear. The inhibition kind, not the mortal kind.

That expression just kind of came out, in response to Roger. I couldn't address his post, without sorting out "Liberal".

Fear of expression is something well worth working on. Don't fear the expression. If it's just and true, it's not bad. It just isn't. It's human.

I have no fear, but I do have little time to think it through. Once one commits something to writing, it's there forever. That means one needs to be sure they are expressing things accurately.

So far as my comments regarding Judy Garland, it's my way of saying you want your version of utopia, sort of like you are the only one on earth. Some of it is a bit too close to Karl Marx or Lenin for me. Sort of like the old Soviet Union.

OF COURSE we all want our utopia. Who wouldn't?

My youngest daughter and I had a similar conversation once. She said, "I think everybody should have the same amount of money." We laugh at that sometimes. She was 10, and now she is 17. Know what? She still kind of thinks what money people have and don't have is a problem.

This is because she is nice, and would rather spend time being a person, instead of fighting to be a person.

My point being, at first glance, she's a junior commie pinko. Really, it's about priorities we choose and those that are forced.

So then, "accurate" is what we say it is. Context is always a consideration, and if somebody is stupid enough to not think it through that far, then they are NOT a worry. And I hope the point of my little story is clear.

When you say some of it is a bit to Soviet or Marxist for your blood, great! Did you notice I put those things in terms of "I believe", not absolute terms, as in "the right way is", or something else.

To clarify that, it's like "I believe God exists" vs. "GOD EXISTS". The former is a value statement, the latter is an assertion of truth.

Value statements are things we use to reason with and make decisions. Truths are those things we USE TO BUILD VALUE STATEMENTS WITH, with the most ready source of truth being our life experience.

(and that's true enough for any of us)

The only one on that list I'm tempted to flat out state as truth is our equality as beings. I think, if pressed, I'll prevail on that one. It's an absolute truth near as I can tell. Let's just say, I've not lost on that one yet.

The others I have! Still, they are value statements of worth. The point being, there isn't a correct answer, only the expression at this moment in time. You can't be called on that by anyone rational.

(if they are not rational, are they a worry? HELL NO!)

Once written, It is there. However, that does not mean it's enduring. What I posted here is my CURRENT utopia. The door is open on that. Say some time passes, and I reconsider. eg: A similar exercise 5 years from now.

Well, then it's different! Or not... Depends.

I think, had I posted that 5 years earlier, a few things would be on the list that are not now, and some that are on the list, might be different. I think I was very highly likely a different person then. Go back farther, and I KNOW some of that would be very different.

Experience over time does this.


Maybe this helps:

I like you Deane. There isn't anything you could write here that would change that. Pissing people off is different. That's sport and spice. THAT IS WHY WE END UP LIKING PEOPLE.

My interest is really is about knowing something, or considering something from an angle I currently am not capable of. I know absolutely that is what Alfredo and Brianl are thinking.

(hell, I would, and bet CJ would as well)

Given that you operate this way, your statement reveals that you are not gonna go there. Why do that, after what you wrote.

Too bad. It's human to reconsider that. Just saying...

Have a long drive coming up?

Do it then. That's where I do my thinking. Dead time man! You can work the phone, think work / company / life problems through, zone out on the radio, or the road (dangerous), eat, talk with passengers, and that's about it.

...and if you've not thought it through, or need to think it through, then doing so IS for you. You will be better for that. This I know absolutely.

Express it here, or not, but do it. I think you might end up surprised.

For what it's worth, I seriously question your statement, "I have no fear". That's not a slam, just rational analysis. Here is my support for it:

What do you have to lose?

Answer: That which you fear.

Take the drive Deane.

Missing, this may be where we differ a bit. From your posts, I sense you want the government to do more for you, you don't want a boss telling you what to do, etc.

I came out of a different world than you live in today. You had to depend on yourself where I came from, not anyone else. Some of that came from my parents who got married in 1934, had crop failure two of the first three years of their marriage (dust bowl era), had zero social services, nothing to work with from anyone, yet thrived. I had it much, much better, but still learned that nobody else would provide for me.

Today, at an age when most people are retired and sitting around, I operate two companies, take care of a handicapped son, have a wife with Parkinson's and on chemo for cancer and still have a little time for personal things such as publishing two hard cover coffee table size books in the past year. It does not leave time to sit around and think about long posts on this forum for a couple of idiots to attack (that doesn't refer to you and Brianl).

So, perhaps you can see where I have no patience with today's liberal viewpoint. At the same time I'm ready to agree that deregulation as it happened in the financial world was a disaster. Going forward, we have to accept that "the big guys" are so loaded with greed they must be regulated and watched. Liberals make the mistake of tying that greed to Republicans, but many, if not most of the Wall Street morons are Democrats. So, basically, party labels should be removed and the greed label should prevail.

Every time I wonder if I would have any interest in the liberal viewpoint I think of who it appeals to and want to barf. Nancy Polosi, Jack Murtha, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid, Ariana Huffington, Barbabra Boxer, Chuck Schumer just to name a few. I would want to go take a shower if I ever began to think like those people.

So maybe my big difference is that I think people should be honest, think for themselves, and leave other people alone.

You'd rather hang out with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzalaz, Michelle Bachmann, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly. Okay, we get it now.

And don't forget, your parents thrived thanks the US Government providing for them.

" Once one commits something to writing, it's there forever."

That's true. But it's not like equal weight cannot be given to a person who says " You know what? I know what I said earlier. And at the time, I meant it. But after some more thought, I have changed my mind."

I dislike the wholly unrealistic stance that once you say something, and believe it, it somehow shows weakness to change your mind. So much of that seems to stem from being overly proud. I admit that excessive inability to take a stand makes it difficult to hold a conversation sometimes. But that isn't what's happening in most cases like I am thinking of.

But, shit, come on - I do it too. I change my mind. Or have it changed for me. Add to that the very real chance that I am just plain wrong or mistaken about how I view things or why some things happen - and you've got a great formula to be picked on, called out or generally dismissed.

Yet, as many times as I do that, I can honestly say that I've been treated with some grace and benefit of the doubt. Most of the time I feel that I have personally earned that around here.

Other times I just get a little lucky that nobody notices. Ahem.

See? The standard I hold for myself isn't all that bad sometimes. It has it's benefits. But that's just me and my world today. Tomorrow I may become an asshole all over again. I'll work against doing that - no promises though.

Missing, Vitalogy's post will demonstrate what I was telling you.

