What We Are Contending For

2009 September 1
by MFG

An excellent summary

From NTCNews.com

72 Responses leave one →
  1. 2009 September 1 10:59 pm
    [1]
    aureliusx permalink

    Nobody will remember what freedom was like.

    Our grandkids won’t even understand the concept.

  2. 2009 September 1 11:59 pm
    [2]
    conservativetony permalink

    When the grandkids have grandkids of their own, they will study the past and they will know who lost their freedoms–we did. Some of them will grow up to be leaders, teachers, scientists, etc., and they will teach others where our generation went wrong and let the greatest nation on Earth slip through our fingers.

    They will be able to point to some of the warriors of the past and maybe even get some of the warriors’ great-grandkids to speak of how valliantly the warriors fought–even when those people the warriors were fighting for tried to destroy them as they would destroy their most fiercest enemy. There will be papers and ancient photos of the long-dead patriots; kept hidden from goverment officials, lest they be burned like any other unapproved material.

    The children, when the guards are not within earshot, will ask many questions of the old and wise about what it was like. . . back then. However, they must be careful, because to be caught talking of the old times ends in harsh punishment–loss of food rations. Most children will begin forced interment in one of the state education camps by the time they are old enough to walk. There will be many camps the people must attend until their deaths.

    Some will be decreed by the goverment to have a right to live longer than others. Although this will seem unjust to the young, the burden of a long life will be the only link to past to the rest of the collective. Their stories will be told and retold throughout the years about a place that existed long ago. A place called America.

  3. 2009 September 2 12:07 am
    [3]
    aureliusx permalink

    Conservativetony for the win.

    well done.

    I hope to be one who made my descendants proud.

  4. 2009 September 2 1:59 am
    [4]
    Sharp2edgedsword permalink

    Returning powers to the states would accomplish several positive things:

    1. Divisive social issues could be handled at the state level, letting red states act red and blue states blue
    2. Allow the states to be incubators and testing grounds for ideas. Currently, the contrasts between Texas and California couldn’t be more stark. Texas has created 1/2 of all new jobs while California is going bankrupt.
    3. Reduce corruption as the powers would be spread out into a greater number of people, making it harder for large corporations and other interest groups to buy influence by paying off just a few senators and key congresscritter commitee chairman.
    4. A decetralized government makes the federal government weaker thus making a totalitarian government that would take away our freedoms much more unlikely.

  5. 2009 September 2 2:21 am
    [5]
    Sharp2edgedsword permalink

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt66eWnjoTo&feature=player_embedded

    Obama’s Communist Green Czar calls republicans as*holes

    These are the people Obama picks as leaders ?

    What does that say about Obama ?

  6. 2009 September 2 3:06 am
    [6]
    Sharp2edgedsword permalink

    new contract for America

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/09/01/the-new-contract-with-america/

    good stuff. I think we can make it even better that the above.

  7. 2009 September 2 4:17 am
    [7]

    “When the grandkids have grandkids of their own, they will study the past and they will know who lost their freedoms–we did.” TONY

    The only “past” that they will be allowed to study, will be that approved by the minister of re education.Having never known “freedom”, it will become a novel concept without real meannig to them. It will be one big happy animal farm.

  8. 2009 September 2 4:42 am
    [8]

    Hot air new contract:

    A good start, but a major flaw in one spot “Let people have “insurance” for catastrophes” .

    I assume the author meant to let the gubmint provide (have) these goodies. This is just another attempt to sugar coat the dog turd of national health insurance. How about let them buy their own insurance catastrophic or otherwise.

    If we must have a safety net of some kind, let it be minimal on the state level, not start down the same old slippery slope of federal nose under the tent bravo sierra.

    Once a generation of sheeple have become affixed to the gubmint tit,
    it is a near impossibility to remove them.
    The only thing that might bring this brave new world of the socialist state to it’s knees, would be a full blown depression,wiping out the economy, and the funds needed to continue supporting the folly.

