Certainly there are Persons Of Exquisite Mind who must Bang Their Heads against the wall when Our Leaders are So, seemingly, UnIntelligent.

It has been quite scary over here to watch the so called debates. Apart from Ron Paul (and I know he has his own issues) none of the potential Republican candidates seems to have two brain cells to rub together.

Talk about lowest common denominator politics. The thought of one of these blokes, none of whom you would vote for as a member of the local council, having their finger on the Big Red Button is downright scary.

Priceless! Thank you for the laugh. Of course, nothing will ever beat the Daily Mirror headline of November 4, 2004 on the re-election of George W. Bush:

"How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?"

I've never figured that one out, either.

---

Join the PACK!

Your various posts have presented a 'Paulist' message.

I'm not a fan. Just your atypical libertarian.

I suppose if I had more trust in corporations doing what is best for Americans than the Government, I could agree with that view.

Where you say corporations, I think you mean free market capitalism. You may have a point about Americans as corporations are now global so the free market may do what is best for all people, not a nationalistic view.

Free market capitalism is the worst system man has ever devised, except for every other one ever tried.

The trade off to me is that government certainly tends toward the incompetent, while large corporations tend toward the venal and greedy and further, their perceived self-interest rarely is in sync with national self interest.

The free market does a wonderful job of solving that. It may not happen fast enough for many people. And there are situations that due to feedback delays it may not work at all. It is only in the very exceptional cases where government should distort the market and it must understand how its regulations will be gamed before it issues them. Otherwise you end up where we are today and to open a business you need 100 lawyers to read 100,000 pages of regulations.

---

Gary, as I said, I do understand your point of view -- I don't agree with it, but I understand that for many it can be quite compelling.

I think there is a difference between totally free market capitalism and at least somewhat regulated free market capitalism. For some, any and all regulations are bad, for others a lot more regulation is what we need. For me, I think there is a place for rational regulation -- I think think you might believe that virtually all regulation is a bad thing. At a guess though, you don't hold that absolutely all regulation is bad (I could be wrong here). Assuming my guess to be correct, then it would to find a place along a continuum of regulation that optimized things for not only corporations, but people (I don't hold with Romney about the biological constitution of corporations), as well as the nation.

So, as an atypical libertarian -- would that mean you would resist immigration controls? How about drug laws? Those at least two areas where Paul scares the 'standard' Teapublican?

I'm not a fan. Just your atypical libertarian.

Gary, I agree with much of what you say, but one of your basic premises is flawed. The market is not free in the sense Adam Smith described in The wealth of Nations. Many of the major markets are oligopolies. Oligopolies do not allocate resources and wealth in the same manner as a free market does.

---

Interesting quote, though one wonders who/what will care for the unfunded sick, elderly and poor absent 'financial encouragement'.

I don't see solid proposals from the TeaPublicans or no-government crowd in this regard. Frankly, I suspect it isn't a concern from them. Perhaps some simply believe God will sort it out, while others may believe the God of unrestrained capitalism will sort it out. For me, color me unfaithful in this regard.

BarryAZ,

I just saw a rather interesting quote on Dr. Ron Paul's house.gov website:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. -- Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

BarryAZ,

To respond to your wondering... simple, the physician him/herself.

There is a very LONG tradition of providing medical care (to patients of limited means) pro bono publico (for the public good).

Hippocratic Oath:

I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art – if they desire to learn it – without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honoured with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Oath of Maimonides:

The eternal providence has appointed me to watch over the life and health of Thy creatures. May the love for my art actuate me at all time; may neither avarice nor miserliness, nor thirst for glory or for a great reputation engage my mind; for the enemies of truth and philanthropy could easily deceive me and make me forgetful of my lofty aim of doing good to Thy children. May I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain.

Grant me the strength, time and opportunity always to correct what I have acquired, always to extend its domain; for knowledge is immense and the spirit of man can extend indefinitely to enrich itself daily with new requirements.

Today he can discover his errors of yesterday and tomorrow he can obtain a new light on what he thinks himself sure of today. Oh, God, Thou has appointed me to watch over the life and death of Thy creatures; here am I ready for my vocation and now I turn unto my calling.

Declaration of Geneva:

At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:

I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;
I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.

Back in the day, when I was a child, free medical care for the indigent (and reduced fee care for those a little better off but still of limited means) was the rule, not the exception. My dad's practice had a significant portion of indigent and poor patients (10% to 20%), and he did the best that he could for those patients, he didn't overcharge his full-fee patients to defray the costs, and he paid his staff well (and did I mention this was in a rural area?). He still made a good living for his family.

What happened? Well, starting in the mid 1960's, the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, and the ballooning popularity of private insurance attracted a bunch of people into the medical profession that were more interested in making a lot of money than in helping people.

