Blogcasting from the worldwide headquarters of the not-so-vast gay right wing conspiracy.
Representing the millions of patriotic gays and lesbians across the USA by standing up for freedom, fairness, free speech, privacy and true American values.
GayPatriot is the internet home for American gay conservatives and hailed as "the most reliably conservative gay blog on the Internet."
"Terrific blog" -- Michael Barone, principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.
FOLLOW GAY PATRIOT ON TWITTER!
Bruce Carroll Jr.(GayPatriot)
- Email: bruce -at- gaypatriot.org
B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest)
- Email: GayPatriotWest -at- aol.com
Sarjex Muller
- Email: Sarjex -at- gmail.com
Nick (ColoradoPatriot)
- Email: ColoradoPatriot -at- gmail.com
John (Average Gay Joe)
- Email: avgayjoe -at- yahoo.com
Vera Charles
. . . that government does not create wealth nor does it foster medical innovation (or any kind of innovation for that matter) as readily and efficiently as does the private sector?
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Answer: NO.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 14, 2009 @ 6:02 pm - July 14, 2009
The Pope’s latest encyclical describes the role of government well. Here’s a quote from a thoughtful editorial:
“Benedict’s encyclical is nothing if not political. “Caritas in Veritate” promotes a vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism. It links the dignity of labor to the sanctity of marriage. It praises the redistribution of wealth while emphasizing the importance of decentralized governance. It connects the despoiling of the environment to the mass destruction of human embryos.”
Here’s a link to that editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/opinion/13douthat.html?em
I posted a link to the encyclical earlier. The point the Pope is trying to make is that government-supported social programs can work hand-in-hand with the free market. Let the free market do the innovation–let the government make sure that everyone has access to that innovation. Conservatives can support a public option for health care as part of a pro-life ethic.
Comment by Ashpenaz — July 14, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - July 14, 2009
That’s why it’s called ‘faith’ Ash, it’s not possible. Tell me a development in medical tech from France, Canada, Germany…
Comment by The_Livewire — July 14, 2009 @ 6:43 pm - July 14, 2009
Yes.
And he really doesn’t care.
Comment by JP — July 14, 2009 @ 8:05 pm - July 14, 2009
So, Livewire, Ash has to prove your point for you? You claim no innovation from 3 countries. Prove it.
Your technique is kind of like GPW’s: link to a long listing of innovation (well, 2 links, of course, never link to actual “data”), assert/fear-monger that government establishing a public option will stop such innovation, provide no proof for this assertion, and rest.
Hot Air’s post fails in its very first paragraph: “When government makes all the decisions on health care, will those same incentives exist?” Full stop. Since the Democratic plan does not eliminate private insurers, the government won’t be “mak[ing] all the decisions on health care.” The public option will exist alongside the private system. Ed’s wrong right out of the gate.
Comment by torrentprime — July 14, 2009 @ 8:12 pm - July 14, 2009
torrentprime, asking me for links?
Wow, that’s the pot calling the kettle black. Answer me this tp, if govt run healthcare is so wonderful, why does the military, and all federal employees use private insurance carriers?
Comment by The_Livewire — July 14, 2009 @ 8:20 pm - July 14, 2009
Slightly off topic… but not really: Peter Schiff is exploring a run against Chris Dodd in CT. If you don’t know Peter Schiff, he’s one of a select few who predicted the financial crisis; while Chris Dodd is one of the people who created it. He tells it like it is on the economy, except his predictions tend to be ahead of the curve / slow in coming. If you know economics: he’s Austrian School, which is the only real school IMHO.
http://www.schiffforsenate.com/
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 8:23 pm - July 14, 2009
P.S. If he ran/won, it would be a case of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, i.e., private citizen / non-politician running on his convictions. He was an economic advisor to Ron Paul in 2008, but I (for one) will be overlooking that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 8:26 pm - July 14, 2009
Forgot to add. I can’t link to innovations that don’t exist
Comment by The_Livewire — July 14, 2009 @ 8:27 pm - July 14, 2009
Fixed it for ya, Ash.