"So maybe my big difference is that I think people should be honest, think for themselves, and leave other people alone."

Deane
I think this where we probably disagree and I think it's also party generational.

In America today we have lost our social capital. We have little sense of community because we want to be left alone or go it alone. Years ago that was not the case. Communities leaned on each other.

Look at the Amish. When it comes to bringing in something modern they put it under the microscope of "How will this affect the community?" If it takes away from time with each other, or community, the Amish won't let it into the community.

I'm not saying the Amish have the kind of lifestyle I would choose but it's something to ponder.

At church this morning in my adult education class a 25 year old woman talked about her 2 1/2 year stay in Uruguay as a Peace Corp member. She lived in a town/village of about 500 people. She said that at least 4-5 times a day you would find yourself drinking the local tea with individuals or groups. You spent time talking and getting to know each other.

Typically the average persons day in Uruguay was surrounded by one task. However if it was raining or too hot, that got put off and you had tea again.

After she got back home she published a book of pictures about her experience. On the last page is a diagram of the town she lived in and every house/hut. She was able to remember all the names that were associated with each house which was on the diagram. How many of us can name all our neighbors?

Today she is now working 8-5pm barely finding time to get things done at home. She doesn't commune with her co-workers and by the time the weekend comes she "catching up" on what she couldn't get done during the week.

I will agree Deane, honesty and thoughtfulness are important, but being left alone....that's where I draw the line. We need each other and I believe that those who hold to more progressive and yes even some, but not all, liberal ideals, have a greater chance for that community.

It would be easier to just say you don't want to contribute that material and be done with it.

You don't really know me Deane. All I'll say is that I've never been unemployed a day in my life, but for the fast start self-employment gig I had to do when the company I worked for went bankrupt.

Would still be doing that, if it were not for the current health care structure more or less forcing me to be employed to get at said health care, or go into life long debt.

I stared with NOTHING. Literally! A used car and a few hundred bucks was the sum total of the KSKD kick-off to adult life. I've no regrets either! It's rather easy. Do the work, meet the people, build the skill, move up, life is good.

...then somebody gets sick, or your job gets outsourced, and you do it again, right! And again...

That's getting old.

I resent your implication. Again, you don't know me at all. This particular liberal doesn't want it on a plate. I know how to get after it.

Unchecked authority is bad for people. Unchecked business is bad for people. Past that, your implication of "don't likes" are not correct.

If you are not actually going to entertain the conversation, then just don't converse! It's easier that way.

So, perhaps you can see where I have no patience with today's liberal viewpoint.


It's too bad that you can't see how MOST of America doesn't have patience for your EXTREME views. 8 years was enough!

Deane:

First off, my condolences with your wife ... I applaud you for doing the right thing with your family, when all too often people don't. Kudos.

I understand where you come from. My father was VERY conservative, self-made, and well-to-do. I totally agree with you that hard work and self-sacrifice is the best method of achieving one's goals, dreams and aspirations.

That said, sadly the America we live in today is not the America of even 30 years ago. You agree with most of us it seems on the deregulation hurting EVERYONE ... even 30 years ago, it seems that companies and executives did a much better job of policing themselves, self-regulating if you will. Today's conservative is not the conservative of generations past. The GOP, under George W. Bush, very much turned into a lot of things that fly in the face of traditional conservatism. Smaller government? Uhh no, the Bush government was the biggest in history. Responsible fiscal spending? The next time I hear someone bitch about Obama's stimulus plan, I'm going to scream. (I wonder if someone can come up with statistics on how much the deficit is going to go up with Obama's plan compared to the deficit spending that happened with the New Deal).

A traditional conservative stood for many things I personally stand for and believe in: TRUE fiscal conservatism and living within your means, a smaller federal government with more emphasis placed on the state and local level, CONSERVATION!! (Can't have conservation without CONSERVE), a strong yet sensible defense, a strong criminal justice system that includes capital punishment, so on and so forth.

Somewhere along the way, the conservative movement lost its way. Lost its touch with mainstream America. Over the last eight years, deficit spending was higher than all of the other US presidential administrations combined. The highest income brackets enjoyed great tax breaks and write-offs, and the middle class continued to shrink. The federal government grew to the largest size in history. Conservation and taking care of our natural resources was nonexistent. Defense spending rose dramatically with a two-front war, one of the fronts of which we started behind faulty pretenses and shoddy intelligence, with thousands of American casualties and hundreds of thousands Iraqi civilians dead. While not the fault of the Bush administration, our criminal justice, IMHO, more and more people are out on the streets that shouldn't be. This is just a tip of the iceberg, of what has gone wrong with conservatism.

Gone are the grass-roots folks who do the proverbial pull themselves up by the bootstraps, like your parents were from the sounds of things, and much like yourself. In place we have the "fringe" folks that represent conservatism ... the Religious Right namely ... the Southern folks who still align themselves largely with the Jim Crow era, segregation, white supremacist thoughts, etc ... Sorry, I can't associate myself with these folks. I don't want the Pat Robertsons and David Dukes of the world representing me!

Deane, I know you're above THAT, I do believe that you are true to your conservative upbringing, and beliefs. I also think that it stoops you down to the level of the Falwells and Dukes when you lambaste others in here, or Obama, for "liberal loony" comments. What we really need as a country, as a society, is someone to bring us TOGETHER. The last eight years were as divisive as any time in our history, and by far the MOST divisive since probably Vietnam. I've had enough of that nonsense, I know Missing has, I know many others who are more critical of you and your conservative beliefs have.

I'm glad I made it to the bottom of this thread, because I think that this is one of the best discussions that I've seen recently. Thank you, Deane, for taking the time to explain where you are coming from. I totally respect where you're coming from. However, I think that Brian has summed things up very eloquently: a lot has changed in the sociopolitical climate over the last few decades. There are a lot of things that are broken today, and the idea of conservation no longer being part of conservatism is one of them.

Agreed on "conservation" no longer part of conservatism.

I have a rather strong conservative streak that runs exactly that way.

Some other things that have changed:

We now are forced to more or less buy shitty products that have an engineered life, instead of the best overall life and performance. It's better for the mega-corps. Getting that double the business every 5 years quarterly expectation met, means screwing us, the planet, and other people over to the max.

My grandfather was a big conservative. Lived it straight up, old school. He retired on mostly his own savings, built his retirement home and had enough to help out his family.

Sent two of 4 kids to school too.

His trade?

