So in summary: none of this matters!
Congratulations humans, you've once again created a completely meaningless bureaucracy to deal with overly-complex rules and regulations that you also created to deal with meaningless bureaucracy.

Good work!

@00Scud00 if businesses collude to keep prices high, their enemy are other businesses not profiting from that collusion. Getting into the fold cuts into their profits.

Big businesses use government to regulate the market and skew costs in their favor, raising barriers of entry to competitors.

If government is removed from the picture, yes, it's one less person to bribe. It also removes all those barriers, and all unfair advantages big businesses currently enjoy.

With free markets, as with most freedoms, it's not all unicorns and rainbows, quite the opposite. There will be plenty of abuse and unfairness to go around. However, being free from a mountain of laws and bureaucracy, without anyone to come crying to, begging authority to right all wrongs, society will be more flexible, creative, responsible, and inclined to solve problems on its own. People are better at solving problems than bureaucrats, and they'll more likely do so if they have to do it themselves.

It's like the internet. I believe most problems on the internet today can be solved technologically. Is that magical thinking? I don't think so.

Sure, there's a role for a few legal rules, but they should always be kept to a minimum. Let people figure things out creatively, without resorting to violence. Add too many laws to the internet, and it'll be bogged down. People will try less to come up with creative solutions, and resort more to petitioning their representatives.

I resent the insinuation that I use free market as a mantra. I'm trying to clear its name. It currently enjoys a terrible and undeserved reputation.

>> ^artician:

By the gods, someone finally broke through the bullshit. I am so thankful. I am sick of people arguing with me that the problem with healthcare being too expensive is that "it just is".


You should tell them that in the United States it is way more expensive than it needs to be and has some of the worst outcomes.

When you look at how we're rated for infant mortality and even mothers living after birth, there are 3rd world countries ahead of us. It's a joke, we're the richest country on the planet and we can't provide good healthcare for our people. It is also needlessly expensive, the reason it is expensive is because of it's heavy amount of bureaucracy and paperwork. Also we can't even negotiate drug prices, drugs in Canada are WAY cheaper simply because they can negotiate prices.

So no it's not "cause it just is" it's way too expensive in America, it could be done much more efficiently but it isn't. People don't do research, they listen to the news...which is full of idiots.

Propaganda Analysis

There are two parts to this story. The first part is a compelling tale of a small surgery center that found a way to drastically cut costs by avoiding insurance company price gouging and bureaucracy. This part of the story is great. These Oklahoma doctors have come up with a seemingly great model.

The second part of the story is The Reason Foundation's editorial opinion that Obamacare is to blame for all of this, and that if only it would be repealed, people and business owners would make rational health care decisions that would save us all lots of money.

The problem is that the Koch’s are trying to give the impression that the doctors in the first part of the story are making the editorial points of the second. The Koch's are basically using these doctors as ventriloquist dummies. At no point do any of these doctors single out or even mention Obamacare as the source of these problems. The title should be "Koch Bros. vs. Obamacare", or at least "The Reason Foundation vs. Obamacare."

Obamacare did not create insurance industry price gouging, nor was it intended to be an insurance industry reform bill. The purpose of Obamacare is to provide universal healthcare. Insurance industry price gouging has existed since the dawn of the insurance industry and will likely die with it.

As further evidence that the folks at Reason are shameless, opportunistic hypocrites, check out this story on Reason.com in which they make a complete 180 and ACTUALLY DEFEND PRICE GOUGING in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Notice how they use the same ventriloquist dummy technique of trying to force their editorial position on a regular work-a-day cab driver. Ridiculously, the cab driver who ‘Makes a Case for Price Gouging’ in the title of this piece is actually quoted as saying, “No, there should be a law to prevent that (price gouging)” in the actual story. Journalism doesn’t get much more dishonest than that.

Take out the ventriloquist dummy editorializing and this could be a great piece in favor of insurance reform, or adding cost saving safeguards to Obamacare. But it isn’t.

This brand of faux populist, faux leftist propaganda is what the Reason Foundation specializes in, and considering the implications of the recent election, I expect more right wing media outlets to adopt the this approach.

IF Romney is elected? What happened to ROMNEY LANDSLIDE?

