From Wiki: "Scabies is transmitted readily, often throughout an entire household, by skin-to-skin contact with an infected person (e.g. bed partners, schoolmates, daycare), and thus is sometimes classed as a sexually transmitted disease. Spread by clothing, bedding, or towels is a less significant risk, and is almost impossible."

From MedicineNet.com: "It is hard, if not impossible, to catch scabies by shaking hands, hanging your coat next to someone who has it, or even sharing bedclothes that had mites in them the night before. The physical contact required to contract scabies may, however, be sexual, and sexual contact is the most common form of transmission among sexually active young people."

Hand-holding won't do it. If your kids are engaging in skin-to-skin contact with employees at a clothing store, I'd be worried about that much more than them potentially getting bugs.

Also, most kids are healthier than adults. Kids get more exercise and have been exposed to environmental pathogens for a considerably shorter length of time. Children as a general rule have the healthiest immune systems. And your immune system really has nothing to do with bugs burying themselves in your skin. The body can generally kill off the larvae, but not the actual bugs, but that's not an immune system issue.

>> ^jwray:
I agree with you completely on this. However you've failed to consider the full range of interventions that may be necessary to protect individual rights.
1. Would you say you have a right to not starve to death on the street according to the whims of a few local employers?


I don't understand what you're implying here. Is this person capable of working, why wouldn't someone hire him unless some socialist policy destroyed the economy? Remember when the Federal Reserve sat on the inflow of gold in the thirties and caused a hyperdeflationary depression where money stopped getting loaned out, therefore people couldn't get paid and businesses which relied on the inflated credit of the 20s all went belly up? You wouldn't, would you, because you're just a sheep with no actual understanding of the driving forces of poverty. Do you realize that charity was at it's highest when there was no income tax and gold backed money? See, there's nothing wrong with helping someone voluntarily. There is something wrong with you believing that I or anyone else is OBLIGATED to give up their wealth to this person just because he is starving. And why would anyone work if we're all entitled to each other's production? You must also believe that he is morally within his rights to steal from the grocery store if he's "helpless" like you say. It's the same thing when you legislate redistribution of wealth schemes. You need to get off your Marxist boat already.

2. Would you say you have a right to know what is in food that you buy? 3. Would you say you have a right to know how much electricity will be used by an appliance that you buy?


In most cases, if the consumer demands it, the consumer gets it. Because how do companies make money? By reaching out to demand in the market. But I don't really have a problem with information gathering, even though it could easily be done by independent consumer groups.


5. Would you say that when you are trying to buy an essential product, which is not a very new invention, you have the right to choose between two or more competitors instead of paying an extortionary price to a monopoly?

Monopolies are not self-sustaining unless the enablements exist within government for companies to collude with and benefit from government specific powers. Remember, the government is the largest and most powerful monopoly of all. They can do things a private company can only DREAM of doing: force payment (tax), create new money (inflate), and ban competing products.

6. Would you say you have the right to pay a competitive market price for any good, which is not inflated by conspiracy of the suppliers of that good (OPEC, for example)

You are getting a competitive price, tinfoil man. The dollar is being crushed by socialist policies and foreign currencies are gaining relative to it by definition. That increases their buying power in this international bidding contest for a finite resource. So sorry it's become unpleasant for you, but maybe you also shouldn't have supported blocking domestic drilling and nuclear power for thirty years. Kinda hard to reduce prices when you intentionally decrease supply and competition. You want the energy, you just refuse to allow anyone to make it in your backyard. So suffer the consequences and ride your bike and stop whining like an entitlement freak. There are people in Africa who would kill to drive around in a car all day.

Would you say certain proactive regulations are necessary to prevent the creation of monopolies, such as prohibition against exclusive supply contracts, where for example a computer vendor who wants to sell Microsoft Windows computers won't have to sign a contract with Microsoft promising to never sell any Linux computers.

Exclusive contracts are made all the time. Bidding contests are real competition. McDonald's contracted with Heinz for ketchup and mustard supplies. The Olympics only accepts Visa credit cards. If an OEM contracts with someone exclusively, they have to gauge if that payout is going to be worth the loss to competitor's offering the supposedly superior product which will inevitably be used by other OEMs. It's not like Microsoft can put poop in a box and stay a monopoly, they STILL have to deliver or it opens a window for competition.