Machinist.

Think about that one today. It's absolutely not gonna happen. I've a problem with that.

When I was a kid in the 70's and 80's, we took trips all over the place. They took a trailer, stocked it with camping food, and just saw the country. We left it like we found it. I heard lectures about the beauty of the lands, the value they have. In the forest, we were very careful to make sure there was no fire --not because it's wrong to start forest fires, but because we need the forests, and the animals need them.

My Grandpa never wasted anything really. And he had that do it yourself mindset. Just going to buy something was WASTEFUL. Do for yourself, so that you have the money for when you can't.

Conservatives today are not like that at all. And the "do for yourself" bit is all but dead to the up and coming generations.

Why?

Because we hammered those that could, and they've not passed it on, and now we are rapidly becoming a nation of mall rats that can't deal on their own terms, unless those terms are plastic.

I suspect we have a whole lot more in common than we think.

with the green movement gaining momentum, why is no one calling for the return of milk and pop in glass bottles? Sure it's petty. Funny though that while factories were belching noxous fumes, (steel mills, Asarco at Pt Defiance The rubber factories in Akron...) our parents and granparents were dutifully returning their deposit bottles to the store, recycling before it was fashionable. The kids knew a candy bar or popsicle was just a bottle or two away, and made the rounds with the wagon.
Some of us knew prime locations for litterers who tossed their bottles into a vacant lot, we were environmentalists of sorts before it was fashionable,but weren't militant enough to want to end our sources of revenue by calling out those bottle tossers. We appreciated some of the neighbors who were more than happy to let the kids relieve them of the responsibility of returning the bottles. Go back to the war years and many people reused. Now, we as a people have to be chided, shamed, cajoled, and threatened to be "GREEN" The state uses Environmental awareness, not so much as the right thing to do, but rather another source of "fundrasing" (think emissions testing) Still we have hoardes of teen somethings and twenty somthings and a smattering of guilt haunted older people, with more idealism than real world knowledge preaching "Save the planet" as if anyone over 25 is nothing more than a resource sucking, carbon spewing earth wrecker with grand plans to make sure all life is extinct by the end of our own three score and ten.

The point is people need to find their own workable idealism and convictions and set their lives to those standards without forcing their ideals on others. Don't FORCE me to meet your standards, yet please share your ideas. Allow me to decide if something will improve my life within my means. Goes back to what missing said about socially permissive environments ,and I too do not like authoriatrians. Either this is a free society, or it isn't.

Life really is a trade off of contrasting styles.

IF YOU CHOOSE.....

* You can marry someone of the same sex, I can be a gun toting bible thumper. I can eat meat, you can purchase and consume only organically grown produce. Your entire wardrobe can consist of hemp clothing. I could have a closet full of leather and fur, and we can both see each other on Saturday as we empty our carload of recyclables at the recycling center. We might form judgments about one another, but neither of us has the right to force change on the other. At the core, PETA protests are really no different than KLAN marches. Palestinians and Jews are both entitled to a "HOMELAND", but it's going to take each side to accept the others right to exist. That will only happen at the individual level. GOVERNMENT MANDATES AND DIRECTIVES ARE NO COMPROMISE.

Rather than bore anyone further, I'll stop for now.

*(the decriptions expressed are not intended to specifically refer to any one person and have been used to contrast a broad overview of societal differences that exist today)

Sincerely, Deane, thank you for shedding some light on your background and viewpoints. It does help a bit.

And I hope you don't lump me into the group that "attacks" you. If so, I apologize.

Just because I don't agree with you, or most times understand you, doesn't mean I or anyone should attack you. Of course, the same goes for you.

Again, thanks for giving us a little peek inside.

Not to break up the warm fuzzies and gay man hugging, but the thing that kills me about the Deane's of the world, the ones that "made it on their own" back in the day types, well, they really didn't make it on their own. Just imagine where Deane would be had he been born into a black family instead of a white family. Good luck making it all on your own "back in the day" with such dark skin.

The bottom line is that most people owe it to LUCK that they were born into the family they were born into and the country they were born into to. Complete, blind, luck. Granted, hard work also goes into how successful people are, but this "made it on my own" crap is just that, crap. You made it because you were lucky enough to be in the situation you were born into and were smart enough to use that as a platform to succeed. Other's didn't have the shot you did (or I do for that matter).

Vitalogy, there is a good book that speaks to alot of that - Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. If you haven't already, I think you'd like reading that one.

Vitalogy, you make a real good point. And there was tons of government help "back in the day", just like now.

The whole notion of "Making it on my own" and "self dependence" and "pioneer spirit" is partially what gets us in trouble.

We need to rely on others, and have them rely on us, for help, when needed. No one can do it all "on thier own".

"The bottom line is that most people owe it to LUCK that they were born into the family they were born into and the country they were born into to. Complete, blind, luck. Granted, hard work also goes into how successful people are, but this "made it on my own" crap is just that, crap. You made it because you were lucky enough to be in the situation you were born into and were smart enough to use that as a platform to succeed. Other's didn't have the shot you did (or I do for that matter)."


I don't understand this line of thinking. I had zero help from my family. My father wanted me to go into farming like he and his ancestors had done for years and years. He was opposed to me going into radio. I got into it on my own.

My first job in a small station I made $55 per week. I gained experience, learned how to present myself, ended up in better and better situations.

I don't understand this "born into situations" you talk about.

So far as blacks are concerned, I would agree many of the young today being raised without a father anywhere in sight have a disadvantage. But, in this day of government protection, that is anti-discrimination laws, government hiring quotas and the like, any black kid not able to gain momentum is doing it to himself.

Plenty of "heads up" blacks are making it these days. Granted, they fight some battles the rest of us don't, but the government isn't going to fix it for them. They'll have to do it on their own.

The luck in your case Deane, is that you didn't have some ugly thing happen to knock you down before you could leverage what you learned, built and saved.

And again, I'm right there on the same path. No help from people, some from the government, and a lot of hard work.

I like the hard work. It pays off too.

I don't like the increased amount of RISK that has been pushed back onto us these days. It is that RISK that is hammering people, who do work, save, build, grow. I'm one of them.

My point in advocating for the stronger social safety net is simply to lower risk. That is a cost well worth paying.

This does not take away from those getting after it. It only enhances it. The trade-off is a few will bottom feed and that's just the cost of managing risk, in my point of view.