    We will be hung upon the petard of our own human nature~~~the never ending desire to live at the others expense. We have seen the enemy, and it be us. Screw us.

  9. 2009 September 2 5:23 am
    [9]
    Sharp2edgedsword permalink

    the contract is missing federalism, and drill baby drill, term limits-among other things

  10. 2009 September 2 5:25 am
    [10]
    Sharp2edgedsword permalink

    what’s missing at this site is liberals to argue with

  11. 2009 September 2 5:44 am
    [11]

    what’s missing at this site is liberals to argue with~~~sword

    The Samurai swordsmiths had a technique of tempering their swords in the bodies of prisoners during their manufacture. We need some sacrificial lemmings upon which to do the same. We can never change their warped little minds, but it allows us to sharpen our own rapiers.

    WBS

  12. 2009 September 2 6:10 am
    [12]
    Sharp2edgedsword permalink

    I’ll see what I can do

  13. 2009 September 2 6:19 am
    [13]
    phineas gage permalink

    Just put down some trollbait.

    Or try some spinner lures.

  14. 2009 September 2 6:20 am
    [14]
    knova permalink

    8 – I got hammered at the other place for my views on insurance. My father is the retired CFO of a hospital. Of their billings about 10% is pro bono and 25 to 35% is bad debt. The costs from these get shifted to those with insurance and those without it who can pay. He told me the story of a guy who retired two years before he was to get Medicare, then played chicken with his health instead of buying insurance. He did buy a $42,000 SUV with cash. Then he had a a heart attack. $150,000 in bills. My dad collected what he could but the rest was shifted.

    I have no problem with the gubmint mandating that everyone have some form of catastrophic insurance, say covering everything above $50,000. People would be able to pay for anything less than that with savings or another type of insurance. I have been told that this is a “tax” on the young to support the old. When I asked what to do about the 25 year old with no insurance and $200,000 in bills from an accident, for which they have no money, I was told bankruptcy. What does that do for someone with no assets other than let them off the hook to start over and leave someone else with the bills. Which is where we are now.

    It would be great if we said, don’t treat those who can’t pay, but that is not going to happen and all of us know it. Any mandated insurance would have to be priced in accordance with age and physical condition (i.e. the young and health pay less than those who are older and/or with chronic illnesses.) Health insurance mandates would be just like the insurance (or barring that a state pool) that is a requirement in all states to drive.

    This was a great article. Most people hammered me because it was posted by a troll (not me) and came from a left leaning magazine. Judging by their comments no one read it.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

  15. 2009 September 2 6:33 am
    [15]

    Health insurance mandates would be just like the insurance (or barring that a state pool) that is a requirement in all states to drive.~~KNOVA

    Big glaring difference. Car insurance is to protect the other guy from your negligence. Health insurance is to protect yourself. We have enough of big brother trying to “protect” us, and we need no more federal or state mandates.

    If they don’t pay their bills ???~~~well ,there’s always soylent green in their future.

  16. 2009 September 2 6:40 am
    [16]
    knova permalink

    15-You know and I know that is not going to happen. As I said yesterday as much as I love Ayn Rand we do not live in a black and white, pure right or pure wrong world. It is gray and has colors. I don’t want to pay for someone who is gaming the system.

    Here is a scenario. Your well insured self is off hiking in the woods and attacked by a liberal. Comatose and burned over 90% of your body (after all they are a FLAMING liberal) with no identification, you are taken to a hospital. Should the hospital take its chances and treat you or is it soylent green (the well done variety) for you?

  17. 2009 September 2 6:41 am
    [17]
    phineas gage permalink

    But isn’t the ‘other guy’, i.e. all the rest of us, stuck with the bill for those who are irresponsible and don’t buy insurance?

    I don’t want any government mandates, but I think people not choosing to buy health insurance should have to sign a waiver, accepting the consequences of their actions.

  18. 2009 September 2 6:48 am
    [18]

    Should the hospital take its chances and treat you or is it soylent green (the well done variety) for you?~~~knova

    Your scenario is flawed.