They can’t. This is the typical self-contradicting thinking of the economically ignorant. If government steps in to physically force people to “redistribute wealth” – from producers to looters, of course – then *it is no longer a free market, by definition – Nor a free society. Re-distributionism of any kind, whether by government or by your local thief, is fundamentally un-free and a direct contradiction of free markets and free societies.
Another way to say it is: keep on “re-distributing” the wealth created by innovators and producers, and soon they will have no reason to innovate or produce any longer. This fact has been demonstrated time and time and time again by real-world experience. Let the Pope stick to the spiritual and religious matters that are his province.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 8:35 pm - July 14, 2009
Or to say it yet another way: God loves a cheerful giver, so let re-distribution happen entirely by the voluntary actions of a free and responsible people. Let the Pope call his flock to do that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 8:38 pm - July 14, 2009
5: Amen….although it’s pretty easy to find links to other bloggers who espouse the same beliefs without factual backup.
Comment by Kevin — July 14, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - July 14, 2009
No, they cant. Nor can anyone support a public option as part of a pro-life ethic, because by every measure, public healthcare results in more sickness and earlier and unnecessary death.
Comment by American Elephant — July 14, 2009 @ 8:50 pm - July 14, 2009
Exactly, AE. Thank you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 8:52 pm - July 14, 2009
Creating wealth and innovating aren’t the point. Redistribution is the point.
Comment by Ignatius — July 14, 2009 @ 8:52 pm - July 14, 2009
Also, wealth is people’s work product – the product of their lives. Taking away people’s wealth by force (again, whether government force, or private thievery) is *in and of itself* a violation of a pro-life ethic, aside from the consequences you pointed out.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - July 14, 2009
(#16 was to AE #13, or continuing my #14)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 8:55 pm - July 14, 2009
Dear The_Livewire,
I’ll gladly grant you that our country is making incredible advances in medicine. But we’re not the only ones.
The Nobel prize in medicine for 2008 went to TWO French and one German:
http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2536763/Nobel-medicine-prize-shared-by-3-European-scientists.html
Some Brits found a way to use stem cells to treat macular degeneration. You can use Google to find the citation.
Also, how much American medical innovation is due to gov’t sponsorship and how much due to private enterprise? I honestly don’t know, and would be curious to find out.
Comment by DRH — July 14, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - July 14, 2009
Look, here’s the thing. Consider the Sotomayor confirmation. She’s lying when she says she only cares about following the law. Obama chose her because he knows she’ll be a doctrinaire lockstep liberal judicial activist. (Democrat presidents do not nominate swing votes.) Anyone who gives her history even a cursory glance knows she’s lying. But she gets up there and she lies. And the Democrat Senators know she’s lying. And the Republican senators know she’s lying. And the media know she’s lying.
Which begs the question, if our leaders can lie about something that’s so blatantly obvious, how could we trust them not to lie when the facts are less obvious?
(So, yes, Obama is lying about his plans, is lying about the objectives of his “reforms,” and is lying about the economic benefits of socialized medicine.)
Comment by V the K — July 14, 2009 @ 10:12 pm - July 14, 2009
well, it is kinda hard to dismiss all the wonderful discoveries that came out of DOD funding for research and development. And then there are those $$ incentives paid out to KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton for their mighty contributions in creating ‘new world developments’.
but really is that innovation. . .
Comment by rusty — July 14, 2009 @ 10:17 pm - July 14, 2009
oh, puhlease (thanks AE) who doesn’t lie inside the Beltway?
Comment by rusty — July 14, 2009 @ 10:30 pm - July 14, 2009
Full stop. Since the Democratic plan does not eliminate private insurers, the government won’t be “mak[ing] all the decisions on health care.”