***No gay man hugging here*** I was actually fairly pissed at the implications behind Deane's post.

Of course you don't understand this "born into situations". That's why I pointed it out. Many conservatives don't bother to look at their situation objectively.

First off, you were born into a family that is white, and owned land to farm on. How'd they get into farming or get the land way back in the day? Most likely they got it with government help and government subsidies.

So it's not true that you got "zero" from your family or the government. You started off being the right color, and you started off in a family that owned land and had a business on that land.

The simple blind luck of being born into the family you were born into, and the fact that you were born in a country that allowed you (but not others) opportunity "back in the day" allowed you the platform necessary to be where you are today. Not all credit is due to you my friend!

"***No gay man hugging here*** I was actually fairly pissed at the implications behind Deane's post."

Share with me what we're talking about.

WAS

Let's just let the conversation continue.

"I had zero help from my family."

Deane, is that really true? Were they "there" with you every day growing up? Did you have the luxury of both parents being there? Did they treat you well? Did they teach you solid values? Did you have enough food, shelter, warmth, and clothing?

Many, many children didn't or don't have those gifts. They start out the race from the back of the pack, or not even in the pack.

Just some perspective.

The luck in your case Deane, is that you didn't have some ugly thing happen to knock you down before you could leverage what you learned, built and saved.

That's not luck....It's life.

This has been a very insightful and relevant conversation. I tend to see myself as a libertarian but a somewhat left of center one. How's that for totally confusing the traditional descriptions.

I believe in individual choice and self-determination. I also believe that we have a responsibility to each other and this place we are blessed with. I believe in there being a higher power and that God did send His representative Jesus to this earth at one time to show us something about how we should treat each other. I am not sure that Jesus is the one and only way to God -- I think that someone who doesn't believe in God, Jesus, Budha, etc. can achieve the same end as I seek just by doing the right thing for the right reasons.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who claims to be a Christian can not see that government needs to be part of the solution because charity alone can't handle all of the need. Charity tried and failed during the 1930's. I also believe that regardless of how hard we try we won't solve the problem of those without money, homes, education....

Where I don't want government involved are choices that are clearly individual in nature. I don't care if a woman wants to sell sexual acts. I don't care if you want to smoke cannabis or shoot heroin. If you choose to do so and that interfers with you having enough money to live ... that is your choice. The government or charity shouldn't subsidize your choice. Birth control or abortion should be easy to obtain at your cost and your risk to moral and psychological effects. There should be no income tax on individuals and corporations but government should regulate so that the true full environmental costs of choices are reflected in the price paid. Make a product that doesn't last long, can't be repaired and ends up being placed out for landfill disposal then there needs to be an equalizing fee to capture the external costs not reflected in your price. Make a product somewhere to get slave labor rates... pay an equalizing fee to address that exploitation of humanity.

The marketplace because it is a human creation cannot be perfect... some government intervention is necessary to address that imperfection. Human choice is a gift from our Creator and government interference in human choice is only needed when my choice would deprive you of your choice or would impose external costs on you or society that I am not directly paying.

Like all beliefs, mine are subject to channge... these weren't my beliefs when I was in high school and a follower of the New Democratic Party in Ontario Canada... but they are my beliefs now.. fellow libertarians are welcome to indicate to what degree I don't follow a true liberatarian philosophy... I won't take offense.

Thank you for the liberty to participate in this discussion.

"Deane, is that really true? Were they "there" with you every day growing up? Did you have the luxury of both parents being there? Did they treat you well? Did they teach you solid values? Did you have enough food, shelter, warmth, and clothing?"

Yes, I had all of those things in abundance. Perhaps too much. I think I might have been more successful if I had to try harder to get what I wanted while growing up.

But, I did work for what I got while growing up. That's life on a dairy farm.

Than, when I left the farm to go into radio, it all ended. I was on my own. I started with zero.

didn't want to go here but....

....you were born into a family that is white....

Kind of a racist comment.

you really want to go there? Like was said earlier. We are. I see people. It is only when the difference is pointed out do I see unequality. A person is NOT entiled to something by pointing out differences. I am you, you are me, we are. If you single out a difference and somehow feel an entitlement because of that difference, Then we have made ZERO progress. Black people will ALWAYS be black first under this way of thinking. Is Oprah a successful woman, OR a successful BLACK WOMAN? was her success earned by being BLACK? Yet she celebrates her race. it is who she is. She is a successful BLACK woman yet preaches that we are all the same. I say she's separate, but equal. She makes herself separate but equal. she thinks shes past the b/w thing. She isn't.

As soon as anyone can base their equality only as a person, then everyone is the same. not white man/black man/blind man/gay man. Those are only labels to stand out, and then we are back to SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

There's nothing racist about pointing out that someone born into a white family in the 1930's had different opportunities available to them as compared to a kid born into a black family at that time period.

"idn't want to go here but....

....you were born into a family that is white....

Kind of a racist comment."


You have to just overlook Vitalogy. He's frequently into this race thing. Hard to tell what his problem is.

Deane, tell me your lot in life wouldn't be drastically different if you were black instead of white? It may not make much of a difference these days, but back in the 30's, your family wouldn't own the farm, you'd be working it.

Of course that's true. But,I'm talking about taking what you've got to work with and doing something with it, not looking for excuses. If you happen to be black, you're going to have different set of issues to work through than if you're white. I can't do anything about that.

There are plenty of white kids getting a poor start these day also, thanks to stupid parents, or parents splitting up, or some just growing up in extremely poor homes. It's still up to the individual to rise above it, not assume the government will kiss it and make it well.

"still up to the individual to rise above it"

Easy to say when you're not black. Back in your day the govt said blacks couldn't do certain things, so it didn't matter if you "wanted" to rise above it, you couldn't.

I believe this is 2009, isn't it. Don't we have a different set of dynamics going?

Deanne, You are fighting a losing battle.

The liberals/Democrats think that everybody needs to be dependent on the Government for everything.

They want all of us to be dependent on the Government too so they can say; "See how great our socialist programs are."

And you don't have to take any responsibility for yourself and your actions.

i.e. Johnny murdered 35 people, but he shouldn't be punished. Nope, it's his parents fault, they didn't buy him a puppy when he was little. Poor, poor, Johnny.

There is no reasoning with them, Deanne.

Skybill, you've summed it up very well.

Thanks Deanne.

I'm sure it will draw the wrath of many!

Actually I think Skybill used some very old and tired generalizations. I believe one of the reasons you now have Dems in control of the White House is because the GOP has been playing the same old song and it just didn't play like it used too.