    1) Said flaming liberal would be dead meat for the bears if he attacks me.

    2) If burned over 90% of the body, I wouldn’t want to live. Soylent green here I come.

  19. 2009 September 2 6:49 am
    [19]
    knova permalink

    17 – I am not saying that it is perfect. There will be people who don’t buy the insurance, so when they are well put them in jail for a while, fine them garnish what little wages they have. Whether or not someone signs a waiver, if they show up to the ER in distress they are going to get treated and that costs money.

  20. 2009 September 2 6:53 am
    [20]
    knova permalink

    18-You are avoiding the premise of the question. Let’s say it is a liberal, pro-gun, MMA fighter. She leaves you bleeding and comatose on death’s door. Given treatment you will live to be 100, but the nasty liberal stole your identification. On top of that you have been in the woods for a week, so you look and smell like a homelsss person.

    Now try it.

  21. 2009 September 2 6:55 am
    [21]
    phineas gage permalink

    I agree with your perspective, knova. There should be a reasonable solution to this.

    Nevertheless, that is not what is driving costs out of control. The vast majority of health care expenditures are for the elderly, and as the boomers enter the golden years, Medicare and Medicaid entitlements are exploding and will soon bankrupt the nation.

  22. 2009 September 2 6:56 am
    [22]

    Why we will lose in afgannyland

  23. 2009 September 2 7:08 am
    [23]

    If all of that crap happened to me in post 20, I have the means to pay my own bills,that’s what I would do.

    Mandating health insurance still doesn’t solve the
    problem of who pays. If these people can’t for financial reasons pay for said insurance, who will. The answer is obvious, you will.

    You can’t get 9 pounds of crap out of a 7 pound sack.If the basket cases don’t have the money for insurance,it will ultimately come out of your own pocket. Private insurance is just another form of collectivism. Gubmint mandated or paid for insurance is collectivism with an iron fist. Choose your poison.

  24. 2009 September 2 7:08 am
    [24]
    knova permalink

    “Nevertheless, that is not what is driving costs out of control. The vast majority of health care expenditures are for the elderly, and as the boomers enter the golden years, Medicare and Medicaid entitlements are exploding and will soon bankrupt the nation.”

    That I agree with. Tort reform and having juries that actually understand the medical industry as opposed to those who think a jury trial is a lottery for the plaintiff, could reduce awards and defensive medicine. But it is true that the lions share of costs for a person are in the last 6 months of their life, hence BHO’s death panels.

    I don’t know what you do about that.

  25. 2009 September 2 7:10 am
    [25]
    knova permalink

    “If all of that crap happened to me in post 20, I have the means to pay my own bills,that’s what I would do.”

    But the hospital would not know that. They would be taking that you could pay to treat you.

  26. 2009 September 2 7:18 am
    [26]
    JustMary permalink

    Big glaring difference. Car insurance is to protect the other guy from your negligence. Health insurance is to protect yourself.

    Also, driving is a privledge, not a right. If you want to drive a car, you have to pay to play. There are plenty of other ways to get around town. Insurance rates would go down though if it wasn’t necessary to cover the illegals who don’t buy insurance, but that is what uninsured motorist is. Gee….why does that sound familiar? Rates higher to cover those who cannot pay?

  27. 2009 September 2 7:22 am
    [27]
    knova permalink

    Mary – If healthcare is a right as opposed to a privilege then we should get it regardless of whether or not we can pay. If only those who can afford it get it then life is a privilege as opposed to a right.

  28. 2009 September 2 7:28 am
    [28]
    JustMary permalink

    I was in a major accident at 21. My daughter was nearly killed, and it left me with broken bones. She had severe head injuries. I had just gotten health insurance the month before. Her hospital bill was well over 1mil, whereas mine was I think 400k. I want to say I was paying around 150/mo for the coverage I had, which meant I gave up some things, cut my phone service to basic, dropped the tv package to basic, etc. Oh well though, my boss didn’t cover medical. W/o the medical coverage I had, I would have filed bankruptcy and because the laws were less crappy at the time, would have eventually gotten my credit back and could have escaped the financial ruin. Who would have covered that? The tax payer. I think that is why bankruptcy laws were changed.