Oh yeah. And Obama’s gonna put out his net spending cut ANY DAY NOW. He also promised transparency. He also promised that the porkulus would create jobs. He also promised that unemployment would top out at 8%. He also promised that he would only raise taxes to the Clinton levels when in reality, they’re going up to the Carter levels.
I could go on, but you should have the idea that there’s ZERO reason for anybody to believe a damn thing he and/or his administration and the State Run Media says.
And then there are those $$ incentives paid out to KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton for their mighty contributions in creating ‘new world developments’.
but really is that innovation. . .
Compared to the billions the World Bank shovels out the door and then ignores it, hell yeah.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 14, 2009 @ 10:41 pm - July 14, 2009
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. Last time I checked, it made the government a competitor to them, inevitably out-subsidized – and thus inevitably driving them out of the market. In other words: Yes it does eliminate private insurers… de facto.
Also, the government ALREADY makes TONS of decisions on health care, wielding the Big Club of Medicare, Medicaid and regulatory law. Way too many, in fact. Obama’s plan can only increase that. Just because you’re going to shut your eyes as we go over the cliff, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to – or ought to.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 10:48 pm - July 14, 2009
ILC or the Pope? Which one should I listen to? Hmmm. . . .
Comment by Ashpenaz — July 14, 2009 @ 11:27 pm - July 14, 2009
well, it is kinda hard to dismiss all the wonderful discoveries that came out of DOD funding for research and development.
With pleasure.
Where do you think fireproof clothing and armor for public safety officials was first developed?
Where do you think laser technology was first harnessed?
Who do you think paid for the experimental aircraft that led to breakthroughs in aerodynamics?
Why do you think the US built the interstate system in the first place?
Now, here’s a better one, rusty; what does buying free healthcare, subsidized housing, a no-show government job, and fat welfare checks for Obama’s criminal illegal immigrant aunt give to society?
Answer: Illegal campaign contributions to Obama. That’s it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2009 @ 12:33 am - July 15, 2009
You could try the Bible, Ashpenaz.
When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich.
And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!”
Luke 18:22 – 24
Or:
And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;
and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.
Acts 2:44 – 45
And:
For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales
and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be (BC)distributed to each as any had need.
Acts 4:34 – 35
Amazing. All that without government intervention.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2009 @ 12:44 am - July 15, 2009
The attitude of a very immature person indeed. All about listening to, or for, Daddy. (Authority.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2009 @ 3:04 am - July 15, 2009
oh, puhlease (thanks AE) who doesn’t lie inside the Beltway?Contrary to ignorant liberal ranting of the last 8 years, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney — among many others, mostly conservative Republicans.
Comment by American Elephant — July 15, 2009 @ 3:15 am - July 15, 2009
I like how NDT’s attitude is more – well I was going to say ‘grownup’, but shall I say Lutheran instead? Namely: Read it yourself, put 2 and 2 together yourself. Don’t try to hide behind the Pope’s so-called authority, or mine or anyone’s, for that matter.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2009 @ 3:50 am - July 15, 2009
I’ll conceed the German point, but the French guys discovered the virus in 1980? It takes 30 years to get an award for that?
The English inovation came from adult stem cells, which bolsters the arguement against fetal stem cells, but that’s off topic.
Still, private innovation puts us way ahead of public funded there. Look at the pharmasutical research, companies like Merrick, MRIs, CT scans, etc etc. Look at the abundance of private hospitals in the US.
Still, nobody will answer why the government health care workers (Fed employees, Tricare) contract with Private insurance to save money. Hells, the state of MI just put their inmates on private insurance to save money.
And Ashpenaz, you seem to believe that the Divine wants everyone else to take care of your health care. Why not take steps to use what the Divine gave you? Or to use another proverb. “G_d helps those, who help themselves.”
Comment by The Livewire — July 15, 2009 @ 6:59 am - July 15, 2009
ILC or the Pope? Which one should I listen to? Hmmm. . . .
Are those the only two options, Ashpenaz?
And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!”
