Liberal view of Government.

[TDPerk]

"The point is that 95% of the health care you consume in your entire life happens in the last five years of your life, and only extends life by 1 year."

And that last year of life keeps on happening later and later, and many "advances" in nutrition seem to have been false, ei, animal fats and salt in the diet do not affect most people in the usual quantities. You have to be genetically sensitive for them to do anything to you.

[Skipjack]

* Compensatory damages should be limited to real, demonstrable damages.

I agree on that one.

Punitive damages should not be insurable.

So what is that going to do? Now you have doctors that get sued by their clients and they dont even have insurance covering it! That is counter productive. It will directly lead to two things:
1. Doctors will get more expensive since they will have to cover their asses against malpractice suits all by themselves, without an insurance.
So they will have to make sure they make enough money out of everybody else until that one looser that cant pay his medical bills (because he thought that he would not need insurance) decides to sue him.
2. Even less people will become medical doctors because they are affraid of lawsuits. The US already has a lack of MDs in certain areas and that will only get worse. So far you have been able to fill the holes with doctors from india... not too sure whether I want that...
3. If there are even less doctors, those remaining will get even more expensive. You know market and demand all that

Insurance company profit rates should not be artificially limited.

So they would get even more expensive than they already are?
Hmmm, how would that help with making things cheaper?

[TDPerk]

Define warlords, define lawlessness in this context please.
The US has its crime problems and it is fighting wars pretty much constantly somewhere.

Roving bands of irregulars imposing ad hoc law wherever they can hold territory. That was China for much of that period. Peking's write was neither large nor firm. The US is in no way similar.

Maybe not, but maybe you would. I would not want to bet the existance of my country, my society, maybe even the lives of my children on this.
Once you have done this, you will have a very hard time going back and it might take a lot of fighting and economical ruin to go back to where we are now.
I would not want to risk that I would not want to be the politician making that bet.

Eliminating prohibition would eliminate 100% of the costs associated with it, and would make ameliorating all the costs of drug misuse a great deal easier. A liquor store operator is not more likely to be a criminal than anyone else is, and neither is his truck driver, or the warehouse operator.

Liberty is always a safe bet.

[Skipjack]

"The point is that 95% of the health care you consume in your entire life happens in the last five years of your life, and only extends life by 1 year."

First, citation please.
Second please explain the decreased child mortality and increased life expectancy over the last 100 years.
Third, people forget soooo quickly. Like the Flu outbreak in the beginning of the 20st century. How many millions died all over the world?
Fourth, it is not just the lifespan it is also the quality of life.

[Skipjack]

Roving bands of irregulars imposing ad hoc law wherever they can hold territory. That was China for much of that period. Peking's write was neither large nor firm. The US is in no way similar.

Ahem, the Quins dynasty had been in charge for more than 250 years. So I dont know where you get your ideas from.
How long ago was the US civil war again? When was the last fight against the native americans? Hu?
Let me hear some numbers!

Eliminating prohibition would eliminate 100% of the costs associated with it, and would make ameliorating all the costs of drug misuse a great deal easier.

This is debateable, making something legal is not going to redude the number of its abusers.
In contrary!
I think every child has tried at least one sip from daddy's whiskey, brandy, or whatever (then hated it and giggled and went its ways). A kid tries that with opium and you have serious problems. But... it is legal. If it is legal, there will issues like that and much more.

As I said, China was down because of it.
You think the US economy can stay affloat with, say 35% maybe 40% addicts?

There is a reason why hard drugs have been banned in almost all countries in the world, independently of cultural heritage or social system, etc.
Why is that?

[TDPerk]

TD, I wasn't aiming the 'Be Civil' just at you.

No, you just quoted me, that's all...

Not being civil is pointless, since it means that everyone is just shouting and never listening. Eventually the fights start, and that never leads anywhere good.

Actually, as Jerry Pournelle pointed out, we recently had the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Sometimes the most excellent thing in the world comes from picking a fight even if it kills a good percentage of your population and destroys a good chunk of your infrastructure.

But I'm not worried about the left on that score, they have no moral courage.

But JoeOh did say something true and relevant. Do you have a tanker truck, pumper, and 2000 gallon water supply in your garage?

No he did not say anything true or relevant. His counterfactual--by that I mean untruthful--post implies most or even a substanbtial proportion of taxes go to such services, so we should STFU and not complain about them; and also that they in fact cannot be provided by anything other than government, so much so that competing approaches to providing should not be allowed to exist.

So no, he said nothing true or relevant.

[Skipjack]

Sometimes the most excellent thing in the world comes from picking a fight even if it kills a good percentage of your population and destroys a good chunk of your infrastructure.

Yeah very mature way of thinking. Hitler sure thought the same way (hey now I get to bring that argument for a change).