    But guess what- I did have the coverage, because I knew it was important to have. I found where I was spending too much, and cut it. Not to be judgemental or anything, but I’ll betcha we can find more than a few of those howevermany millions w/o insurance who have premium cable, or nice cars, or something they could honestly give up if they really wanted the insurance. More on this in a few….

  29. 2009 September 2 7:30 am
    [29]
    JustMary permalink

    Crap- I didn’t mean it that way, 27. Healthcare is not a right…..but no…not only the rich should have it. Which is why it makes me laugh to hear how the Congress critters won’t take the public option they are insisting will be the awesomest thing evah for the little people.

  30. 2009 September 2 7:38 am
    [30]
    knova permalink

    Mary – 10 years ago I had cancer, my wife had other medical issues. I own my own business, so up until yesterday when my wife got insurance through her new employer I had a high deductable and HSA family policy. Checking Quickbooks, I paid $81,000 over the last 7 years and put over 20,000 into the HSA to cover deductibles. I never wanted to be without it and did what I had to to get it. You can bet that when I had things like a colonoscopy or my kid needed an MRI on her knee I asked for the costs up front and shopped round. In all that time I only met my deductible once. Insurance negotiated lower prices for me.

    That is my main reason for wanting everyone who can afford it to have insurance. I did my responsible part and so should they.

  31. 2009 September 2 7:39 am
    [31]
    conservativetony permalink

    If it wasn’t for the stupid patient’s need of expensive medicine and medical treatment the government-run healthcare plans would work as intended–bringing in more money to the government.

    Here’s how Obama sees our healthcare industry:

    Stupid pharmaceuticals are spending money to create expensive drugs, then selling the drug at an expensive cost. Stupid doctors, after years of expensive training, prescribe the expensive drugs, and want to get paid for thier services. Stupid surgeons who went through even more expensive training are performing expensive operations requiring even more expensive drugs, and they want to get paid even more for their services. Stupid insurance companies are providing a package deal of services of the stupid doctors, the stupid drug companies, and the stupid surgeons and they require payment for their stupid work, too.

    These people are just too stupid to realize they should be doing their work for free.

  32. 2009 September 2 7:40 am
    [32]
    JustMary permalink

    Without creating some long stoopid bill that no one will read…..why can’t they make changes first and slowly fix the system? Perhaps I am naive here…..but why can’t they experiment with tort reform first? Yanno 😉 just to see.

    Then the next step and the next….

  33. 2009 September 2 7:47 am
    [33]
    JustMary permalink

    That is my main reason for wanting everyone who can afford it to have insurance. I did my responsible part and so should they.

    I agree with you here, because I felt the same way.

  34. 2009 September 2 7:50 am
    [34]
    knova permalink

    “but why can’t they experiment with tort reform first? ”

    Besides AA, who are the Dems most reliable constituency? Trial lawyers perhaps.

    BTW I appreciate your answer in 29. Just as we don’t need a complete overhaul of the medical industry under the government, the answers are not as simple as only those who can pay get treatment. The Atlantic article that I linked is actually pretty well written and goes over some of the problems and their solutions. For the record the author advocates government run catastrophic insurance, which I am against.

  35. 2009 September 2 7:51 am
    [35]
    conservativetony permalink

    Because they are too stupid to actually fix the healthcare problems.

    It all started when some stupid Liberals wanted more control, so they recruited another stupid Liberal to run as their stupid leader. . . .

    . . . . and here we sit.

  36. 2009 September 2 7:54 am
    [36]
    knova permalink

    35 – So what would be some bullet points solutions. We are smarter than the libs and should be able to come up with something.