The political landscape has been reshaped and the monologue that was the GOP has come to an end. Whether you like it or not we do need each other, we need community. Fundamentalism from over 100 yrs ago had a very progressive look to it. It might be worth checking your history and see where your conservative values originated. You might be surprised.

Deane, yes, this is 2009. However, we're not talking about today. What we are talking about is when YOU were raised and how that's affected your outlook. You look at the world and think to yourself that everyone should do it like you did. However, you give no credit to your luck in being born in America to a white family that owned land and a farm business. A lot of things OUT OF YOUR CONTROL happened to help you out in life. That's my whole point...have some perspective of other people's positions and you might discover what the term empathy means.

".have some perspective of other people's positions and you might discover what the term empathy means."

OK, describe two or three of those positions so I can understand them.

There is no reasoning with them, Deanne.

Most of America thinks the same about you EXTREME RIGHTIES....

1. Growing up black in the 1930's.
2. Growing up in a family that didn't own land or a business.

Given your work ethic, had you been born black in a family that worked the farm, rather than owned it, would you be in the same place today? And would you have the same political beliefs?

One thing this thread has reminded me of:

Empathy is a wonderful quality in a human being.

Being able to "walk a mile in my shoes" and identify with another person's experience is a great thing. It's part of what ties us all together.

Agreed.

Lots to be learned too.

"1. Growing up black in the 1930's.
2. Growing up in a family that didn't own land or a business.

Given your work ethic, had you been born black in a family that worked the farm, rather than owned it, would you be in the same place today? And would you have the same political beliefs?"


The trouble with trying to answer this is that it's trying to compare another era with today. What we were talking about was whether people should do more for themselves, or whether the government should do it for them. That's really the basic difference in thinking between liberals and conservatives.

There is no answer for the two examples you have given. Of course the black had no opportunity other than try to survive. They were cast as inferior, unfit to drink out of the same fountain as a white, they rode the back of the bus, they ate in a separate restaurant. A poor little kid growing up in that atmosphere was a terrible thing.

We have a different world today. There are many opportunities for blacks. With anti-discrimination laws, government hiring quotas, social acceptance, and so on, most any black kid who wants to better his life can. Seems to me Obama has set a pretty good example.

This has drifted into a discussion of black social issues which I have no interest in pursuing any further than I have to grant you the courtesy of answering your post.

What I'm gettting at Deane is that when you were growing up, your government supported you and gave your family benefits others didn't have access to. This is a fact. But today, you complain any time other people get a government benefit to make their life better and act like you made a diamond out of a lump of coal. You have the classic conservative attitude of "I got mine, screw the rest of you". The thing is, you got yours with the support of the same government you think shouldn't help others today.

And the big difference between liberals and conservatives is not how they approach the view of government, but in how they approach life. Conservatives don't like change or advancement and would prefer things remain the same. Liberals are always looking to improve or make things better.

"What we were talking about was whether people should do more for themselves, or whether the government should do it for them. That's really the basic difference in thinking between liberals and conservatives."

Let's go with this as a topic twister because I think Deane brings up the core issue.

My wife just got done reading a book from the late 90s called "Bowling Alone" by Robert Putnam.

"Putnam draws on evidence including nearly 500,000 interviews over the last quarter century to show that we sign fewer petitions, belong to fewer organizations that meet, know our neighbors less, meet with friends less frequently, and even socialize with our families less often. We're even bowling alone. More Americans are bowling than ever before, but they are not bowling in leagues. Putnam shows how changes in work, family structure, age, suburban life, television, computers, women's roles and other factors have contributed to this decline."

Putnam takes a great deal of time discussing what he calls Social Capital. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/primer.htm

"The term social capital emphasizes not just warm and cuddly feelings, but a wide variety of quite specific benefits that flow from the trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation associated with social networks. Social capital creates value for the people who are connected and - at least sometimes - for bystanders as well. "

Obama has said several times that it's not smaller or larger government we need but a better government that mets the needs of those who personally call on it for assistance, and those basic programs that help those in our society who have hit some hard times.

You will never get the perfect government but I believe Obama is trying to make it better, but that is subjective depending on your political leanings.

"What I'm gettting at Deane is that when you were growing up, your government supported you and gave your family benefits others didn't have access to."


What were these benefits?

Chris, how is Obama going about making the government better? All I am seeing is bigger government. Now were starting to see the government getting into the banking business and the auto business. Will McDonald's be next? Where should nationalization of our businesses stop?

Your family was allowed to vote, own land, and own a business. And since the business was a farm, I'm sure your family got plenty of govt cheese as well.

"Your family was allowed to vote, own land, and own a business. And since the business was a farm, I'm sure your family got plenty of govt cheese as well."

And which of those things are not available to most anyone today? Except for the cheese. There were no government handouts in those days, not even cheese.

Deane- Fair question.

I do have some reservations on the size of the stimulus package. The way I guess I justify it, is it reflects the size of the problem.

We really won't know if it's successful for at least a year or two. I'll be honest, it's a wait see thing.

Every farm in America has been receiving govt handouts for as long as the farm has been in business. This is a fact. You still don't get it!

"Every farm in America has been receiving govt handouts for as long as the farm has been in business. This is a fact. You still don't get it!"


I remember no such handouts. Whatever may have existed at the time was very minor, and it is unlikely my father would have participated. He was a doer, not a taker.

You've turned this into a discussion of some remotely possible, but minor assistance a farmer may have gotten from the government and away from the issue of liberals today expecting the government to do everything for them. I'll congratulate you on your skill.

Today, there are indeed farm subsidies which I am opposed to. Most are being received by rich land owners who can make it on their own.

"Today, there are indeed farm subsidies which I am opposed to. Most are being received by rich land owners who can make it on their own."

Those same subsidies have always been around. The reason you don't remember is because it wasn't talked about, it was a given which was part of owning a farm.

Again, I don't expect the government to do everything for me. I prefer to do it on my own just like you. However, I'm cognizant of the benefits that were given to me through heredity, family, and location.

Deane, when Vitalogy talks about government support of farms, I think he is referring to the market equalization that government has performed in agriculture for decades. Whether it is buying surplus crops, or building major dams along the Columbia for irrigation and reclamation, or giving ranchers access to open public grazing lands, those in agriculture have benefited from government 'subsidies' for a long time. Your father may not have received a government check in the mail, but I very much doubt he could have succeeded in farming without these substantial government supports (direct or indirect) and massive government infrastructure investments.