Luke 18:22 – 24
I don’t know, NDT. Wasn’t the answer to that question something like, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven.
Sounds like for a devout follower at the time, giving away one’s wealth (with the penalty being not entering heaven at death) was even more coercive than the government today tries to be.
Don’t try to hide behind the Pope’s so-called authority, or mine or anyone’s, for that matter.
Amen to that, ILC. Sometimes (well, actually, all the time) we have to be responsible for all our decisions and choices.
Comment by Pat — July 15, 2009 @ 7:02 am - July 15, 2009
You can’t argue nationalized health care with a left-liberal on the basis of facts and economics, because that has nothing to do with why the left wants nationalized health care. It isn’t about increasing access to insurance, that could be done with a few inexpensive tweaks to the system. And while expanding the scope and power of government may be the agenda of the elites, it’s not what motivates the herd.
Nationalized health care, to the left, is a status symbol. They want it in the USA because Britain and Canada have it, and they want to have it, too. Like the suburban soccer mom who insists she needs a new Range Rover when a Saturn Vue would be perfectly adequate. It isn’t about what’s best for the people or the economy, it’s about fitting in with the herd. Because it’s much easier to just go along with the herd than to explain why you do things differently.
The limit of the ability of the leftist to defend nationalized health care is reached at “because Republicans don’t want it.” The entirety of Democratic thought is to advocate the opposite of what Republicans want; no explanation required.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2009 @ 7:58 am - July 15, 2009
GPW: that government does not create wealth nor does it foster medical innovation (or any kind of innovation for that matter. . .
NDT my point is that through all the DOD R&D monetary incentives there were many and will be ongoing develpments and innovative ‘products’ passed onto americans. or the wealth for KBR-Halliburton.
but you certainly get your panties into a twist quite frequently.
and AE. . . most conservative Republicans inside the Beltway don’t lie. . .in the classic GP (BRUCE) response. . .BWAHHHHHHHHHH!
Comment by rusty — July 15, 2009 @ 7:58 am - July 15, 2009
rusty,
So innovations come from Military research and trickle down to civilian use. Wow. so government spending for one of the defined duties of the federal government reaps benefits. Pretty clever those founding fathers…
I think the most recent ‘public vs. private’ argument was the X-plane thing.
I do want to point out, ALL politicians lie. Some of those lies are needed, some aren’t.
Comment by The Livewire — July 15, 2009 @ 9:32 am - July 15, 2009
Also, Obama is lying when he says that health care spending is driving the deficit. No, f–ktard. Your f–king spending is what’s driving the f–king deficit.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2009 @ 9:39 am - July 15, 2009
V, that’s an interesting hypothesis. Not to beat my earlier horse to death, but I chalk it up to the supporters’ desire to live as perpetual children, always having Daddy take care of them no matter how oppressive and bad a job he does. I think that is what makes them feel special, or internally gives them a sense of status. I fear that such people may be born fascists or, as Benjamin Franklin might put it, people born to trade liberty for security, deserving neither. When one of them tries to support national-socialized health care with an argument from authority – in this thread, a person who claims to be conservative arguing for national-socialized health care on the Pope’s alleged authority in such matters – I say to myself, “But of course.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2009 @ 10:32 am - July 15, 2009
When you read about the history of Israel and things like the Jubilee year (which Jesus proclaimed), it’s all about government intervention. All of God’s prophets go to the kings and demand the kings treat the poor better.
Again, while the choice between ILC and the Pope does not cover all possible options, I think this letter by the Pope sets out the goals of government in the way I’ve been trying to express in my posts. So, if you won’t listen to me, you might at least read the Pope’s letter.
Comment by Ashpenaz — July 15, 2009 @ 2:26 pm - July 15, 2009
The Livewire,
I agree that private innovation is more prolific than public. Though it certainly is not exclusive to private enterprise. How much research happening at universities is to some degree funded by our government? It might be good to keep some government funding just because we are seeing so much competition from foreign research labs.