Clearly, you are locked in to the corporate blame game that marxists play to gain power. The only thing you need to worry about is removing the collusive enablements that allow private companies to gain unfair advantages over their competition through bribery: subsidies, special tax breaks, inflation, and banned choice under the pretense of protecting you.

jwray... i am with you .. i also think that there are many things that "the market" cannot solve, especially education.

Education is a service like any other, in which case the optimal result will be from consumers spending their own money, not politicians dishing it out to government teachers. This is a terribly uninvolved system where the parents just expect the best and do no research, it's all "provided" for you. Education has become daycare. We used to be first in the world before the Department of Education was created. Now we're not, though. Any department has to be fed with money that otherwise would have gone to the people themselves. The funny thing is that even if you support some kind of socialized education, libertarians have proposed a voucher system where the money is going to parents to make choices instead of to the providers directly. The latter strategy is what we currently do and it's the equivalent of giving food stamps to the grocery stores.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxeP-krUrdU&feature=related

It seemed like he was saying "okay, what the hell do you want me to do about it?"

This is 911, not a daycare hotline.

Wow. Again with the long post. Because you quote me and end up calling me a troll, I’ll take the time and effort to go through each of your points. I realize that by now, no one but you and I are reading this so I’ll speak directly to you rather than attempting to make my comments applicable to others.
“What do feelings have to do with anything here? You're being patronizing. That's rude. And I don't see where you've asked me a question, by the way.”
Patronizing, maybe. I am attempting to show you that I do read and listen to the material pertinent to this discussion. I am not “speaking out of my rear” so to speak. I am informed and was letting you know that. My suggestion that it may or may not make you feel better is my attempt to signify that you may be glad to discuss this with someone who is reasonably well read or you may be upset because you were trying to teach me something by pointing out something of which I might not be aware. As to the question, glance up a ways and you will see this: “A strong stock market, driven by a steady influx of capital from "the rich" directly improves the lives of those totally dependant upon their pensions. Is that good? Or bad?” Personally, I think that this is a good thing.

“First off, you're attributing words to me I haven't said or implied with your "evil rich" quip.”

Granted. I apologize for lumping you in with those people who think that people with massive amounts of wealth are evil. All I have as a defense is the tone I have derived from your posts leading back to the original quip about taxing billionaires fairly.


“Secondly, your insinution that people of every level of wealth break tax laws and that it then follows that "the system is thoroughly and completely broken" is not supported anywhere in either article. But you imply as much, and then you go on to marshall this false premise to support your opinion. This is a form of dishonesty.”

So now I am dishonest? Interesting. I don’t see anywhere that I suggested that either article discussed people of every income level breaking tax laws. What I said was “That so many people (not just the evil rich) get away with cheating the tax system is a sign that the system is thoroughly and completely broken.” Please try to take this in the way that I mean it. I realize that you are not a US citizen and in my mind your attempt to label me as dishonest means that you are not aware of some commonly known facts about taxes in the US. I will simply say that there is a vast array of methods used by everyone including the rich to avoid paying taxes on income. It may be a waiter under-reporting his tips, a construction worker paying their nanny/gardener in cash, or a small business owner hiding income within their business expenses. This is not an exhaustive list, but all of these share a common thread: they require conscious thought and are a direct attempt to cheat on taxes. This is all illegal and yet it is done every year by people from the highest to lowest income brackets. I’m a firm believer in the rule of law and even though it is a tax code I do not agree with, it is the law and everyone should be made to follow it. Not just the rich. Everyone. This doesn’t even include the people who unintentionally cheat on their taxes because the tax code is ridiculously complex and nearly impossible to understand. Here (http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2003/09/04/NewsInBrief/Irs-Help.Centers.Gave.Incorrect.Information-457639.shtml) is an AP story that shows that 43% of the time the actual IRS help desk gave incorrect or no answer to tax questions. The actual people paid to help you do the right thing on your tax forms told you the wrong information or gave you no help 43 freaking percent of the time. That is truly insane. That is yet another sign that the US tax system is well and truly broken. To put it into numbers, the IRS estimated in 2001 that 15% ($353 billion) of taxes went unpaid (http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2007/307/essentials/p42.htm). It’s certainly not all because of intent to defraud the government, but that represents a sizeable chunk. In summary, my premise is not false. You read it as false because you inferred that I was only discussing the material in the two articles given. I was not. Facts support my opinion in this particular point. My premise was that everyone cheats. Facts show that rich people cheat, middle class people cheat, and poor people cheat. My opinion was that everyone who cheats should be punished.