I think you may be a RINO in disguise.>> ^quantumushroom:

The question about FEMA is moot.
Little to nothing ever gets cut in these federal bureaucracies, any cuts are more like a single theatrical scratch. It doesn't matter which side is in charge.
The federal mafia grows every goddamned year whether it needs to or not. It's mandated.
We can argue all night about FEMA, which is just the Post Office with a life preserver, Band-Aid and bottle of water, it won't make a whit of difference.
Here's some other ways your tax dollars are being spent:
$2.6 Million Spent To Train Chinese Prostitutes To Drink Responsibly
$1,529,220 for an Appalachian Fruit Lab.
$742,764 for olive fruit fly research. ($211,509 of this amount was to be spent in Paris, France)
$172,782 for the National Wild Turkey Federation in Edgefield, S.C.
$1,128,000 for Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Alaska Eagle River for an at-risk youth mentoring program.
$50,000,000 for REAL ID grants. Got to be sure to track and trace those unruly American citizens!
$123,050 for a Mother's Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia (population 5,489, with a land area of 3.8 square miles)

Revolution is coming, now it's only a question of when...less than 10 years if Romney is elected, less than 4 if the other guy squeaks in.

The question about FEMA is moot.

Little to nothing ever gets cut in these federal bureaucracies, any cuts are more like a single theatrical scratch. It doesn't matter which side is in charge.

The federal mafia grows every goddamned year whether it needs to or not. It's mandated.

We can argue all night about FEMA, which is just the Post Office with a life preserver, Band-Aid and bottle of water, it won't make a whit of difference.

Here's some other ways your tax dollars are being spent:

*$2.6 Million Spent To Train Chinese Prostitutes To Drink Responsibly

*$1,529,220 for an Appalachian Fruit Lab.

*$742,764 for olive fruit fly research. ($211,509 of this amount was to be spent in Paris, France)

*$172,782 for the National Wild Turkey Federation in Edgefield, S.C.

*$1,128,000 for Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Alaska Eagle River for an at-risk youth mentoring program.

*$50,000,000 for REAL ID grants. Got to be sure to track and trace those unruly American citizens!

*$123,050 for a Mother's Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia (population 5,489, with a land area of 3.8 square miles)



Revolution is coming, now it's only a question of when...less than 10 years if Romney is elected, less than 4 if the other guy squeaks in.

>> ^ReverendTed:


It seems like the solution there (at least in theory) is robust, scalable, tiered community self-moderation. Pure democratic up\down voting like some communities have isn't enough, I don't think. You need to have a way to distribute moderation powers to those who demonstrate the responsibility to wield them, and I like the idea of different levels of power (e.g.: power users, deputies, moderators, administrators, owners, etc).


Gotta disagree, at least for VS, a smallish community where the apple polishers are already rampant. The current system is plenty. I've run clan sites and game servers, and I've seen the nicest, most reasonable, level-headed, fair-minded, trustworthy people turn into monsters as soon they get a fucking title like "server admin". Just too much sniping in forums about who booted who, and who started what, and who said what to who, and why this player wasn't kicked, but this player was, "he can't say that to me".... argh!

Most of the people that would make good mods here, (IMHO, of course), aren't here any more or only pop in on occasion. There are... four others I think would make good mods (top of my head). But I just don't think it's necessary to add even more bureaucracy and cliques when the current system of omnipotent overlord, (although far from infallible, afaic), works well enough.

I'm sure a similar laundry list of accomplishments far and wide could be made about any president. America will be feeling the positive effects of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act and proposal for a new refuge for wild mustangs for years to come.

Mind you, this the best Obama can do with 90% of the media unjournalists taking his side, never vetting him, never asking hard questions or questioning policy...

Where it counts, this President doesn't cut it. And why is there still no budget? It can't be because of the Republican minority in Congress.

Hey, I could be wrong, and the mob will decide in November that government dependency and not working are now more rewarding than the opposite.