I think we should just nuke the midwest from orbit....

hmmm. You really think that? You would really want to see millions of people die?

Your new name is Adolph

I think we should just nuke the midwest from orbit....

From orbit? Why bother? Nukes are stored all over midwest. Have Deane drop a match down a silo.

Ha ha, I'm laughing at my own comments.

No, you can't kill millions with nukes anymore. It isn't environmetally acceptable!. While the removal of millions of carbon exuding lifeforms would marginally improve the global warming issue, the resultant nuclear fallout would cause damages of a different and just as unacceptable nature. Should you wish to ease the human congestion please consider a genetically engineered biological solution.

We thank you for your cooperation.

You're right. I'm sorry.

Lets unload some genetically engineered corn in the supermarkets around the midwest. And the south. And Texas.

Monsato will be happy to oblige.

As a non-farmer, I was hoping that Vitalogy would have listed some of the subsidies he was talking about.

Roads? I think this somewhat of a stretch because people other than just farmers drive on rural roads. However, I don't have any problem with the idea of the government building and maintaing surface streets and rural routes.

Rural electrification? I could see this being a goverment service to farmers that people easily take for granted. I hope that I don't get too many "Libertarian points" taken away for saying that I can understand why governmentally chartered organizations would have taken the initiative to build out power lines and the associated infrastructure in remote areas. The cost of building the power lines would have been too high to justify the slow rate of return due to the low population density of the users.

hmmm. You really think that? You would really want to see millions of people die?

Your new name is Adolph


Mr. Hitler to you little man....
Are Mid Westerners Jewish???

Trixter, is 62 sharing his drugs with you?

Mr Hitler?

Wow. That was completly stupid but to follow it up with asking if people in the midwest are Jewish takes the crown.

"Your new name is Adolph


Mr. Hitler to you little man....
Are Mid Westerners Jewish???"


Apparently not the sharpest tool in the shed.

As far as subsidies and farms go, here's what I was talking about: Direct payments not to farm, price floors, and property tax reductions.

OK, I can see how that last one might be difficult for a farmer to ascertain, unless he were to research tax rates in his area for non-farm use of land. The first, I believe, we just have to take Deane at his word that his parents were never paid to refrain from growing crops.

I respect Deane's accomplishments and ambitions. I'm not trying to knock him in any way. Moreover, as he is considerably older than I am, I believe that some humility is in order on my part.

This thread has gotten into extremism. There will always be government help for people. Building a concrete road to drive on is government help. Fireman putting out your house fire is government help.

I'm not talking about a total absence. I'm talking about the liberal goal of getting everyone hooked on government help so the government can control people's lives.

We need to be teaching the young and the disadvantaged that getting out and solving your own issues is the best approach, not applying for food stamps. Government help should be for the truly disadvantaged. There are people born with debilitating illness that truly need the help of others.

Building a society dependent on the government is a society destined not to survive.

Health care is currently one of our biggest issues. There are those who want the government to just provide free health care. And, sadly, that could be where Obama tries to take us.

No question, we need health care reform. But what we need is every effort for cost control, including an end to the ridiculous lawsuit awards by emotional juries, as a first step. Then, we need a system wherein everyone can purchase health insurance. It should not be based on employment. It should be independent of one's job. We shouldn't provide unlimited health care for the poor as we do now, but rather pay or help with their premiums, but subject them to the same rules as everyone else. Do you know that Medicaid patients get better health care than someone with commercial insurance? Much better. Hospitals look upon Medicaid as a license to print money.

Trouble is, we're not starting on this, then if we do it will be extremism. The solution lies not in a bipartisan effort, but rather in a non-partisan effort. It needs to be based on what is workable, not what the extreme right or left think.

I'm not anti-government help. I am anti-government providing cradle to grave socialism. Russia tried that. I guess it's OK if you like standing in long lines.

" I'm talking about the liberal goal of getting everyone hooked on government help so the government can control people's lives. "

Nobody wants this! I don't want this.

"We need to be teaching the young and the disadvantaged that getting out and solving your own issues is the best approach, not applying for food stamps."

Absolutely true!! In fact, that's how I grew up, and it's saved my ass countless times. In this spend to solve problems world we live in today, the lack of individual problem solving, and lack of value perception for simple labor --and skilled labor is very worrysome.

"Hospitals look upon Medicaid as a license to print money."

And that program operates at about 6 percent for administrative overhead. That gives it, being a non-profit deal, a 20 percent advantage over for-profit insurance companies.

What we need to do here, is remove the profit motive from access to health care, and emphasize it on actually delivering the care.

A single payer system will strip out the administrative costs, yielding a cost advantage right out of the gate.

From there, we set firm cost expectations, and empower the hospitals to work to meet those costs.

Insurance, for those so inclined can be an add on to the government baseline care program we all pay for. I can think of a hundred value adds that private insurers could provide. Let them profit from actually ADDING value, not by being the gate keepers.

We have more common ground here than you think.

When I say "strong social safety net", I don't mean entitlemtents that are so great as to remove the incentive to get out there and work. Nobody wants that, but the lazy.

What I mean is cutting risk. This increases freedom, and allows ordinary people to TAKE ON RISK and some DEBT TO BUILD BUSINESS, INNOVATE, and ADD VALUE to things for profit.

Most employment in this nation is through small business. Just the way I like it, actually!

Lower their risk, and you will see those smaller businesses compete better. Lower their costs, and health care is a huge cost, by distributing those things that make sense widely, and you will see them compete even more, and make those investments necessary to build good business that endures.

What gets confused here is semantics and propaganda. What I just outlined, and what you just wrote about Deane, is a fairly centrist, if not leaning left idea on how to deal with things.

Note, I never said free health care. What I support is SINGLE PAYER health care. Get rid of all but luxery insurance, and take that cost savings, which is billions actually, and apply it directly to the problem of providing care, not providing access to it.

Access costs are our biggest drain. Uninsured risk is our second biggest drain.

Eliminate both, and we save huge, doing nothing else.

So then, build on that with strong incentives to build out and improve delivering care, not profiting from ACCESS to care.

Deane, you make some good points. Unfortunately they get buried or lost in your "libs", "liberals", "lefties" rhetoric.

You are always telling us what "liberals" think and want. You are stereotyping and labeling.

That's wrong, no matter which side it comes from.