“I take that as a compliment. But I'd not limit my efforts to the middle class of course; the marginalized and disenfranchised poor are at least as deserving of fairness as are the middle-class.”

It wasn’t really meant as a complement nor was it meant as an insult. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting that you would try and help the people as you thought best rather than helping yourself. I don’t know you, so I can’t judge your character. I was just listing my assumption before moving on to my next argument.



“The word "labour" is meaningless when we are talking about the uber-rich; the only fruits in question here are derived by the labour of others--for productive property accrues value on its own while owners sit idle or lobby their friends in government to manipulate legislation in their favour ie., for more welfare-for-the-wealthy.”

Here is where we dramatically different in outlook. I am not going to try and change your opinion, it would take quite a bit more than this forum to change either of our opinions I believe. But in any case, I am going to state mine more in detail and hopefully you will see some of the basis of my views. You state “uber-rich” like they appeared out of thin air as if through a miracle. I contend that this is not the case. As I see it, rich people in general (uber and non-uber alike) come from one of three places:

1) Inherited wealth. Inherited wealth exists and in some cases has been passed down for centuries. Inherited wealth did not appear from nothing however. At some point in time, someone earned that wealth and it has been passed down. That wealth is “earned” though the person holding it now is not the one who earned it. Income derived from this wealth is also earned in that the wealth itself must be risked in some fashion in order to generate income or the principal itself must be sold in order to realize a gain.

2) Earned wealth. Earned wealth is the most common form of wealth (at least in the US, read Tom Stanley’s the Millionaire Next Door). Earned wealth comes directly from the fruit of one’s labor. It may be an assembly line worker who has earned a good wage and invested wisely, a plumber who has worked hard and grown a business, or any of the five richest men in the world who all earned the greatest portion of their money within their own lifetime.

3) Obtained wealth. Generally, thieves. I lump in everyone from Bonny and Clyde to Ferdinand Marcos in this category. These people take the wealth of others through force, intimidation, trickery, etc. I have already stated my position on the law (see above).

You appear to believe that people become obscenely wealthy (and I use that merely as an adjective, not as a statement on their character) through idleness and massaging the system in their favor. That may be the case in some instances, but for the most part wealth comes from a good business plan and hard work. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are great examples of this. Yes they both started from somewhat privileged backgrounds, but their real wealth came from their hard work. They may not have built buildings or dug holes, but both of them are known for their incredible work ethics. They earned their money fairly and no one has the right to take it away just because they are wealthy. Just because there are fewer rich people than poor people doesn’t enter into it.


“And you know quite well that your consumption tax scheme is regressive and unjust.”

You claim to know what I know do you? Interesting. Somehow I doubt it. In this case, you are quite wrong. First, I don’t claim any credit for the concept of a consumptive tax. Let me quote Alexander Hamilton. “It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue.” He concisely stated what is self evident truth, i.e. that consumptive taxes are self limiting in that too much consumption tax reduces revenue by reducing consumption itself. But that doesn’t address your point. You suggest that “my” consumptive tax scheme is unjust and go on to list why it is without any benefit being given to “me” for forethought on the topic. You make assumptions, assign them to me, and then argue against them. Just for thought, I’ll list two possible scenarios which are neither regressive nor unjust. In scenario 1, consumptive taxes are placed on all goods except utilities, food, daycare, and healthcare. Thus, if you are at or below the poverty level and spending all of your money on just getting by you pay no taxes whatsoever. The more wealth you have, the more money you spend on things other than these items and the more tax you pay thus placing a “progressive” tax burden upon the wealthy. You can argue whether housing should be included in the exemption, but that is another discussion. Scenario 2 is a plan already in place and proposed before both the US Senate and House of Representatives. It’s the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org). In essence, it is also a sales tax except instead of making exemptions for certain goods it has no exemptions at all and instead gives taxpayers a “prebate” each month that makes up for taxes which would be paid on basic services. The authors make a good case why this should be so and illustrate how it means the middle and lower tax brackets either pay the same or pay even less tax while they do now but I don’t know that I am convinced that the bureaucracy created would be able process these prebates in a timely manner. Both of these cases use a national sales tax to totally replace corporate, income, capital gains, payroll, and estate taxes. In the case of the Fair Tax, extensive research has been done already to determine the effects of this on the economy as well as on taxpayers in different income brackets. For the Fair Tax at least, studies show an across the board reduction in overall effective tax rate with the greatest reduction (1.5% effective lifetime tax rate) for those in the low-income brackets and the least reduction (20.5% effective lifetime tax rate) in the highest brackets. So, in effect, everyone pays less taxes and yet the program is revenue neutral. And because of the prebate (or in scenario 1, the exemptions), it ends up retaining the “progressive” nature of the current income tax system.