  37. 2009 September 2 7:55 am
    [37]
    JustMary permalink

    BTW I appreciate your answer in 29. Just as we don’t need a complete overhaul of the medical industry under the government, the answers are not as simple as only those who can pay get treatment. The Atlantic article that I linked is actually pretty well written and goes over some of the problems and their solutions. For the record the author advocates government run catastrophic insurance, which I am against.

    No problem. I will go read that article right now…..

    Did you see that video my Dad posted in the other thread just now? I LOVED her point about competition for insurance.

  38. 2009 September 2 7:56 am
    [38]
    JustMary permalink

    13k companies and she can only choose from 6 and not even 6k, just 6. That is insane!

  39. 2009 September 2 7:58 am
    [39]
    knova permalink

    I saw it and will view it at lunch.

  40. 2009 September 2 8:05 am
    [40]
    JustMary permalink

    We’ve become so used to health insurance that we don’t realize how absurd that is. We can’t imagine paying for gas with our auto-insurance policy, or for our electric bills with our homeowners insurance

    I will have to go hunting for his exact words, because GB touched on this the other day….

  41. 2009 September 2 8:08 am
    [41]
    conservativetony permalink

    Knova, I don’t have the answers except the obvious: tort reform is where I would start.

    The thing is, I realize I don’t have the answers and with my limited knowledge on the subject (much like Obama) I would have hired people from the healthcare industry itself to help me fix the problems. Obama hired useless drones to both define the problem and the solution of something they know nothing about.

    Being that the Democrats are in love with blue-ribbon committees, a non-partisan committee to study and recommend solutions to the healthcare/health insurance industry would’ve been the way to go–at least for the Democrats.

  42. 2009 September 2 8:12 am
    [42]

    35 – So what would be some bullet points solutions. We are smarter than the libs and should be able to come up with something.~KNOVA

    To find solutions ,you must first discover what caused the problem to begin with.The massive runup in costs began with medicare, a GUBMINT program. Follewed by medicaid another GUBMINT program. Followed by the child health program another GUBMINT program. You can’t throw this much money at something without driving up the costs. Have you ever been to an auction??

    The only viable solution lies in reducing GUBMINT involvement, not increasung it.

    ~~~~~W B S

  43. 2009 September 2 8:18 am
    [43]
    JustMary permalink

    In designing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the government essentially adopted this comprehensive-insurance model for its own spending, and by the next year had enrolled nearly 12 percent of the population. And it is no coinci­dence that the great inflation in health-care costs began soon after.

    IP- the article knova posted echoed you in 42 (gosh I love the numbering!!! drdog is awesome!)

  44. 2009 September 2 8:21 am
    [44]
    knova permalink

    42 – The programs that you mention pay healthcare providers LESS than market prices. Again this gets cost shifted to those of us with insurance and those who can pay. Medicare costs $463 billion to take care of 48 million. To fully finance it we would need a payroll tax on the order of 10%, not the 1.45% we currently pay. I am not sure where the inefficiencies are and as was alluded to before, a lot of the costs go to keeping grandma alive during the last 3 months of her life, which is expensive.

    I personally would like to see government out of the medicine, but at the same time want to make sure that those who get treatment have a financial stake in it, i.e. insurance.

  45. 2009 September 2 8:24 am
    [45]
    JustMary permalink

    those who get treatment have a financial stake in it, i.e. insurance.

    Now you’re talking personal responsibility….and we cannot have any of that! /sarc

  46. 2009 September 2 8:27 am
    [46]
    knova permalink

    Great article by Tom Coburn in WSJ

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574384622002177100.html

    “Congressional leaders have been using apocalyptic rhetoric about angry “mobs,” “un-American” protestors and “evil-mongers” at town halls because they know that voter concerns about spending may not only derail the “public option” in health-care reform but could turn into a referendum on our real problems—our crushing burden of government and the politicians who defend the status quo. For the sake of future generations, such a referendum couldn’t come soon enough.”

