| Name: |
architect
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
A worthwhile list
|
|
Date:
|
1/14/2013 9:21:03 PM (updated 1/14/2013 9:22:13 PM)
|
The leftist site Think Progress has just published the Heritage Foundation's (as in Jim DeMint) list for the 10 freest (least regulation and interference from government) economies in the world for 2012. In order from the freest:
1/ Hong Kong
2/ Singapore
3/ Australia
4/ New Zealand
5/ Switzerland
6/ Canada
7/ Chile
8/ Mauritius
9 Denmark
10/ USA
Now the Heritage Fdn did not ask and answer this question but Think Progress did:
What do all but one of these economic entities have in common today and what will all have in common within a couple of years?
Answer......GOVERNMENT MANDATED UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!!
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Typical liberal nonsense
|
|
Date:
|
1/14/2013 9:50:18 PM
|
Archie, I could come up with 100 other things they also have in common, none of which have anything to do with economic freedom, a classic fallacy called non causa, pro causa. Perhaps you can explain how government mandated health insurance increases economic freedom. Perhaps you can even take a step back and define economic freedom.
The government mandating that you buy a product doesn't exactly sound like freedom does it? It sounds like coercion. Think critically Archie before you promulgate someone else's stupid ideas. Facts, logic and reason....use them Archie before its too late and your brain turns to total mush. Liberals........they know so much that just isn't true...... This just gets so old and redundant pointing out your foibles. LOL.
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Archy,
|
|
Date:
|
1/14/2013 10:30:16 PM
|
last time i was in Hong Kong the RED Chinese were about to take over from the British and were preparing a massive border to keep all the other FREE Chinese out of Hong Kong. Guess you liberals really love the way RED Chinese run things. Best descripton of RED Chinese healthcare is "let 'em die". You really need help, stuff like this post is a sure sign.
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
A worthwhile list
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 7:05:05 AM
|
You mean we have chance to be as free as Canada and Singapore?
Is there a reason I can't just move now?
Which deadly sin is envy? We made need a history book to look this up.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Panhandle update!
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 8:38:25 AM (updated 1/15/2013 8:49:32 AM)
|
Wix, Hong Kong is now a part of China but with a completely free and autonomous economy. Do you actually think a rightwing group such as Heritage Foundation would call it, not only a free economy but the "freest economy in the world" if it was in any way of the collectivist variety?
Now, do the rest of you even concede that this list at least implies, whether or not you agree with the implication, that that the Heritage Foundation (and I assume its president Mr DeMint) considers it possible for a "free" economy and "mandated universal" healthcare to coexist? I have no idea whether the H F took into account the state of healthcare in each or any of these economies, but by considering them as positive examples they apparently do not consider it the insurmountable "No never!" you guys obviously think it is.
One of my most admired political commentators of the last 75 years, William F. Buckley, said..."Conservatism, except when being expressed as pure idealism, always takes into account reality". Buckley, Reagan, and Barry Goldwater are rolling in their graves and weeping in heaven at the state of today's "conservatism" as expressed by the T party, their hijacked political persona the Republican Party and the paranoid little cadre of "me too" hangers on concentrated around Lake Martin, AL
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Panhandle update!
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 9:00:37 AM
|
You are so right!!
Obviously Lake Martin represents ground zero for this abolitionist thought, and needs to be eliminated post haste.
Maybe you could goose step your way from the beach and begin the new day of America, the way it ought to be.
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Archy
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 9:32:07 AM
|
If I remember correctly Hong Kong was designated as a Free Economic Zone by RED China. HK was designated as such at the time because China wanted to have an outlet to the free world without opening its country to the "unenlightened". Quite a way to run a country. Since you took the list out of context, I have no idea of the article or slant of the story, only the listing.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Archie quoting Buckley
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 9:35:26 AM
|
I can assure you as one that has read much of what Buckley wrote he would find your opinions and beliefs so removed from reality as to be unrecognizable. And he would surely be appalled at the idea of nationalized health care in the U.S. To quote him, "They used to call that socialized medicine, when it was instituted by Great Britain after the war. It crossed the Atlantic into Canada, which is a tidy country in which to get sick, provided you can afford to travel across the border to an American doctor." (NRO Online 3/28/07)
And Reagan likewise would be opposed to Obamacare as he recognized quite famously that government isn't the solution to our problems, government is the problem.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
As usual
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 10:53:14 AM (updated 1/15/2013 10:55:03 AM)
|
Same old same old...polemics and talking points and blather and of course as always "cute" insults but never any substance. Is anybody going to answer my question...Does the HF list give credence to the supposition that a free economy and mandated universal healthcare are not necessarily mutually exclusive? If not, please explain how not.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Typical liberal nonsense...well
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 10:57:46 AM (updated 1/15/2013 11:10:50 AM)
|
how could the Heritage Foundation (I assume you generally agree with their input) possibly even consider such "coercive" regimes to have such "free" economies to deserve recognition above all others. Oh I get it...maybe you are saying it is OK for these first 9 economic entities to use force against the citizens as long as corporate interests have free reign.
