@Eagleman: Well, I often find points that I agree with in people's rhetoric, but I do understand what you're saying. However, Liberals have been trying to make health care a right
. This would mean that some people would get it for "free," at the expense of someone else, who would have to pay for those people to get it "free," as well as for themselves. Bill Whittle isn't saying "free," as in "doesn't cost anything;" of course it costs money, but for one person to get "free" anything, someone has to pay for it, and that's his point.
That isn't a strawman because of the fact that Liberals do say things like "we should have free health care" (I have personally heard this kind of thing in person and on TV) and don't bother wondering or even caring who ends up paying for it. And if you ask them, they suggest that the government pays for it (instead of them paying for it themselves), which means they think it should be guaranteed, which it isn't and can't be. Otherwise it ends up being free for some and not for others, which isn't free, and it's not fair.
I think that those of you who are saying this is a strawman have probably just never heard Liberals use the word "free" in that context. And realize that I'm not calling you or anyone else stupid. I'm just saying you're misinterpreting what he's saying, which leads you to think he's making a strawman argument.
Part of the problem with rising medical costs is government intervention. The more government controls there are, the more costly it becomes to conform to those controls.
This is just the same old, incorrect rhetoric. High prices exist because businesses think if they are entitled to how ever much compensation they want for their goods/services.
I'm sorry, but that's not true. Do you think gasoline prices are high because oil companies are just maximizing their profits? Exxon Mobil made approximately $45 billion in 2009, but their profit margin was only about 9%. If what you were saying was true, their profits would have been above what they paid in taxes, which was about $116 billion in that year.
And let me ask you this: Even if what you are saying is true, so what? It's the prerogative of a merchant to charge what he thinks people will pay for their services; I don't see why you would have a problem with that. They don't force people to buy them. People buy them of their own free will. If the merchant can get rich doing that, he deserves every penny he makes.
And to take it a step further, if he was paying 15% in taxes before he became rich, and the government tells him, "Now that you're rich, we're going to start charging you 35% in taxes instead of 15%," how exactly is that fair?
Now, back to your original point. Let's say that one day the price of corn skyrockets (for whatever reason), and you see a can of corn go from $0.75 to $3.00. Are you going to then say that the business is jacking their prices and demand that can of corn at $0.75 because that's what you were paying before? Is the business at fault, or is something else true?
You tried to justify this in the next half of your paragraph, but your example is kind of unrelated. I'll explain why.
The cost of schooling for example went up when the government started investing money so people could get an education, ya know investing in the future of the nation. Schools decided they wanted to get more money per student rather than have more students and thus the prices have gone up astronomically.
I recommend you do a search for how much money spent on education has increased, versus how test scores have fared. To summarize, education spending has skyrocketed since the 1960s, and test scores have remained flat. There is no correlation between the two.
The cost of schooling increased because of two main things: government programs and teachers unions. Government programs are a major source of expenditure, so the more government programs, the more the overall cost. As for teacher's unions, they demanded higher pay, more benefits, and among other things, tenure. Tenure means that, short of committing a crime, the school cannot fire them. They can reprimand them, put them on suspension (with full pay and benefits I might add), send them to training, do anything up to and including transfer, but they cannot be fired, at least not traditionally. There's a term for this in every state: the Turkey Dance, Lemon Dance, and so on, where an under-performing teacher is passed along from district to district, and each district has problems with him or her, but because the system is essentially designed to reward mediocrity, those teachers stay in the employ of the state, and conditions do not improve. There are other factors involved in how much education costs, but that's one of the main ones.
And if you don't believe that this is a problem, you might want to watch Waiting For Superman
, a documentary of the American education system.
As for healthcare
we spend more money on it than any other country and get poorer results. It's because the system is fragmented, outdated,
and too bound in your rhetoric to realize that current industry standards don't have the voice of the consumer in them anywhere.
If that's the case, do you have a solution to cut costs?
Your response when a figment of your imagination is about to be used on your most worthless ally should be to do nothing.Our most worthless ally?
Do you understand how outraged that single comment makes me? Israel is not any manner of worthless. If anything they're the best, freest, and most Democratic nation in the entire Middle East. They've been trying to make peace with their neighbors Since 1948 (the year Israel was created by the UN). They've been attacked over and over by countries that have sworn to erase their existence if it's the last thing they do. Despite this, Israel has kicked butt and even offered to give back the land they acquired through completely legal pre-emptive strikes
I don't feel you really know anything about Israel apart from the anti-Semitism that the Left-wing media has been pushing. Maybe you should read this article
Also the choice your actually talking about is wait for a couple thousand people to die or kill a hundred thousand people first. You aren't preventing deaths, you're going 'me first, me first'.
This too fills me with outrage, but for a different reason. What you're telling me is literally that you would favor the rights a murderer over that of a victim. If A has B at gunpoint and a reasonable person (C) would conclude that A is going to kill B, C has an obligation to do what he feels is necessary to prevent A from killing B, even if it means killing A first.
Damn right I'm saying "me first." I don't want to die, and I would rather kill someone than stand by and watch them kill someone else. And I would defend anyone who made that same decision.
Before I continue, I want to make sure you're not just seeing me as talking down to you. There's a difference between being outraged by what someone says and just being belligerent. Being outraged is the natural response to what you see as injustice; that's why I didn't respond to Innocence Abandoned with some kind of "get out of my face" remark. Because I understood that what I said outraged him, even if I didn't mean what he took to be an outrage. Being belligerent just means I don't like what you say and I'm going to attack you instead of your argument.
There's nothing wrong with attacking an argument as long as you do it respectfully, which I am still trying to do. I hope I haven't come off as disrespectful so far.
That would be an example of how one could get out of being poor (though very text book, oversimplified, and wishful) that does not create the distinction between the poor and the rich.
Of course it does. If they are no longer poor, then by the definition you just posed, they are now rich. They have become
rich. How is that not exactly what you're saying?
If I define the poor as those who have to wait decades before being able to afford the newest technologies then it's exactly as I explained. The rich will buy a good while the price is high and thus the price won't drop until it's lost the novelty it had, in essence feeding the poor cold table scraps. Today almost everyone has a refrigerator, rich or poor, but there was a significant delay in that occurring from their inception and that is what causes the ill effects associated with being poor.
But, didn't you just get through telling me that I owe more to people who helped make the technology that I utilize today? Now you seem to be saying that it's bad if rich people do just that?
Prices drop because of supply and demand; the less of something there is the more it costs to own it. What you're saying is prices don't drop until
someone rich has bought it and gotten tired of it, which isn't true at all. Things like computers dropped in price because the technology became more available. Ages ago (20-25 years) when computers were scarce and difficult to mass-produce, they cost more. Likewise with refrigerators---which have been available since about 1834, the first one undoubtedly cost very much to make and probably sold for much more---the technology has improved to the point where a small refrigerator is affordable by most "poor" people. The fact that rich people are able to afford new, expensive conveniences first doesn't mean that the rich are somehow oppressing the poor by doing that, nor are they influencing prices by buying them.