  47. 2009 September 2 8:28 am
    [47]

    Mandated Social security was crammed down our throats by a benevolent big brother because we were too stooopid to take care of ourselves.
    By all means, let us cram some more of the crap that killed the goose down our throats by mandating health insurance.

  48. 2009 September 2 8:35 am
    [48]
    knova permalink

    47 – Take it easy. Social security is being used to pay for other programs and had moved way beyond its intended purpose. Also going from 11 workers to 3 workers per retiree would kill anything. We should have private savings plans that let us keep our contributions or at the very least pass them on to our heirs.

    I will be happy to discuss any ideas that you might have. Leaving people who can’t pay to die is impractical and immoral. Paying for treatment for those who can afford the insurance is the height of irresponsibility.

    What do you propose?

  49. 2009 September 2 8:36 am
    [49]
    drdog09 permalink

    27,

    You have the wrong concept of what a right is. We have the right to representation. We have the right to own a gun. But just because you have the right does not mean it is going to be provided for you.

    Are you expecting the government to hand you a Glock 9mm? Of course not. A right enshrines the access, but the individual must pursue the fulfillment of the right. So if you believe there is a right to insurance (which there is none in the Constitution) ok, but YOU must still make the provisions to acquire it. Got it?

  50. 2009 September 2 8:44 am
    [50]
    knova permalink

    49 – I think I made it pretty clear that I don’t expect the government to hand me anything, see 30. I also want those who can afford it to be responsible enough to get it. Maybe I am missing something, but by yours and IP reasoning, only those people who can afford to pay or buy insurance should be treated.

    Even for the majority of conservatives that is a bit much. The right to life is pretty fundamental.

  51. 2009 September 2 9:03 am
    [51]
    conservativetony permalink

    Knova

    You are arguing that those who can afford to buy insurance, should buy insurance–thus ensuring that the prices are brough down so that even more people can afford it, correct?

    If that’s your case, I understand where you’re going with this. What about car insurance? Did the cost of premiums decline after the government mandated that anybody who drives must have insurance?

  52. 2009 September 2 9:18 am
    [52]
    drdog09 permalink

    Is it? Our foundation on views of capital crimes are borne from English common law. As a consequence they are mostly remediated at the State level. Show me a single sentence in the Constitution that says I have a right to life. Its mute. Principally because the Founders could not envision any other case. Closest you will get is cruel and unusual punishment.

    “I also want those who can afford it to be responsible enough to get it. ” Here you are going to run into a Constitutional buzz saw. There are no provisions in law that forces someone to buy something. Even with the Commerce Clause, such an attempt would face a SCOTUS challenge and most likely be struck down.

    The whole health debate is headed in the wrong direction. —

    * Tort reform needs to occur first. Dims are too chicken to tackle it.
    * To force 96% of the population who are being responsible for the 3.3% who are not is wrong headed just on the math.
    * What is being buried here is that health care is not in crisis, Medicare/Medicaid health care is. But this has been known for years. So to overcome this the govt comes up with a scheme to average down and cost shift from those in their life cycle that have little need for insurance and use those proceeds to pay for those that do.

    Get tort reform done. States need to come together, define some rules and open up the medical insurance market to permit competition. AMA license revocation peer review needs to end. In the mix someone will figure out how to come up with a profitable high deductible catastrophe plan that is cheap under the new schema. If at that point an individual does not buy, well remember they made the choice.

    Freedom is also the right to make the wrong choice.

  53. 2009 September 2 9:19 am
    [53]
    knova permalink

    I can’t tell you about car insurance as I am insuring in addition to myself and wife, my three college age kids. That is expensive regardless.

    I think that the insurance companies should be deregulated by the states and made a part of interstate commerce. This would open more options for everyone. Some companies would gravitate to the lower rick groups (younger/healthier) and for catastrophic insurance for anything over $50,000 it would be pretty cheap. Those of us who are higher risk (old cancer survivors like me) would pay more, but I will bet that the competition for my dollars would be higher. I would even bet that there would be a group of companies that would insure the chronically ill, as there would be a profit in it. are their not life insurance companies that insure the elderly.

