[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

1. Government Health Care: You say it should be provided for minors who can't afford it, etc. Scottw says it already is. You say the Gov. should work to make it more affordable rather than universal. I don't see the LOGIC in the Gov. working to make it more affordable. Logically, the private sector must make its services and products affordable or they cease to exist. Furthermore, the Gov. working on behalf of some people at the expense of others, without constitutional authority, no matter how noble, IS liberal, not logical.

As far as more affordable goes, health care is at the most affordable level when it must be payed for by all, or the great majority, OUT OF POCKET. Insurance, private or public, that covers the majority of clients RAISES the price. The health insurance plans that began to blossom in this country in the 1920's were very attractive at the time. The insured groups were relatively small and the totality of clients was a small percentage of the population. So the cost of care was still based on the majority's ability to pay. As the insurance idea caught on, more groups followed suit, companies even used health insurance as a benefit to attract employees, so that, I believe, by the 1960s more were insured than not. By the latter twentieth century the vast majority were under some plan. The cost of health care was now totally driven by the big pockets of the insurance companies, not the little pockets of individuals. Insurance became the CAUSE of high medical costs, not an answer on how to "fix" the problem. Insurance premiums steadily rose to cover the costs that insurance created. Transferring the burden of insuring clients from the private sector to the Gov. may place the latter in the same position of, say, G.M., which became insolvent largely due to the onerous cost of health care and pension plans. The only ways the Gov. can lower costs is to remove some free market forces and reduce service and quality. The vaunted role of big money pouring into the medical arena to create the wonders of modern medicine may be a bit exagerated, though not wholly so. Medical discoveries occured without it. The currently faster pace may not be due solely to the influx of money, but as well to the natural compression of time as civilization and science advance. Certainly, much pharmaceutical advancement extends the latter decade of life with handfulls of expensive pills so that we have the paradox of legally aborting well over 40 million potentially vibrant lives since Roe v. Wade, while at the same time extending the last decade (with the accompanying pain and physical infirmity) of a like number of non-productive senior citizens.

I vote Liberal not logical on number 1.

You're ignoring the reason we have insurance in the first place. If everybody had a strong cash position and could absorb catastrophic bills, sure, we could let competition lower prices.

Unfortunately this isn't very realistic.

That's not to say that insurance isn't part of the problem, it certainly is, but you haven't proved his position "not logical" at all. All you've done is argue in theory that had pure free market principals been allowed to shape our present health care system from it's inception that it would be different.

As for constitutionality, this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. If a state government wishes to change it's constitution to provide health care, it could be quite constitutional and I'm sure you would argue still liberal.

You score RIROCKHOUND a liberal yet nearly all who label themselves a liberal (less than 20% of the US) are for a single payer system which he clearly states isn't necessary.

Sounds like his position is in the mainstream and very logical.

2. "improve" local school . . .as scottw pointed out it was a Kennedy bill, appointed and signed by Bush as a non-partisan gesture.

You say we need more work to improve thinking. Nature already provides that. Good genes, good food and lifestyle and repeated use of the brain. Use it or lose it. There are no magic Gov. buttons that can be pushed, certainly not indoctrination. Using clear, concrete diction can be taught. Though thinking can be expressed in other ways, language is the most common way of developing and expressing your thoughts. A common language facilitates communication. The old fashioned readin, ritin, & rithmatic provided a good basis to develop common and scientific languages. Have various progressive teaching methods improved the cognitive ability of new generations? Your lament seems to indicate not.

You say there should be more incentives to hire the best possible teachers. The best incentive is a desire to teach. Imbue admiration for teaching. Portray it,constantly, as a noble proffesion, not as a job. Money, beyond comfort, should NOT be an incentive for publically funded teaching. Inordinate salaries would attract those who value the money more, or solely, above the desire to teach. The contract rhetoric of salaries commensurate with industry in order to hire the best and brightest is an insult to those already in the profession. Such rhetoric "concedes" that current teachers are NOT the best and brightest. Worse, raising salaries would not result in mass firing of incompetents or run-of-the-mill to make room for the supposed influx of better mettle. They would all stay on, receiving the raises, with no concurrant raise in quality--same old show, just more expensive tickets. And "industry" would correspondingly raise salaries to continue to get the pick of the litter--all just an illogical inflationary exercise. This 3 year contract dance has occured several times since the coincidence of the 1960's great societal "investment" in education and the unionization of teachers. To a great extent, teaching has become labor intensive to the detriment of its pedagogic mission.

All sounds liberal, not logical.

This is more of a mindless rant than an assessment of his position.

RIROCKHOUND clearly advocates:

1) Limits on Federal intrusion on local school systems
2) Emphasis on critical thinking
3) Unfettered access to private education
4) Performance based pay contrary to the existing union standards

All sounds like something I'd hear from a conservative.

3. Salary caps. Being sickened by someone making millions while his clients are losing money is an emotional response, not a logical one. Logically, you would determine why it happened, was it legal, what role both parties played, what can be done, IF NECESSARY, to prevent it, etc. Emotional responses are definitely in the domain of liberals, although . . . conservatives would react similarly to this, but only in that tiny, pre-civilized appendage of liberalism that lurks in the deepest cavern of their mean-spirited soul.

Definitely liberal not logical.

It's a completely logical response when excesses are often gained by unethical or illegal means. In the financial sector it's certainly possible to make money while your clients loose (via transactional fees) but to see large gains usually requires your customers to be successful as well. We have had numerous events in the past few years of just the opposite which have led to exposed corruption or regulatory need. The lack of oversight for credit default swaps is a perfect example.

The simple fact is that the general public, unless they go to cash, has little influence with the top executives who have free reign to play with the tens of trillions of notional dollars floating through the system. There is a lack of implicit trust that the people expect the government to back fill via reasonable regulations.

Not liberal, just logical.

5. Abortion. You say it "should ABSOLUTELY be a women's right to choose, period." Even the abomination of partial birth abortion? It's never been explained how delivering a live birth might, in some rare instance, endanger the woman's life, but delivering it dead, KILLING it, removes the threat. Talk about sickening. This procedure sickens me far, FAR more than #3.

Absolutely liberal.

According to the last polling only about 21% of Americans believe abortion shouldn't be permitted. RIROCKHOUND's statement is really just stating the obvious. Most Americans believe abortion should be available in some form, and to be for some abortion doesn't mean you're for all forms of abortion all of the time.

Believing in the right of a woman to control her body is more mainstream than liberal. Only a small segment of the fringe left believes in unfettered abortion.

Your focus on partial birth abortion is an emotional argument more than a logical one, as doctors do say there are legitimate reasons for the procedure in some circumstances.

As by your own teachings I've learned that liberals are driven by emotion over logic, I'd have to say that you are the liberal on this one.

-spence