Now MM, while pointing out my "foibles" (Lord you love to use $50 words) how about also answering a question on occasion just to prove you can.
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
As usual
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 11:23:48 AM
|
Maybe if you had actually asked your question in the original post you could have stayed in the beach chair, unless you arranged for wifi on the veranda?
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
As usual...still
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 1:17:12 PM (updated 1/15/2013 1:18:59 PM)
|
Comrade, I originally posted the list and the related Healthcare info. After the usual smart axx comeback from MM I put in a 2d post which posed the question which rather logically flowed from MM's bombast and from my original post . Now, if you want to deflect answering the question by complaining about when it was asked that is your prerogative and a pretty typical diversion for this crowd. Do whatever is required to keep from admitting anything that brings your ideology into question in any way.
BTW: I am not sitting on the beach or veranda, too old, too fat and too pale for that. I am replacing the screen on my porch...need to keep the no-seeums from bothering me while I enjoy my afternoon cocktail.
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
As usual...still
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 1:37:58 PM
|
So your purpose in life is to bring light to the darkness.
You ought to post your ideology to shine on the world, and it would save yourself some time trying to explain/refute/destroy the ideologies you disagree with.
The best I got from this is at least you can use alcohol to escape
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Comrade
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 2:50:21 PM
|
"So your purpose in life is to bring light to the darkness." And, what is your purpose? Please enlighten us.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did you understand my point?!?
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 3:34:06 PM
|
Apparently not. Did Heritage say that there was a direct correlation between these free economies and nationalized health care? I don't think so but if you can find the quote please provide it. You see Archie, unlike you and the author trying to make correlations that are ancillary and unrelated I actually belong to the Heritage Foundation. And they are staunch opponents to nationalized health care or socialized medicine.
My salient and intellectually valid point is that there is no direct positive correlation between national health care and economic freedom. If you actually look at their criteria it includes the following: 1) Business Freedom; 2) Trade Freedom; 3) Fiscal Freedom; 4) Government Spending; 5) Monetary Freedom; 6) Investment Freedom; 8) Financial Freedom and 9) Property rights. They define economic freedom as the right of individuals to control his or her own labor and property.
Of all these criteria it is patently obvious that nationalized health care is but one factor and would actually be detrimental to economic freedom. But obviously the overall score from all the criteria can overcome that negative attribute. It should also be noted that there are almost 180 countries on the list, of which the vast majority are ranked below the U.S. in terms of economic freedom, many of which have nationalized health care. Hence, the lack of correlation between the two issues.
But let's examine this another way. Do you know the worst countries in the index? Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Cuba and North Korea. Do you realize that all those countries have nationalized health care? And all of the ten worst countries either have some form of nationalized health care or are so corrupt and poorly run that their health care systems are a shambles.
So you see Archie, not only did you commit the logical fallacy but you apparently are too obtuse to even understand what it meant and unintentionally doubled down. Not very smart......
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Comrade
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 3:54:37 PM
|
My purpose as your comrade is to mindlessly follow. That is why I am so interested in architect's opinion. I'm having an orgasm just knowing you have addressed me personally
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did you understand my point?!?
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 5:37:20 PM
|
Yes, but obviously you do not get mine...If the 9 freest economies in the world also happen to have universal and mandated healthcare and still operate as free economies it stands to reason it is possible to have and be both. You apparently still decree it is not possible in spite of the evidence before your eyes!!!
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Comrade
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 5:50:49 PM
|
Glad I could make your day as you have shown very low expectations in your surpisingly vituous life. May the King in DC give you contiued reason to rise each morning and say thanks for all he does for you and your fellow thankless souls.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
When did you ask this question?!?