    The problem with auto insurance mandated by the states is that only certain players can do the insuring, thanks to state regulation and the insurance companies work hard to keep it that way.

    Deregulate it and make them compete. Of course we can keep things the way they are and those of us with insurance or enough assets to pay can pay for those without insurance or the ability to pay. The majority of people in this country have 3rd party payment for their health care (government or employer paid insurance) so they have no idea of the costs are and thus no reason to be good consumers.

  54. 2009 September 2 9:24 am
    [54]
    knova permalink

    “If at that point an individual does not buy, well remember they made the choice. ”

    And they will still get treatment for which someone else will pay. Again, life is pretty fundamental and it along with freedom and our ability to pursue happiness (as opposed to actually getting it. not all of us can have all the toys) is what we declared our Independence for England for.

    Other than that, it looks like some of our ideas are similar.

  55. 2009 September 2 9:25 am
    [55]
    drdog09 permalink

    Yeah except I would refuse treatment.

  56. 2009 September 2 9:27 am
    [56]

    47 – Take it easy. Social security is being used to pay for other programs and had moved way beyond its intended purpose.~~KNOVA

    The arguement for etablishing it, is what I was trying to illustrate. IE===You sheeple are to incompetent to take care of yourselves ergo==we will mandate it upon you.

    Hence we now have 50 million “seniors” dependent upon gubmint, what a wonderful thing.

    At no time did I say let them die in the streets, my objection is to the gubmint mandate part. Throwing more money at it will only drive up costs. The “uninsured” are far fewer than the hand wringers claim. Cut out the booze and smokes, and perhap more could afford insurance.

  57. 2009 September 2 9:28 am
    [57]
    knova permalink

    55-Easy to say. At 33 I looked at death, what life was going to be like for my wife and kids without me, and more selfishly what I was going to miss. Let me tell you, the desire and will to live is very strong in most people.

  58. 2009 September 2 9:28 am
    [58]
    conservativetony permalink

    Ok, thanks for that resonse. I sort of skimmed over it, so I’ll have to read it again when I have more time, but in the second para you mentioned something about “rick group”. Please explain that term. 😀

  59. 2009 September 2 9:28 am
    [59]
    drdog09 permalink

    Dang IP I am to the right of you on an issue?

  60. 2009 September 2 9:32 am
    [60]
    knova permalink

    56-Hate to tell you this but a large portion of our population ain’t too bright. They are called Democrats. It would be nice if they would simply evaporate but they don’t. Their problems become our problems.

  61. 2009 September 2 9:34 am
    [61]

    Dang IP I am to the right of you on an issue?~~~mutley

    Not in this lifetime~~I consider attila the hun a wusse.

  62. 2009 September 2 9:35 am
    [62]
    knova permalink

    58 – rick = risk. The younger people are pretty much free of the chronic illnesses that affect older people. They do have a higher incidents of accidents, but as was stated earlier, the largest portion of medical expenses are for the elderly in the last 6 months of their lives. This is why BHO want’s to encourage them to die. Or ration their care to the point that they do.

  63. 2009 September 2 9:40 am
    [63]
    conservativetony permalink

    RISK–Sorry, I should have used some common sense.

    I like the dereg part as one aspect of the solution, but like JM wrote earlier: “One thing at a time.”

  64. 2009 September 2 9:41 am
    [64]
    drdog09 permalink

    57,

    I have already looked at possible disability once and death once. Once you have faced up to the fact of your mortality, it is quite easy to reconcile your demise. If I face it again, I’ll fight for every second it is worth living. But if not, I go out on my terms and quickly.

    But unlike you my responsibilities are behind me. My wife is provided for. I would miss nothing if I died today.

  65. 2009 September 2 9:48 am
    [65]

    I would miss nothing if I died today.~~~mutley

    You need to live long enough to see “the One” deposed.

