BTW - The notion that health care expenditures did not take off just as the Feds entered the game is ludicrous. Look at the links.

For one thing, the price would fall on an order of scale.

true. Yet, so too would be the majority of the reasons the costs are so high that they require aid.

and again I ask in vain for any evidence to back up your bald assertions.

Which is about as close to a state mental facility as no matter.

Have you actually seen a modern mental health facility?

Well you tell me, grew... since the HMO act of 73, have the screams about healthcare and it lack of quaity and it's high costs gotten anything but louder?

Quality and availability are up along with prices. You have yet to produce item one of evidence to back up any of your assertions.

Unquestionably. Have you, for example, seen the crime rates in Washington DC of late?

(Chuckle)
Pick any major city. If nothing else these are the very living symbols of big govermment. Yet, the per capita murder rates are higher than places where government takes a lower role.

So your answer is to ignore the mountain of contrary evidence and instead focus on crime in areas of high population density and contrast them with areas of low population density and blame increased crime in high density areas on too much government. That is about as weak as it gets.

The point is manafestly obvious when looking at the timeline of it.

If it is indeed manifestly obvious then there should be a mountain of evidence for you to draw from. Please share some of that evidence with us.

On the other hand, having roughly half the household income going to cover taxes or fees, imposed by government at some level, doesn't have a thing to do with it, huh?

Fine. Document that the average family pays more in taxes now than they did in say, the Eisenhower years.

But of course you will not be able to do this, because your universe is centered on how you feel things to be, not on any facts. You are sort of the Mort Liddy of political chat...

In a debate most adults grasp the concept that they just might be wrong about something, you seem to lack this ability.

The reason so many mothers work now is that one income will not pay for the modern American lifestyle in most cases.

Moder lifestyle has little if anything to do with it. On the other hand, having roughly half the household income going to cover taxes or fees, imposed by government at some level, doesn't have a thing to do with it, huh?

Obviously you CAN'T support your position.

I don't feel the need, Anjin. The point is manafestly obvious when looking at the timeline of it. Assuming of course you're not drinking koolaid at the time.

Well, back in the day, you know... before the welfare state... we used to have "mothers" who stayed at home and took care of the kids. Quiant, I suppose, and sexist, but it did manage to get the job done rather well.

Utter nonsense. The reason so many mothers work now is that one income will not pay for the modern American lifestyle in most cases. You know, the 6000 sq ft home, a tv & computer in every bedrooms, cellphones, iPods, etc. etc. "back in the day, most Americans lived far more frugally, and one income generally did the trick. "Welfare state" is a complete red herring.

You keep saying that, and you have not supported your position in any way.

So, you don't see the situation getting worse with every governmental 'solution'?

You keep ducking this question. Obviously you CAN'T support your position.

because your postion was that government should be taking the situation in hand, even though it's not their job.

Please show me where I have said this.

and in the case of health care the result of that would be what?

For one thing, the price would fall on an order of scale.

Consider that all government aid to hospitals and clinics would be gone

true. Yet, so too would be the majority of the reasons the costs are so high that they require aid.

generally by locking the offending member in the basement or attic in the case of mental disability

Which is about as close to a state mental facility as no matter.

I have yet to see you produce one scintilla of evidence to support your position here.

Well you tell me, grew... since the HMO act of 73, have the screams about healthcare and it lack of quaity and it's high costs gotten anything but louder?

Do you really think crime in general and murder in particular are lower where there is less government.

Unquestionably. Have you, for example, seen the crime rates in Washington DC of late?

(Chuckle)
Pick any major city. If nothing else these are the very living symbols of big govermment. Yet, the per capita murder rates are higher than places where government takes a lower role.

It's actually rather simple; No governmental intervention. None.

and in the case of health care the result of that would be what?
What would health care look like for the average person?
Consider that all government aid to hospitals and clinics would be gone. Employers would not be required to cover employees and so less of them would. Where do those people get care? What of the elderly, infirm, and feeble? What about the poor and their children?
It seems to me that your plan, such as it is, leaves most people with minimal or no primary care or emergency care. How do you propose to deal with this problem or do you not see it as a problem?

Before we let government take over the role by way of the welfare state, we used to have seomthing called 'a family' who rose to deal with such situations.

generally by locking the offending member in the basement or attic in the case of mental disability. In the case of serious illness it generally meant keeping them as comfortable as possible until they died, unless the family was particularly wealthy.

You're correct. It is. It's broken to the exact degree that government is involved.

I have yet to see you produce one scintilla of evidence to support your position here.