To another point, you said: “Still, nobody will answer why the government health care workers (Fed employees, Tricare) contract with Private insurance to save money. Hells, the state of MI just put their inmates on private insurance to save money.”
I am curious to know what options are available to gov’t health care workers, and how the plans compare to each other.
Comment by DRH — July 15, 2009 @ 2:50 pm - July 15, 2009
Again I am struck by the immaturity of that.
1) Do you really want to go back to 7th-century BC society and economics?
2) Show me a society ruled by a king, and I’ll show you a society that *is not free*. If the king has enslaved everybody, then of course they would have to turn to him to get the poor treated better. Of course. But that’s the kind of society on your mind, isn’t it, Ash? You don’t ‘get’ freedom, or at least not economic freedom: a society based on people’s free and un-coerced actions. You want government to be your Daddy, basically enslaving others or looting their life’s work in order to provide services for you. (Of course you’d never call it that.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - July 15, 2009
I didn’t say that.
I said President Bush and Vice President Cheney didn’t among many others, most of whom are conservatives.
Yes, lots of politicians lie. Probably most of them. Definitely most Democrats. (those who are trying to take power from you naturally more likely to lie than those who are trying to return power to you and/or prevent the further erosion of your liberty) But it is ignorant and lazy to claim they all do.
Comment by American Elephant — July 15, 2009 @ 4:39 pm - July 15, 2009
ok AE politicians carefully craft their verbage, utilize the art of distraction and avoid answering questions that might affect their current/ future political aspirations.
but please ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain’.
Comment by rusty — July 15, 2009 @ 5:12 pm - July 15, 2009
And some politicians are good people. Your position that they are all out to deceive is simply laziness. An excuse for not taking the time and effort to find out which ones are trustworthy and which ones are not.
Comment by American Elephant — July 15, 2009 @ 7:00 pm - July 15, 2009
No, I don’t want government to be my Daddy. Anyone who knows me knows I want Jason Statham to be my Daddy. I want government to provide an affordable option for health care (the way it does for schools, military, roads, food inspection, etc.).
Comment by Ashpenaz — July 15, 2009 @ 9:04 pm - July 15, 2009
Ok, forgot about this thread.
I don’t think I can go into the details of Fed benefits, but I can say they are very generous, even if the fed employees don’t think so.
How to make anyone a small gov’t conservative: Make them take Fed calls for a week.
Comment by The Livewire — July 16, 2009 @ 12:34 pm - July 16, 2009
Then you want government to provide an “affordable option” and yet you list a bunch of services where government has a virtual monopoly. So much for options.
The government holds a monopoly on military, on roads, on food inspection, and a virtual monopoly on schools since very few Americans can afford to pay for both public schools through their taxes AND pay for their children to go to public schools.
Which is precisely what will happen to health care with a “public option”.
You want government to take your money that you theoretically spend on health care now (if you pay for your own) and spend it on health care FOR YOU while driving up the costs (as the CBO chief said Democrats plan will do) and driving down the quality of care and rationing care.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that because the bills will no longer come to you, that somehow makes it “affordable”
Perhaps you are in a tax bracket in which you think you wont pay for it. In which case, you are just using the government to steal from your fellow citizens to pay for your health care, which makes you little more than a petty thief.
Otherwise, if you honestly believe, contrary to the CBO’s own report, every other reputable organizations estimates, and contrary to all historical evidence of government programs, that government will somehow make health care more affordable, then you are simply living in universe that has no connection to reality.
Comment by American Elephant — July 16, 2009 @ 10:09 pm - July 16, 2009
AE,
Ash has an affordable option for health care. He could quit his two part time jobs, and go find one that has health care beenfits. Though the spending by the government limits that option.
Comment by The Livewire — July 17, 2009 @ 9:05 am - July 17, 2009
That deserves to be underlined.
Oh, yeah. That, too.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 17, 2009 @ 11:41 am - July 17, 2009