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 6:06:35 PM
|
Did you ask this question in your original post because if you did I missed it entirely. But I will gladly answer it now.
It is apparent that given the information provided by Heritage that in fact an economy can overcome certain detrimental features like universal healthcare and enjoy relative economic freedom. But as I demonstrate in my response above it is also possible that an economy, in fact a great many economies, that have universal health care also are very poor in terms of economic freedom. Ergo, there is no direct correlation between the two other than one reduces economic freedom.
Your logical fallacy continues unabated......when will you finally get that?
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Comrade
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 7:17:37 PM
|
(virtuous? vacuous?) Please don't think I am a "thankless soul" - why would I be groveling so obediently? Either way, I found the high expectation thing just not to be working - so go low and quit thinking, take whatever is given, be thankful that someone is going to take care of me and my comrades.....
You are right about the King, and I know you and yours will continue to give him the respect he deserves, and he will continue to love and care for you as always
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Read below
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 9:40:01 PM
|
I already answered your question, which by the way you did not ask in your original post. Yes of course it is possible for a country to have reasonable economic freedom IN SPITE OF something like national health care. Assuming a country has reasonable laws and regulations that support economic freedom in the other areas that make up Heritage's criteria then all is well. But if you think the U.S. will be anything but less economically free once Obamacare is fully implemented you are sadly and irrationally mistaken. I suspect we will drop out of the top ten because of that and other leftist laws and regulations that are hampering our economy.
It is also possible and in fact easier to have economic freedom without it because it is the antithesis of freedom. It is government coercion forcing its citizens to either buy a product or receive health care through the government. And it is also true that the most economically repressive governments also have nationalized health care. Ergo, there is no direct correlation and the author draws a pointless, illogical and unrelated conclusion. If you cannot see the fallacy of the entire argument you have truly been failed by your education.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Finally...thank you
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 9:59:46 PM (updated 1/15/2013 10:06:05 PM)
|
Now that wasn't that hard was it? Of course there are economies with universal mandated healthcare that are basket cases. Nevertheless, according to the HF the top 9 freest economies do have such healthcare. True, there is no obvious correlation between the two...THAT, SIR, IS EXACTLY MY POINT. Thanks for helping make it. In the
past* you have contended that it is impossible to mandate universal healthcare and remain a free economy...they were mutually exclusive. According to the results of the HF an economic entity can have both, one may not be directly related to the other but it is possible to have both at the same time. I congratulate you on actually agreeing to this. Of course your added comment that the healthcare part is a negative on the free economy part makes no sense if the 9 freest economies ALL have healthcare. Don't you think at least a few of the top 9 would be economies without healthcare if healthcare is always a negative?
* Actually in posts about 3 years or so back during the run up to the healthcare debate we found ourselves in general agreement on the basics needed in health reform with a mandate and healthcare subsidies for those unable to completely pay for health insurance. At some point you apparently changed your mind...guess you finally got the talking points.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Comrade
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2013 11:18:56 PM
|
Why do you think it is true and not mirage?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
When have I ever said that?
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 8:32:09 AM (updated 1/16/2013 8:36:42 AM)
|
Archie, for some strange reason you act like you asked that question in your original post which you need to read because you did not. I am sorry Archie, as intelligent as we conservatives are even we can't think to answer questions you never asked. So stop pretending I am avoiding providing an obvious answer to an inane question. You may think you made a point but all you did was provide me with an opportunity to explain how universal health care harms economic freedom.
But more to the point, I defy to find where I ever said you cannot have economic freedom and health care. You are just making that up so go find the quote Archie (this thread excepted of course......I did that for GF's benefit). Put up or shut up.
Of course there is no direct correlation and if that was your point then it is even more inane than I thought. There is no direct correlation between overall economic freedom and any number of positive and negative policies, laws and regulations that countries can implement. Overall economic freedom as defined by Heritage involves numerous factors and not any one will trump the other eight or nine. Duh!
But I can assure you that issues like universal health care are detrimental to economic freedom and lower tax rates and regulatory burdens enhance economic freedom. Its really common sense.....something the left severely lacks.