“In other words "it is so because you say it is so--for no other reason but this." Except I don't buy it.”

Whatever. Let me reword it and see if you can buy it this way. If I attempt to force you to accept my views because I think they are right, it doesn’t change the fact that I am trying to force you to accept my viewpoint.


“You're transparent and you're predictable. Please put some effort into being interesting.”

I don’t believe that you mean any of it this way, but I take this as a complement even with you sticking smilies at the end of your sentences. I aim to be transparent and I have made no attempt to disguise my true opinions. And I’m glad you think that I am predictable because it means to me that I am being consistent. I shrug off the fact that you think you can “predict” me and yet you were 180 degrees wrong about what I “know” as discussed above.


“You weren't really. You just been trolling here.”

And finally, you resort to calling me a troll. It’s funny because I have made no aspersions as to your character and have in fact accepted your statements as true previously in this exchange. Since you can “predict” me, I don’t need to explain, but just in case anyone else reads this far let me explain to them. My original motivation behind posting this video and soliciting comments was simple. I accept that because of the way the US is heading, we are likely to institute some form of universal health care in the next ten years or so. Given that is true, I was looking for comments on how to ensure that a situation like that described in the video is prevented and discussion on how the US should construct a health care system. In support of this, I stated in the summary of this video the following statement “The dialogue is heavily slanted and there is a clear agenda to the message, but the underlying points are valid and worthy of discussion. If the US is truly going to attempt universal healthcare, how can we design a system so that something like this doesn't happen in the US?” At the very heart of the matter to me is the concern that American citizens won’t have access to the best possible care here in the US. In my mind, sending our citizens to some other country for health care that they can’t get here (or at least in a timely enough fashion such that they don’t die while waiting) is not an acceptable solution. The first few exchanges between us addressed the fact that money was the issue, not some other fundamental flaw in the CHA and this was directly related to the discussion at hand. The conversation took a downward turn around the time we started discussing the “fairness” of tax law.

It's a huge issue and one which can get people so riled up. Maybe we're a bit behind the times here in Australia, because I don't know of any school with a daycare attached, or a free contraceptive program in operation. Whether that means we are behind the times, either in terms of services or behavioural trends, I don't know.

Teenage pregnancy has been a big issue here for a long time, with scores of young unmarried mothers, but I have never heard of this happening in primary school. Not to say it's never happened, however.

I think public schools, like other public institutions, tend to cater to the lowest common denominator, so if contraception is needed for younger populations, then it's probably a good thing that kids have access to it somehow.

I would like to see such a program involve the parents, however, in whichever way works, without alienating parents from child or visa versa.

I would also like to think that as well as offering this, children were being educated about the risk of STDs, because the pill will not protect you from the plethora of nasties lurking in the loins.

Raven's right, the kids are having sex. I'm told that in high school these days that you're a freak if you aren't having sex. The Mr. and I decided to be proactive: I drove my teenage daughter to the doctor and told her I'd pay for whatever birth control she wanted if she and her doctor decided it was appropriate. Her friends know this and they talk to me. The kids may not tell you that they are...but they are. They're afraid to talk about it to the parents because they don't want to get 'grounded' or have thier cars/games/computers taken away. Most parents are in denial and just hope nothing happens.

School systems wouldn't try to deal with this if there weren't so many teenage pregnancies...several metro high schools here have daycares and I've got friends and family members who are raising accidental grandchildren. Not on my watch!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks for this kitsune - (are you a fox?) I haven't seen this one in ages - but it's one of my all-time favourite SNL skits. It shows what a genuine talent Eddie was, before he started doing things like Daddy Daycare.

To this day, I can't get into a hot tub without doing a little riff on this.