The physician no longer had to look the patient in the eyes and tell them how much the cost was. They only had to fill out a form and mail it away to some bureaucrat somewhere. Gone was the incentive to keep costs down, and along with it much of the desire to serve their community.

But the greed and avarice on the part of many current physicians (and other members of the medical community) has not totally driven away the old ways, it has just made them less common.

There are many things needing done to fix health care. Getting the Federal Government totally out of health care is just the first (and totally necessary) step. Nothing else can be done to fix things until this is accomplished.


Remember my initial quote? Just because Government is stopped from doing something doesn't mean nobody will.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

So, as an atypical libertarian -- would that mean you would resist immigration controls? How about drug laws? Those at least two areas where Paul scares the 'standard' Teapublican?

I'm not a fan. Just your atypical libertarian.

Border should be open, just register, photo, fingerprints and DNA, you get an ID and a TIN. Just like the days of Ellis Island. (The Chinese exclusion act was a horrible law.)

Drugs, I voted for medicinal pot. Just register, so your drivers license can state you are a recreational user and your DNR is on file. Tax it, whatever it is, and sell it in a state store like Utah does for booze.

I scare the hell out of teapublicans because I'm a card carrying member of an organization they hate worse than commies.

---

Gary, as I said, I do understand your point of view -- I don't agree with it, but I understand that for many it can be quite compelling.

I think there is a difference between totally free market capitalism and at least somewhat regulated free market capitalism. For some, any and all regulations are bad, for others a lot more regulation is what we need. For me, I think there is a place for rational regulation -- I think think you might believe that virtually all regulation is a bad thing. At a guess though, you don't hold that absolutely all regulation is bad (I could be wrong here). Assuming my guess to be correct, then it would to find a place along a continuum of regulation that optimized things for not only corporations, but people (I don't hold with Romney about the biological constitution of corporations), as well as the nation.

If you had read many of my previous posts you will see that I do not believe in the absence of regulation. Rational is good. The problem is in finding a way to write a rational regulation that doesn't have more loopholes than no regulation at all. One can't close the loopholes with a thousand new pages of regulation either.

It isn't just Romney that has the biological view, it is SCOTUS. It is the law of the land. Since it has been found that way, we will need an amendment to the constitution to change it back to piece of paper status.

My thought is that the grant of limited liability should come at a price as this limit of liability changes the free market too much. It allows people to intentionally set up a scheme where they can rake in profits, distribute them and then declare bankruptcy and walk away leaving the taxpayers on the hook for the damage they caused. This is a severe distortion of the free market and should not be allowed.

---

OK -- I can accept that -- it strikes me as 'internally consistent'. I remember having discussions with various anti-abortion advocates. The one's I had the least problem with were those who also were absolutely against the death penalty as well. (I am consistent in this regard as well, I'm pro choice, but also accept that the death penalty - within constraints -- can be valid.

Border should be open, just register, photo, fingerprints and DNA, you get an ID and a TIN. Just like the days of Ellis Island. (The Chinese exclusion act was a horrible law.)

Drugs, I voted for medicinal pot. Just register, so your drivers license can state you are a recreational user and your DNR is on file. Tax it, whatever it is, and sell it in a state store like Utah does for booze.

I scare the hell out of teapublicans because I'm a card carrying member of an organization they hate worse than commies.

OK -- I've marked you a bit further towards some mythical center regarding regulation -- again, less diversion between us than it might appear at first blush.

Regarding Romney, SCOTUS and corporations as people -- I agree with you again. Of course, the alternative would be to replace one of the 5 justices voting for the humanity of corporations (if corporations are human, can they be subject to the death penalty?) with a justice agreeing to positions staked out by SCOTUS before Roberts was confirmed.

I can understand how you are concerned by an over-regulated state, I think you might share my concerns regarding a corporate state.

If you had read many of my previous posts you will see that I do not believe in the absence of regulation. Rational is good. The problem is in finding a way to write a rational regulation that doesn't have more loopholes than no regulation at all. One can't close the loopholes with a thousand new pages of regulation either.

It isn't just Romney that has the biological view, it is SCOTUS. It is the law of the land. Since it has been found that way, we will need an amendment to the constitution to change it back to piece of paper status.

My thought is that the grant of limited liability should come at a price as this limit of liability changes the free market too much. It allows people to intentionally set up a scheme where they can rake in profits, distribute them and then declare bankruptcy and walk away leaving the taxpayers on the hook for the damage they caused. This is a severe distortion of the free market and should not be allowed.

Yes, I'm full well aware of that (my wife is an MD). But here's a problem, doctor's are not first responders at a hospital and if the hospital refuses admittance (profit motive, no regulation), then what? Same with ambulances, etc.

By the way, one method some hospitals are using today (when they can't refuse admittance via an ER as a function of their getting Medicaid/Medicare funds), is that they are closing ER's. Solves the problem for the hospital.