  66. 2009 September 2 9:51 am
    [66]
    knova permalink

    57 – You would miss life. Of course I have always had a theory that since we live 200 mph in the past (the speed of our nerves to the brain) we would never know that we are dead. But that gets into the existential and metaphysical, and probably doesn’t make sense from a quantum physics standpoint.

    The point that I am trying to make is that there are market based ways to fix our HC issues, but it will require government to deregulate on one hand and find some way to enforce responsibility on the other.

    Seriously, read the article I linked. It is written by a businessman, albeit a dem, but has some commonsense ideas, nearly all of them market and consumer based.

  67. 2009 September 2 10:56 am
    [67]
    drdog09 permalink

    knova,
    You would miss life.

    Would I? Hard to say. Life without a mission is pretty pointless. Sterling Hayden said it best —

    To be truly challenging, a voyage, like a life, must rest on a firm foundation of financial unrest. Otherwise, you are doomed to a routine traverse, the kind known to yachtsmen who play with their boats at sea… cruising, it is called. Voyaging belongs to seamen, and to the wanderers of the world who cannot, or will not, fit in. If you are contemplating a voyage and you have the means, abandon the venture until your fortunes change. Only then will you know what the sea is all about. “I’ve always wanted to sail to the south seas, but I can’t afford it.” What these men can’t afford is not to go. They are enmeshed in the cancerous discipline of security. And in the worship of security we fling our lives beneath the wheels of routine – and before we know it our lives are gone. What does a man need – really need? A few pounds of food each day, heat and shelter, six feet to lie down in – and some form of working activity that will yield a sense of accomplishment. That’s all – in the material sense, and we know it. But we are brainwashed by our economic system until we end up in a tomb beneath a pyramid of time payments, mortgages, preposterous gadgetry, playthings that divert our attention for the sheer idiocy of the charade. The years thunder by, the dreams of youth grow dim where they lie caked in dust on the shelves of patience. Before we know it, the tomb is sealed. Where, then, lies the answer? In choice. Which shall it be: bankruptcy of purse or bankruptcy of life?

    I have always chosen the former and have been richer for it.

    IP,

    You need to live long enough to see “the One” deposed.

    Somehow the two events may coincide if the political union goes awry.

  68. 2009 September 2 11:12 am
    [68]
    knova permalink

    A man that lives by that quote, would miss life, more than one who does not.

  69. 2009 September 2 11:30 am
    [69]
    drdog09 permalink

    All I can say, its not been my experience. You admit then you are enmeshed in your own security. But to each their own.

  70. 2009 September 2 11:36 am
    [70]
    knova permalink

    Most people who leave a firm to start their own businesses, aren’t big on the security thing. Neither are we big on nihilism.

  71. 2009 September 2 12:45 pm
    [71]
    drdog09 permalink

    Well I left a Fortune 10 telco after 20+ years. It was a lot of fun, pay was great and the bennies could not be matched. But that too is a trap in many ways. Past 50 the company typically will pass you over for training giving it to the younger guys. You slowly atrophy in worth. Nor are you any more secure. In a large firm you have to keep your boss happy as hell or reviews turn sour. Not good when the RIF’s come.

    Working my own company is no cakewalk either. Payroll is a bear, bridge capital has gotten very expensive, and finding self-supervising talent is harder to get. Are you aware that of the age groups that are finding work in this economy the 50+ demo is leading the pack?

    I am not a nihilist. I am prepared to let go of what binds me, family excepted to maintain my freedom. Those things that one clings to are what enslave us.

  72. 2009 September 2 1:09 pm
    [72]
    knova permalink

    71 – we are more alike than you think. Perhaps the media in which we are communicating has us talking past each other. I did not start my own firm to get rich and there have been times that the people who work for me have made more money. Like you I love the freedom. The only advice I gave my kids about starting their own business was don’t wait until you are 46 with 3 kids on the verge of going to college. I have kept it going for 8 years, hired and fired and done what is necessary to keep from ever working for anyone else besides my clients and the IRS again. I need my clients, the IRS has guns.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.