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Comrade
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 8:56:24 AM
|
Seems that you find comfort in the grape also
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yeah,yeah,yeah...blah,blah,blah
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 9:14:36 AM (updated 1/16/2013 9:19:26 AM)
|
MM I did not ask the question in my original post even though it was certainly implied. I did ask the question in my 1/15/13...5:37:20 PM post, well before you sent you rant claiming I did not ask the question. Now I know this is being a bit pick-a-unish but with you it is often necessary. After all you are the one who always demands "facts".
Now please accept my thanks for finally answering the question a 2d time (paragraph 3 in your post) and proving the point of the original post once again...economic freedom and universal mandated national healthcare exist in the 9 freest economies in the world strongly demonstrating they are not mutually exclusive.
Maybe you have never uttered or posted the words "you cannot have economic freedom and healthcare." but you have sure made it obvious that that is (or at least was) your opinion.
And, MM...no...your opinion as to the negative impact of healthcare, taxes, or regulations it is not "common sense" to one he// of a lot reasonable people!!
Now "please proceed" MM. Let the obfuscation continue.
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yeah,yeah,yeah...blah,blah,blah
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 9:43:08 AM
|
Sorry, implied questions or answers are not allowed in this world. (Unless the King decides that to be the case with the 2nd Amendment, and then even you will get a pass with things like this.......)
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
So you were wrong in what you claimed?
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 10:17:50 AM
|
I am glad you at least have the ability to acknowledge that you did not in fact ask some question that I did not answer in my responses.
As for your point that a lot of people don't see universal health care as detrimental to economic freedom I would agree, of course proving my point about our failed education system and the inability of people to use facts, logic and reason to come to logical, common sense conclusions. After all, you did reelect a failure of a president, right?
But help me out with your so-called common sense. If Heritage's definition of economic freedom is, and I quote from their website: "...the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property", perhaps you could explain to us using what you seem to think is common sense how exactly the government either mandating that you buy a product (i.e., health insurance) or actually at the point of a gun takes your money away in the form of taxes to pay for health care promotes that fundamental right?
I await either your tortured attempt to explain something that makes no sense or your silly, infantile blah, blah, blah. I have noticed you use that frequently when you realize that you have no basis for argument.....which is pretty often with you. So educate us Archibald......I can't wait to eviscerate you once again.......like shooting fish in a barrel.....oh, wait a second....TOTUS may ban that by exec order as well.......
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Blah,blah,blah again
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 11:59:15 AM (updated 1/16/2013 12:04:43 PM)
|
I use it MM when you are demonstratively wrong and start to "obfuscate" ( see, I can us big words too) rather than admit or explain the error.
Yes oh magnificent one you are correct, as I have admitted in at least 2 posts, I did not specifically pose the question in my 1st post, Indeed sir it was at least the 2d and perhaps the 3d. So nitpicking what! It is like pulling the teeth of a chicken to get you are any other of your T-Party cadre to ever answer in a straight forward way any question no matter when it is asked.
Rather than my defending how I believe that a government mandate ever equates with freedom, why don't you explain how The Heritage Foundation doesn't...at least as far as their rating in the fore-posted list is concerned.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Oh BTW
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 12:16:54 PM (updated 1/16/2013 12:19:08 PM)
|
I agree I did help re-elect a failure as president........in 2004! In 2012 I helped 51.1% of the voters re-elect a president who has ,frankly, been a disappointment* but who is head and shoulders above the alternative.
Yes, a disappointment, but, considering a house of representatives that is willing to destroy the country in order to destroy Obama, most people of this great nation think he is deserving of another chance whether you like it or not!
Perhaps, you along with all the other gun nuts, may soon be taking up arms against the Kenyan born Socialist Muslim oppressor.
* Disappointment in that he too often seemed to side with the left side of his party rather than the sensible middle on entitlement reform.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bravo Sierra
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 1:06:09 PM
|
I've tried to stay out of this one as much as I can, but statements like "considering a house of representatives that is willing to destroy the country in order to destroy Obama" is just so much bovine shinola and render the rest of your arguments inconsequential. The House of Representatives is trying to SAVE the country FROM Obama, because if he were to adopt his agenda unimpeded, he would destroy this country as we know it. I salute the House for standing their ground and ensuring the system of checks and balances is still a force to be reckoned with.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You are so infantile
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 3:04:51 PM
|
I answered your question Archis and now it is your turn. Enlighten us oh wise one as to how programs like Obamacare promote economic freedom vis-a-vis the Heritage definition.