As for why the current problems persist:

"The endless proliferation of anti-business interventions by government, and the sight of more of the same coming over the horizon from Barack Obama's appointees in the federal bureaucracies, creates the one thing that has long stifled economic activity in countries around the world -- uncertainty about what the rules of the game are, and the unpredictability of how specifically those rules will continue to change in a hostile political environment." --T. Sowell









>> ^KnivesOut:

Yeah, what has Obama done anyway aside from put up with all this ridiculous nonsense?>> ^quantumushroom:
Don't y'all wish you could simply point to Obama's successful record instead of resorting to this?
Higher taxes and demonizing the rich (who pay the lion's share of income taxes while the bottom 50% pay nothing) haven't worked.
Massive government spending hasn't worked.
Weak, indecisive leadership in dealing with our enemies (and allies!) hasn't worked.
The only reason there aren't riots over Obamacare is the new taxes are on a delayed fuse.
Obes doesn't deserve a second term, and didn't deserve a first term (neither did McLame, but the lesser of two evils...)

@renatojj I argue that most markets do not have the right environment to allow free market policies. I do not argue that free markets policies do not work as I believe in some cases they can work. If you allow free market policies in a market that doesnt have the right basis, you will get exploitation.

Yes, I did consider if workplace mobility is inherently sluggish. And it is. There are numerous reasons. Consider that finding a new job is always more effort then staying where you are. There is always a threshold to changing jobs. Regulations can make that threshold higher (bureaucracy), just as deregulation can make that threshold higher. You see, if there are clear rules about minimum wages, pensions, health insurance etc, you dont need to negotiate those, which saves time and effort and lowers the threshold to change jobs, ie makes mobility higher. In any case there is never no threshold which means that you always need at least some basic rules.

Unions are not involved with government any more than businesses are. They are a party representing a group of people on the negotiation table just like businesses. And just like businesses it is government who has setup the basic legal rules they have to play in. If you look at history you will see that both corporations and unions started without any government involvement. They are both groups of workers cooperating, be it for different reasons. Later government regulated both.

Free markets are about one option on how to manage markets. Free markets are not about economic freedom and certainly not about freedom of expression. You can have free markets that oppress in the economic sense and fully regulated markets that give economic freedom. Consider that the free market concept is also not devoid of all rules. It just cherry picks the rules it likes and calls other rules "anti-freedom".

Filling out paperwork and paying a fee.. does not make you any more sane or rational.

George Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit. Then he murdered a kid.

Owning a gun, increases the likelihood of violence.
Whether the violent act you commit is deemed legal or illegal/a crime is something for a bureaucracy to determine after someone is already dead.

Btw, if your hobby is simply target practice.. why do you need a deadly weapon to enjoy it.

Airsoft, paintball and pellets guns could all fulfill that need to shoot shit.

In reply to this comment by Buck:
Hi, I was wondering if you would indulge me in some conversation about you downvoting this comment:

If you have a licence, owning a gun does not make you more likely to commit a crime.



Do you disagree that someone who goes through the invasive (in Canada) process to get a legal licence for firearms and follows the law will somehow be turned evil by a firearm?

I work with people with Autism for a living, I love my family, friends, country etc. I also love going to the range to shoot paper targets.

Do you think I should not be allowed the freedom to pursue my legal (and fun) hobby?

Thanks for any response

Auger8: That's ridiculous and so out of touch it probably borders on racism itself. Yes, some immigrants have the option to learn the language of the country that they're emigrating to quite well before going there; well enough to communicate with the bureaucracy. Others are fleeing for their lives.

Seriously, people emigrate for all kinds of reasons; some to seek variety, some to seek jobs, and some because are going to be stoned to death in their own country for their sexuality or political beliefs. Some are too old to learn a new language easily, some don't have access to decent education in their own country, and some just don't give a shit. I would like for all of them to learn as quickly as possible the language of the country they come to, but I'm not going to say to all of them, in a blanket statement: "YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY A MEANINGFUL ROLE IN YOUR CHILD'S EDUCATION AND FUTURE BECAUSE FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY/WILL/RESOURCES/WHATEVER TO LEARN OUR LANGUAGE."

>> ^notarobot:

I applied for a job outside of my field with decent pay that needed no education beyond high school, but did ask for a little experience, which I did not have. I approached it with the attitude that I had lots of education and even more enthusiasm. I did not hear back from the company. Later, they brought in a hundred workers from the Philippines. There were no domestic hires.