[TDPerk]

Ahem, the Quins dynasty had been in charge for more than 250 years. So I dont know where you get your ideas from.

History, the Quins[sic] weren't in charge at that point.

How long ago was the US civil war again? When was the last fight against the native americans? Hu?
Let me hear some numbers!

Civil war was about 170 years ago, and that conflict all but esclusively involved Westphalian organized armies largely respecting the rules of war. Behind the lines, the civil courts generally continued to operate, and in some locales even in the South never saw an interregnum period. The last conflict with Native Americans that involved the Army instead of civil police units was about 110-120 years ago or more ago, and at that point involved about 0.001 of the American population. So in claiming there is any comparison between America now, or even America a hundred of years ago to China at the end of the Opium wars and in subsequent decades leaves you wrong by about five orders of magnitude.

This is debateable, making something legal is not going to redude the number of its abusers.

I never said it would reduce the numbers. It may even slightly increase them. It will however, reduce the net costs of dealing with them because they will not first have to be exposed as criminals, making their management more efficient.

In contrary!

To what you thought I said?

I think every child has tried at least one sip from daddy's whiskey, brandy, or whatever (then hated it and giggled and went its ways). A kid tries that with opium and you have serious problems. But... it is legal. If it is legal, there will issues like that and much more.

And whiskey is illegal for kids to acquire, yet they have it. Opium is illegal for anyone to have as such, yet they have it such that they cost us all this money. You seem to be imagining they people who want drugs tend not to get them, because they are illegal.

That's comedy gold.

As I said, China was down because of it.
You think the US economy can stay affloat with, say 35% maybe 40% addicts?

I don't believe the number of people who become addicted would go up 10% from what the numbers are now. As an absolute upper bound, the numbers who are addicted would go up to twofold what they are now--everyone who wants to try a drug gets to now anyway, so why would the number who become addicted go up much?

Law enforcement makes drugs more expensive (and for organized crime profitable) not unavailable.

There is a reason why hard drugs have been banned in almost all countries in the world, independently of cultural heritage or social system, etc.
Why is that?

And that reason is because people in government like control and an excuse to exercise and be seen to exercise power in a manner that they can sell as being to society's good. Same sort of reason we had for alcohol prohibition, which was just as stupid as drug prohibition.

[TDPerk]

Hitler sure thought the same way

So did George Washington, what point do you delude yourself into thinking you have?

[Skipjack]

History, the Quins[sic] weren't in charge at that point.

I appologize that was meant to read the Qing dynasty.
A little typo may be forgiven, yes?

Civil war was about 170 years ago, and that conflict all but esclusively involved Westphalian organized armies largely respecting the rules of war. Behind the lines, the civil courts generally continued to operate, and in some locales even in the South never saw an interregnum period. The last conflict with Native Americans that involved the Army instead of civil police units was about 110-120 years ago or more ago, and at that point involved about 0.001 of the American population. So in claiming there is any comparison between America now, or even America a hundred of years ago to China at the end of the Opium wars and in subsequent decades leaves you wrong by about five orders of magnitude.

You are contradicting yourself and you are putting yourself and your country higher than you and your country deserve.

And whiskey is illegal for kids to acquire, yet they have it. Opium is illegal for anyone to have as such, yet they have it such that they cost us all this money. You seem to be imagining they people who want drugs tend not to get them, because they are illegal.

How many have it? How many? It is about numbers! Of course some have it now too.
Also, yes it is illegal to sell alcohol to children, but almost everyone has some at home, because that is LEGAL. If more people had heroin at home because it is legal that would make the drug much more accessible.
Also the border to try something legal (yet harmful) is lower than the border to try something illegal of the same harm.
Again it is all about the numbers.

I don't believe the number of people who become addicted would go up 10% from what the numbers are now. As an absolute upper bound, the numbers who are addicted would go up to twofold what they are now--everyone who wants to try a drug gets to now anyway, so why would the number who become addicted go up much?

You BELIEVE that they will not increase more than 10%. You believe that, but you have nothing to base this assumption on. I do have the example of China to base mine on. Maybe I am wrong, but currently I do have more data that says I am right and you are wrong.

The number would go up, because non addicts would have easier and legal access to the drug.

And that reason is because people in government like control and an excuse to exercise and be seen to exercise power in a manner that they can sell as being to society's good. Same sort of reason we had for alcohol prohibition, which was just as stupid as drug prohibition.