Let me help you out here Archie because this is obviously way above your pay grade. These kinds of programs reduce economic freedom. Period.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
He is hopeless
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 3:11:17 PM
|
Sadly I have come to believe that Archie actually believes what he has written in this post which is as sad a comment as I could possibly make.
He ignores the fact that the House has passed several budgets while the WH hasn't gotten a single vote on theirs from either party and the Dem-led Senate has refused to even vote on a budget for almost four years.
He ignores the fact that the GOP compromised and passed the tax hike without any spending cuts...in fact there were spending increases.
He ignores the fact that it is TOTUS who refuses to negotiate on anything....not one thing.......and that it takes two to tango when it comes to the debt ceiling.
He ignores the fact that TOTUS assembled and then dismissed his so-called bipartisan debt commission and that many of the recommendations of the commission were included in the House passed budget bills.
But it is all the GOP's fault.....and really just the fault of some non-existant party that has no elected officials in congress. When you have someone that is living in a world of fantasy frankly nothing should surprise you. He is just that lacking in a command of facts and the ability to apply logic and sound reason. He is invincibly ignorant....there is no other way to put it.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
One more time...blah,blah,blah
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 5:24:42 PM (updated 1/16/2013 5:35:58 PM)
|
MM can you not tell the difference when someone is making a point to refute a persons opinions by providing information from a 3d party that places reasonable doubt on said opinions and when a person is giving his own opinion to counter said opinion? Please show where I have claimed that universal mandated healthcare does or does not effect economic freedom. That being said, if you want my opinion I will freely give it. Requiring someone to provide healthcare for themselves could probably be said to have a negative immediate effect on that particular person's "economic freedom" by requiring out of pocket expense that they perhaps do not prefer to pay. It will, however; over the mid and long term have a positive effect on the economic freedom of you, me and everybody else who takes responsibility for their own insurance needs. This certainly equates to an overall positive effect on the economic freedom of the nation...That is you and I will no longer be paying for every 25 year old deadbeat's healthcare costs. He// yeah, that means more economic freedom for me to have a little more to spend on refrigerators, or hiring someone to care for my yard, or oysters or mutual funds. It lets me "control my own life and property" as I see fit by not having to help pay for someone else's healthcare. Guess I'm just selfish.
Now, do you still not grasp the fact that that is not and never was the point of this whole exercise. Surely your vast cranium can understand that the post was merely and simply to demonstrate that even as conservative a group as the Heritage Foundation is able to understand that even with required healthcare it is possible for an economy to be gloriously "FREE".
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Nice try
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 5:47:37 PM
|
If Obamacare will help my pocket book then how come insurance rates are skyrocketing and just about everyone agrees that the consumer and the government will end up paying more, just like everything else the government does. And in almost every country that has nationalized health care have seen skyrocketing costs, rationing, etc. Yep, that sure increases my economic freedom......except it won't in the short run or the long run.......except if you live in fantasyland.....which most liberals do.....
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Nice try...blah,blah,blah
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2013 11:23:05 PM (updated 1/16/2013 11:29:37 PM)
|
Obamacare is barely in place and none of the provisions, including the mandate, which will begin to make a real difference, are as yet in effect. in fact the increase in health insurance cost increases in 2010, 2011 and 2012 were lower than the previous decade increases on the average. This year they are going up faster because some provisions which cost the insurance companies (Kids living at home are covered until 25, kids cannot be turned down due to pre-conditions) are now in place but the mandate is not which means you are still covering for all those uninsured deadbeat daredevils when they end up in the intensive care unit after sliding their Harley under a semi.
The per capita healthcare cost in the US is by far the highest in the world. I am not sure about this year, but in 2007 the 2d highest, Switzerland, had a per capita cost less than 60% of the US and had far better results.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You are boring me
|
|
Date:
|
1/17/2013 11:16:25 AM
|
We will just have to agree to disagree and let others decide who makes sense and who doesn't. I have no doubt that there are lots of left wing nuts who will also believe one more thing that just isn't true. Just cracks me up......only a liberal could think forcing people to spend their money improves economic freedom.....no wonder you believe the war on poverty is being won, that government is the solution to anything, etc. Beliefs that fly in the face of all reason.......must be great to live in fantasyland while the rest of us live in the real world.
Nuff said on this subject.......
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Kentucky Lakes
»
Nolin River Lake
Login
|
Home