Missing, so the conversation can continue, define a couple of things for me.

single payer - who is that, where do they get the money

basic insurance - what does it cover, where does the money come from.

luxury insurance - what does it cover, where does the money come from (premiums, I would assume)

Warner, I'm not ashamed of my political views. I take it most libs are?

I don't care what your views are because you're entitled to them, however, you should be ashamed of the way you generalize. When you do that, anything you say becomes white noise.

Single Payer =

Uncle Sam handles the money. Each person, who buys a policy, pays to Uncle Sam. I think medicare offered to everyone is the easiest deal, but I would not be opposed to something like the Post Office, that runs as it's own entity.

There are lots of options here, but the core idea is that we take all the administrative costs, capture economies of scale, and run the premiums through that entity.

Insurers run 26 percent or so, just in their overhead. Medicare runs 5-7. (I hear different numbers) Given the average company wants / needs a 20 percent profit to be viable, it's clear to me, private insurers are a net loss as things currently stand.

Said entity would operate as a non-profit. And it would see reviews every year to insure dollars paid are as close as is practical to it's operating dollars. We measure that in terms of percent of dollars consumed by said entity to control growth.

4 percent, probably too lean. Underserving everybody. 10 percent? Probably too fat, etc...

A secondary requirement then would be to consolidate a care incident under one billing as much as is possible. This would minimize the number of people having to collect and administer money, for a further savings.

A private doctor, running solo in a practice has to have about 3-5 people supporting that effort, with 2 of them being administrative.

Single pay gets rid of that, freeing up a lot of dollars for the doctor. That doctor makes more, can serve more, can make investments to build or improve the practice, etc...

Basic Insurance =

Strong emphasis on preventative care. Access to qualified medical professionals on a preventative basis pays huge returns. We want people nipping health problems before they grow into that very expensive emergency room visit.

Affordable dental, vision, major medical, supplies, would be a great start. Actually, the current level of coverage offered by medicare, perhaps with some minor league co-pays to discourage abuse, would be a good baseline.

Under this umbrella, we could then also reconsider how we do some things.

Where a Pharmisist can do a test, or administer some basic thing, they can add to their services and do so, freeing people from office visits where the disease and treatments are just stone cold simple.

Expand use of medical assistants, nurse practicioners and other specialized, but not full on doctor, types. They engage in the preventative stuff heavy.

Both of these things are aimed right at taking the load off of doctors, and capturing those willing to enter the industry as quickly as possible. We need more of these kinds of people, and they can get into service quicker than doctors can.

We need doctors too, of course, but you get the idea.

Triage:

Not everybody needs it right away. So then we do that. This frees people and resources up to focus on those sick / injured people as quickly as possible, further making the best use of the care provider structure we have.

Luxery Insurance

Cosmetics, life style kinds of things, rapid no matter what access, no co-pay access, etc...

IMHO, this could be extended some to incorporate alternative medicine too. Let the private companies band together and offer health related offerings, as well as straight up value adds to the basic, necessary coverage everybody needs.

Frankly, I think gym, yoga, actupuncture, herbal, naturalopathic, and other things could be tied into a a luxery plan for a very nice value add.

From a corporate stand point, a lot of up-sell opportunities exist there too. Why not?

Provide a means where luxery insurers can tap into the single pay system for a rider, if people want it. This improves their cost, and allows companies to profit from the economies of scale. I believe in profit for luxery items, and the selling that goes with that.

Permitting access insures there is a path for that to happen, and for private companies to add value and offer choice, without having those two things drain away the cost savings a single pay plan would bring us.

No selling on this one though. Private insurers, adding value, do that on their own. Somebody signing up for insurance on the single pay system, would notify them of the additional rider, and then they pay for it through that source.

Sort of like how a phone company will take the billing for something else.

Have a provision where if the person falls on hard times, not paying the rider is an option. We don't want people falling through the cracks because of that.

Non-citizens could pay for the luxery option as well. Say you are here for a few months, and want to access the system. Let private companies make that money, feeding back the pro-rated premium dollars back to the single pay entity. Allow a discount on this, to be absorbed in the citizen premium (and seriously, this might cost us all a few dollars, big deal!), so that the pass through nets the luxery insurer a few bucks for the trouble.

Those are along the lines I was thinking.




If it were me, I would add an annual review process to sort out treatments, their cost / value proposition, and set metrics each year so that the baseline coverage costs make sense and do not tax the care providers. This also would somewhat limit the current trend of marginalizing perfectly effective, but no longer patentable treatments, in favor of new, highly profitable ones that have dubious benefits over the tried and true.

This is important because then the incentive to really make money in health care science would be more focused on value adds and real innovation, not tweaks.

I left out how they get the money.

I'm actually wide open here. Everything from a straight up pre-tax payroll deduction (which is what I would prefer as that is what I do now basically), to rider fees on various things, a tax if we want to go the free route, to a monthly payment. Don't care, so long as those dollars are directed toward the health care ONLY.

One thing Medicare and Mediaid don't address is the need for treatment. It's an open checkbook. The administrative costs may be low, but that's because nobody is watching the store. Administrative is low, claims are high.

Commercial insurance questions everything.

By the way, Medicare Part D (prescription) is a mess technically. Companies decide which meds they want to include. Believe me, it's a mess.

It's not all that hard do fix the "open checkbook" deal.

That is exactly why I included the annual review in my post. These things can be assessed and handled rationally.

And commercial insurance questions everything because their goal is not good care, or even the right care. It's the least care, for the most dollars.

If we had a single pay system, we then could set metrics about GOOD or RIGHT care, and appropriate dollars. Very different ball game there.

The economies of scale, AND the administrative cost savings could both be captured.

I can't stand Part D. They messed that up HUGE. That's a perfect example of HOW NOT TO DO THINGS.

IMHO, that's just a giveaway to the private insurers, who profit by exclusion, and paitent churn every year, just like they mostly do outside the Medicare scene.

Edit: Also, moving to a triage based system would better address need for treatment as there would be more than one assessment before serious dollars are spent in all but emergency situations.

Missing, one of the first hurdles to your plan is not health care or paying for it, it's putting a bunch of insurance companies out of business. That doesn't bother me, but it will probably bother them to the point of one massive lobbying effort.

No shit.

Wanna join me on the phones?

(serious)

The first thing that has to happen is someone in Congress has to offer a bill to be considered.

Wyden is a pretty good guy. Here's his chance.

I'm not ashamed of my views either. But I don't lace everything with stereotyping and name calling. That's all I'm saying. Try just putting forth your own views without that and see if people listen a bit more.