And this reply is to what @Edgeman2112 said as well.

It's yet another logical disconnect in our society. Where they expect you to be able to buy their goods, but they will not employ the people they want to buy them for a myriad of reasons. Some of them might even be legitimate, as in having a lot of education for a job might mean you end up going to something new when it's presented. But the flipside of that argument is that they are hiring un-educated workers simply because they know it's unlikely they will ever have the ability to leave........which is worker exploitation. Not because they are most qualified, but because they are least likely to be able to leave.

And more specifically to edgeman2112, two parents working is fine if both want to work and can make a good wage. Specifically being able to afford childcare or have parents who willing and able to watch their kids. The point is that when one is unable to draw a wage high enough to make it feasible to work and still earn beyond the costs of child care, etc....you are stuck with choices of education costs. And higher education often makes it harder to find work because your education works against you when it comes to getting any job like above...and you are stuck in the "need to know someone" zone to get anywhere in a reasonable time frame. Which likely if you knew someone, you probably would have taken advantage of that relationship if it was going to provide you with a overall beneficial and financially productive job.

There are lots of financially unproductive jobs... like one's that require you to travel longer and longer distances for work...eventually you make less at the job than you would minimum wage flipping burgers if they don't comp your travel or fuel costs to make up for vehicle wear, etc. And this goes back to them picking worker's that are unlikely to be able to hop to another job due to some circumstances, not the best qualified candidates...because they need to be able to exploit them for lucrative contracts that require them to drive nearly as much as they work or rent elsewhere to cut drive times.

Work and employment overall is becoming a dishonest or "cover-your-ass" practice more than just honest employment. "An honest day's work" seems less likely to happen now than 40 years ago. There's just too much bullshit associated with employment now, mostly in office politics and trying to peer beyond the language of your employee contract to decipher how they are going to fuck you in the future. Just look at non-rolling vacation days where they are all too happy to not inform you or suggest you take a vacation day if you need to do something instead of taking an unpaid day........it happens a lot. They use their organization to actively work against you, and use their bureaucracy to make it hard to invoke your rights in the contract.


Personally in my region, I see a lot of businesses and government agencies going out of their way to list their job postings in weird locations or for like 3-5 day windows. The only good reason I can come up for this is that they already know who they want to hire, but they post it publicly to reduce the chance of someone crying foul when they just hire the guy they wanted all along. Keep in mind that if they end up hiring at all, it comes 2-3 months minimum after the listing...especially for government. You'll also notice a lot of fathers and sons, wife and husband, or other nepotism rich hiring practices in these places. Should not be taking place in any business that accepts government money or any government facilities. It's rampant on military bases, and not just for active duty couples which I understand the need for.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jwray:

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

That's an incorrect assessment. Nothing forces corporations to pay union workers the same as non-union workers or give them the same benefits. Union negotiations don't necessarily have any effect on non-union workers. Union workers have effectively formed a cartel to raise prices, and in a free market, competitors would be free to come along and undercut them by working for less money or working on more flexible terms (c.f. the massive bureaucracy involved in firing blatantly incompetent teachers due to teachers' unions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law


That free rider problem is fictitious. Unions need not write contracts that apply to non-union employees.

RTW states have 3.2% lower wages on average, but they have 1% lower unemployment and 8% lower cost-of-living.*

http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf

>> ^jwray:

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

That's an incorrect assessment. Nothing forces corporations to pay union workers the same as non-union workers or give them the same benefits. Union negotiations don't necessarily have any effect on non-union workers. Union workers have effectively formed a cartel to raise prices, and in a free market, competitors would be free to come along and undercut them by working for less money or working on more flexible terms (c.f. the massive bureaucracy involved in firing blatantly incompetent teachers due to teachers' unions).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

That's an incorrect assessment. Nothing forces corporations to pay union workers the same as non-union workers or give them the same benefits. Union negotiations don't necessarily have any effect on non-union workers. Union workers have effectively formed a cartel to raise prices, and in a free market, competitors would be free to come along and undercut them by working for less money or working on more flexible terms (c.f. the massive bureaucracy involved in firing blatantly incompetent teachers due to teachers' unions).