Alcohol wont get you addicted the first time you try it. You can get (really)drunk hundreds of times without getting addicted. Heroin will get you hooked very quickly. It can end up in your drink and you might get hooked (ok the odds for that are rather small, but it can happen).
Also, you should get a little more real. You might have trust issues with your own government (seeing the last 8 years, I can kinda understand why), but while I think that my government is made up out of a bunch of idiots, I am pretty sure that they dont think about control over something when they deny to legalize drugs.
In fact, as things would go here, they would actually gain MORE control from legalizing heroin, since they would monopolize it just as they did the cigarettes here. It would be the best way for them to BE IN CONTROL!
You control the heroin supply, you control the addicts= Instant voter control.
Now THAT would be scary!

[Skipjack]

So did George Washington, what point do you delude yourself into thinking you have?

The point that you are clearly more deluded than I am

[seedload]

Everyone, and I mean everyone outside the US hates that attitude.

Don't care.

The US never was perfect.

Never claimed it was.

You started with lofty ideals, and it went downhill from there. Just like everywhere else.

As predicted.

You say you're fighting to return to those ideals. Great!.

Thanks

But saying that nobody else can understand those ideals is like an emo kid saying how nobody understands how terrible his life is.

I never said no one else could understand. I said unique perspective. This is no different from your original statement about liking your healthcare. You were presenting your unique perspective on Canadian health care and I don't begrudge you for doing so.

Good luck to you.

[alexjrgreen]

Roving bands of irregulars imposing ad hoc law wherever they can hold territory. That was China for much of that period. Peking's write was neither large nor firm. The US is in no way similar.

Ahem, the Quins dynasty had been in charge for more than 250 years. So I dont know where you get your ideas from.

By the time opium was legalized after the second Opium war, China had been defeated twice by the world superpower.

Iraq without any attempt at reconstruction would be a modern comparison.

[Skipjack]

By the time opium was legalized after the second Opium war, China had been defeated twice by the world superpower.

And?
What is the point of that?
You think that just because the US is undefeated in wars (recently), your people wont fall for opium just like the Chinese did?
You are currently experiencing a really bad economic situation, with no end in sight. Something that can happen any time. You think that this wont be enough for your people to fall for the drug?
You know what? If you guys think that heroin is such a non problem. Why dont you guys go and try it a couple of times and then let me know how it went, ok? After all, you are claiming that it is not that bad, not that addictive and all that. You are seemingly soooo convinced of that, that you want your entire country to follow you on this horror trip. Then please go first!
Show me!

[KitemanSA]

Punitive damages should not be insurable.

So what is that going to do? Now you have doctors that get sued by their clients and they dont even have insurance covering it! That is counter productive. It will directly lead to two things:

Interesting. I suggest that one should ask if one seeks to understand more, and do you ask? No, you slam. Honey and vinigar dude, honey and vinigar.

1. Doctors will get more expensive since they will have to cover their asses against malpractice suits all by themselves, without an insurance.
So they will have to make sure they make enough money out of everybody else until that one looser that cant pay his medical bills (because he thought that he would not need insurance) decides to sue him.

You may wish to learn how to look beyond the knee-jerk into the cause. Punitive damages cost so much to the medical profession because LAWYERS can make a LOT of money going after them. Remove that incentive, and the urge to punish for your profit goes away too. Besides, if you believe that it is right that grossly neglegent doctors should be able to pay someone else to take their punishment, you must believe that it is ok for rich folk to pay poor folk to go to jail for them when they kill someone. And that is just sick. How can you be so sick?

2. Even less people will become medical doctors because they are affraid of lawsuits. The US already has a lack of MDs in certain areas and that will only get worse. So far you have been able to fill the holes with doctors from india... not too sure whether I want that...

Dude, I said PUNITIVE. Learn the difference please. If a doctor is SO neglegent that he gets hit with punitive damages given no payout to the lawyer, I WANT him gone from the profession. The current system just keeps these quacks in business and makes everyone else pay for their quackery. Lawyers push for punitive damages because it earns them A LOT of money. Juries award the damages because ... heck, its only the insurance company. (Which, by the way, the insurance companies love).

3. If there are even less doctors, those remaining will get even more expensive. You know market and demand all that

Since your premiss is not valid, your conclusion is bunk.

Insurance company profit rates should not be artificially limited.

So they would get even more expensive than they already are?
Hmmm, how would that help with making things cheaper?

Yet again you are knee jerking rather than thinking. The Democrats would love you.
The insurance company has to make a certain amount of money each year to please their share holders. That amount has a fixed minimum. Let us say for the sake of argument that that number is $50,000,000. If they are allowed to make that however they want, they can be highly efficient and cost reductive in their business. They may get away with charging premiums of $500M given a profit margin of 10%. But then along comes the knee jerker and says "they make too much profit margin. We will limit them to 5% maximum". So what happens? They arrange to have expenditures that cause the premiums to raise to $1000M to get the same job done (can you say lawsuit?), and the premium payer (me, and you if you lived here) pays twice as much as they need to for the same service. REAL beneficial there dude.

Please try thinking rather than reacting.