Just a suggestion.

BTW- You are so right about Med Part D. Working through it with my mother was like walking through a dense jungle at night with a blindfold on. How are elderly folks supposed to navigate through that?

"Edit: Also, moving to a triage based system would better address need for treatment as there would be more than one assessment before serious dollars are spent in all but emergency situations."

I find that scary. I still want to be able to make my own determination after consulting with my doctor(s). I don't like committees.

I have a little more time the past couple of days to read and digest the posts... staying home from the office because I came down with a cold and with all of the information about the swine flu I didn't want to be spreading germs around the office (no matter how often you wash your hands and make sure to cough and sneeze into your sleeve, there is still a good chance to contibute to the illness of another ... which is definitely "not cool" these days). This is the first day that I really felt like spending any time looking at a computer screen -- yesterday I slept all day).

Deane and Missing... I think the degree to which you have some to a true consensus position on this issue is amazing. I would tend to agree with Deane's note that the biggest stumbling block is how the health insurance industry will reaction to having the golden goose slaughtered. Maybe allowing the private industry to bid to operate the system would keep the administrative cost low and allow the industry to transition to the new business environment.

"Deane and Missing... I think the degree to which you have some to a true consensus position on this issue is amazing."


Edust1958, it ranks almost up there with the amazing fact that a black man has been elected President of the United States. Anything can happen.

---

quote:

"Edit: Also, moving to a triage based system would better address need for treatment as there would be more than one assessment before serious dollars are spent in all but emergency situations."

I find that scary. I still want to be able to make my own determination after consulting with my doctor(s). I don't like committees.

---

Uncle Sam handles the money. Each person, who buys a policy, pays to Uncle Sam.
and
Everything from a straight up pre-tax payroll deduction

These are fine as long as they are optional. And from your statement, it seems to me that's the way you envision it since you say "each person who buys a policy"

If I'm working for an employer that pays 100% of my premium (and some still do although it is becoming scarce) then I don't want to be forced into "government" insurance.

Or, if I'm paying part of my premium and the coverage is better than what the government offers for the same money, I don't want theirs under those conditions either.

It does need fixing and there sure as heck is no simple solution.

I predict 24 months at least before anything is implemented.

Right now there are just too many fingers in the pie (pronounced Insurance Lobby) to make it easy. Just look what they did with seatbelts. Now you can get a ticket for driving without wearing it. ALL courtesy of the insurance companies.

Wow, what a FABULOUS discussion this turned out to be. AN issue of interest to all, well thought plan, input, and strong agreement with only the minor things to pick over.

The med discussion was deserving of it's own thread, then printed and mailed off to the appropriate house committee!

Hats off to the participants on this one!

Yeah Skybill, optional.

We are not in a position to just tactically nuke the insurance companies and roll out NAHCS. (National American Health Care Service)

Competition is good, and some transitory time is good.

So then, we setup the government offering, and it very quickly becomes the baseline. If that offering has the metrics and checks I outlined, it would then serve to also set some firm cost expectations.

Gouging would stop, because there would be no gain for it, as there would be an alternative ready and willing to provide the care. Insurers know they have lock in.

I ABSOLUTELY HATE LOCK IN. If we are to be entrepnural, American, Innovative, competetive, then by god, we don't permit LOCK IN. Every single time I see LOCK IN, I see people getting hosed.

And let's be human about that. If any of us had the LOCK IN, wouldn't we just pull the lever and squeeze some extra cash just because? I would! I'm not gonna lie. I would pull that lever and pull it hard, then use the money to make sure I was set!

That's the biggest incentive for a government offering. Right now, those clowns are pulling the lever, over and over and over! And when we get pissed, or fall through the cracks, they just pull it again, when we sign up with somebody else. That sucks.

I kind of like the idea that we have a private company bid to run the entity. That could be very interesting, but it would have to be regulated profit wise. The profit they could expect from the core service offering would be like a bank profit is supposed to be. Consistent, not sexy, and equitable. So I'm open to this, but I would pitch the following as a better alternative:

I seriously think the better path is to run the baseline non-profit, with the metrics, so that we capture the economies, set care and cost expectations that we all can live with, and provide that billing / admin service access for those wanting to add value.

The value added luxury insurance is where the good dollars are at. I want to see those actually! Are you a veggie? Exercise nut? Naturopathic? Green? Selfish? Important? Pressed for time? Want health care to be fun? Sexy?

Yeah, we've got the coverage for you right here. Your modest NAHCS rider comes with the following additional benefits:

-no co-pay anywhere!

-billing aggragation! We do the paperwork so you don't have to.

-10 percent discount at the following healthy establishments [insert lifestyle / demo group here].

-x hours of access to our quality Gym

-and it goes on and on!

People, who have some money above and beyond the baseline will absolutely sign on to that stuff, and they will really like it. Bet the companies make a killing, just like they do now, but the difference will be in that they are adding value for that profit instead of denying care for that profit!

...and Joe the Plumber, making 30K / year can afford to keep his kids healthy, see the dentist, get glasses and other things that most 30K / year people are not able to do, without working two jobs, wife working, etc...

So then, we have the transitory time where the private insurers either figure out how to profit along-side the baseline non-profit offering, (which won't happen), or they move their services over to the value added side of the thing, build that out and perhaps continue to exist just fine, after a few of them are weeded out.

That's perhaps the nicest way we can do it.

I would love to just legislate them away. I don't like health care insurers. But, I do feel for the people making their living there. Can't blame most of them for it.

Somebody has to do it right?

So then, set the stage for it to happen and let market and social pressures compel it to happen in an organic way.

Employers can transition over too. A whole lot of them are just gonna shift to the baseline plan. But, it won't cost what your private deal does now, so paying a delta to keep coverage isn't going to be a big deal, particularly when you consider the 20 percent disadvantage we all have right now.

Private insurance takes 20 percent right out of every dollar and does NOTHING for it, but profit. That's ok to do, don't get me wrong. But it does not make sense in this instance.

Let them get the 20 percent value added, not acting as a gateway.

Bottom line is that I can totally see how this can happen without significantly impacting people that have coverage. That's a big deal. I've got damn good coverage (now), and don't think I don't wonder about that changing if we go down this road. I do.

What I don't want to see is some bastardized Medicare part D deal that's just a lip service, clusterfuck so the good old boys and girls network on the hill feels good about it.

(I'm gonna write this thread up and send it to a few legislators)