Again, in terms of looking to balance a budget, my suggested composite approach (privatize Medicare, no Medicaid, privatize Social Security, no duty of care) works quite well, the uncovered elderly, poor and sick die off much sooner and much more cheaply. (I think Ryan sees this as one of the *intended* consequences of his budget policies).

To respond to your wondering... simple, the physician him/herself.

There is a very LONG tradition of providing medical care (to patients of limited means) pro bono publico (for the public good).

...privatize Medicare, no Medicaid, privatize Social Security...

While I realise you probably had the "Sarcasm Button" pressed when you typed this (I hope so anyway), I've seen this proposed elsewhere as a serious suggestion.

Just how would these privatised systems work ? Isn't a generally privatised and deregulated health care system one of the reasons for the current state of the US health "system"? And, how would a privatised Social Security system work?

As public health care and social security are by definition loss making systems. What would make them attractive to the private sector?

Do you propose that the government provide the money but contract out the administration of them with the administrating company taking a cut off the top or what?

T.A.

What do I know? Guess Exquisite Mind has to do with The UnHealthy System.

Btw, I was married to A Nurse for 10 years, but what do I know. Nothing. We never talked. Divorce #2 much. Anyways.

Last 7 years I have been hurting. "Things" happening to My Body that have made Me Pray To GOD. And I'm an Atheist. No Frakking Shat Broheims. Bad, Crazy stuff, like WTF is going on?

Did I go To The Doc/Hospital/ER. Nope. Not one time. Did I look it up on The Internet? Nope.

I just "Bulled" Through it. And somehow, My Magic Body took care of whatever it was. And man, I'm talking hurting. Many Many months on end at times. For The Last 7 years and Continuing Till Death I'm Sure.

NOT ONE DIME of Insurance Corporation MooLa was spent. NOT ONE DIME of Medicare was spent. And The Best Part-Not One Frakking Bill came to My MailBox.

And I'm telling you Broheims, A Lesser Man(Most) would have been running to 'Ole Doc Every Time. Not to only get "Fixed", but to see some of dat Fine Nurse Ta Ta. hehehe. Speaking of Hot Dames of The Medical Kind. The Lady MD who pronounced My Mom was One Of The Hottest Chicks I've ever seen in My Life.

And Death Day. Hole Pre-dug. Sit in Hole. Shoot Self. As Body Falls, it trips a lever and a load of dirt falls in and covers me. Deep in The Woods and No One will know. Expense. None.

That is Dullnando's Way. Dig it? I knew that you could.

See what you people who have me On Ignore Are Missing?

My Dad lasted till 84 with Heavy Drinking and Smoking. Me, I've never Smoked or Drank, but I don't think I'll last till 84. Who knows. Worked around too many Nasty Chemicals. One job, for 5 years, I bathed daily in methyl ethel ketone. Ah, Tasty Stuff.

MagicBodyDullnando

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

What do I know? Guess Exquisite Mind has to do with The UnHealthy System.

Btw, I was married to A Nurse for 10 years, but what do I know. Nothing. We never talked. Divorce #2 much. Anyways.

Last 7 years I have been hurting. "Things" happening to My Body that have made Me Pray To GOD. And I'm an Atheist. No Frakking Shat Broheims. Bad, Crazy stuff, like WTF is going on?

Did I go To The Doc/Hospital/ER. Nope. Not one time. Did I look it up on The Internet? Nope.

I just "Bulled" Through it. And somehow, My Magic Body took care of whatever it was. And man, I'm talking hurting. Many Many months on end at times. For The Last 7 years and Continuing Till Death I'm Sure.

NOT ONE DIME of Insurance Corporation MooLa was spent. NOT ONE DIME of Medicare was spent. And The Best Part-Not One Frakking Bill came to My MailBox.

And I'm telling you Broheims, A Lesser Man(Most) would have been running to 'Ole Doc Every Time. Not to only get "Fixed", but to see some of dat Fine Nurse Ta Ta. hehehe. Speaking of Hot Dames of The Medical Kind. The Lady MD who pronounced My Mom was One Of The Hottest Chicks I've ever seen in My Life.

And Death Day. Hole Pre-dug. Sit in Hole. Shoot Self. As Body Falls, it trips a lever and a load of dirt falls in and covers me. Deep in The Woods and No One will know. Expense. None.

That is Dullnando's Way. Dig it? I knew that you could.

See what you people who have me On Ignore Are Missing?

My Dad lasted till 84 with Heavy Drinking and Smoking. Me, I've never Smoked or Drank, but I don't think I'll last till 84. Who knows. Worked around too many Nasty Chemicals. One job, for 5 years, I bathed daily in methyl ethel ketone. Ah, Tasty Stuff.

MagicBodyDullnando

So that is what is wrong with ya... MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) is nasty stuff. :P

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.