I suggest the same applies to healthcare. When people take over the responsiblity for their own healthcare, the situation vastly improves.

Again no evidence.

True. Yet, there was a time in this country when the individual was charge with the majority of that responsibility. Funny thing; Crime rates were lower, including murder.

Do you have any evidence what so ever to back up that claim? A quick look at a graph of murder rate per capita in the US indicates that murder rates did not increase above rates typical in the 1890s until the mid 1980s. Is this Reagan's fault?
Do you really think crime in general and murder in particular are lower where there is less government. I give you every lawless area and every well policed area in the world as evidence to the contrary. Some current areas were government is minimal: Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Congo, Chad. Some current areas with high level of government control: Sweden, Japan, Norway, Canada, Germany. Which set do you think has higher rates of theft? murder? rape?
Even within the US, the southern states generally have less government than the northern states yet the murder rates in southern states are higher than those of northern states.

So the parents should arm themselves, and then quit their jobs so that they can escort their kids to and from school (and everywhere else). Good plan.

Well, back in the day, you know... before the welfare state... we used to have "mothers" who stayed at home and took care of the kids. Quiant, I suppose, and sexist, but it did manage to get the job done rather well.

You keep saying that, and you have not supported your position in any way.

So, you don't see the situation getting worse with every governmental 'solution'?

As an example, when one discovers the fire alarm is broken, they should contact facilitires, and let them know about the problem, then follow up to make sure the problem is resolved in a timely fashion. Interesting how you are arguing for "responsibility" yet advocating passing the buck in almost the same breath.

Nice attempt at a dodge. A moment ago, you were telling me I was passing the buck because I didn't break out my toolkit to take the sitaution in hand, because your postion was that government should be taking the situation in hand, even though it's not their job. As I say... nice attempt, but it still missed the mark.

Hmm. The military is providing a lot of quality health care. Still going to duck that one.

Why do you keep going back to that? Apples and oranges, Anjin. there is no direct comparison between those being injured in the service of their country, being cared for by said country, to a blanket 'you're here, your covered' plan. None.

Here's a concept: Children are the responsibility of the parents.

So the parents should arm themselves, and then quit their jobs so that they can escort their kids to and from school (and everywhere else). Good plan.

You're correct. It is. It's broken to the exact degree that government is involved.

You keep saying that, and you have not supported your position in any way.

Possibly. But also on par with your "Good lord bit, how old were you when you learned to tie your shoes, 20?" line.

Are we clear on this?

whatever you say Georgie.

Nope. As an example, if the fire alarm system is broken, that's not my job. Nor is it my particular talent set.

As an example, when one discovers the fire alarm is broken, they should contact facilitires, and let them know about the problem, then follow up to make sure the problem is resolved in a timely fashion. Interesting how you are arguing for "responsibility" yet advocating passing the buck in almost the same breath.

he government has specifically enumerated responsibilties, and talents, and healthcare isn't one of them.

Hmm. The military is providing a lot of quality health care. Still going to duck that one.

So we should issue handguns to 9 year olds and then they can protect themselves when walking to school?

Here's a concept: Children are the responsibility of the parents.

What about people who are too sick to "take responsibility". Old and easily confused. Not smart enough?

Before we let government take over the role by way of the welfare state, we used to have seomthing called 'a family' who rose to deal with such situations.

Ah, a buck passer. You would last about a week where I work.

Nope. As an example, if the fire alarm system is broken, that's not my job. Nor is it my particular talent set. The government has specifically enumerated responsibilties, and talents, and healthcare isn't one of them.

Our country's health care system IS broken

You're correct. It is. It's broken to the exact degree that government is involved.

Every time a CCW law is pased in an area.. usually a state... crime rates fall, for example. And remember, you said Every Time

Document Please.

You;ve been under a rock, I presume?
http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=877

And so on.

Thats your comeback? Right up there with George Costanza's "The jerk store just called" line.

Possibly. But also on par with your "Good lord bit, how old were you when you learned to tie your shoes, 20?" line.

Are we clear on this?

When the something that's broken is not my responsibility, I do nothing

Ah, a buck passer. You would last about a week where I work.

Our country's health care system IS broken. As an American, and as somebody who would like to have decent health care for myself and my family, I figure it is my responsibility.

I'm imparting a concept, here. Conceptually, when people are responsible for their own wellbeing, including being amred, they're safer.

So we should issue handguns to 9 year olds and then they can protect themselves when walking to school? Then we can just fire all those nasty government cops.

Every time a CCW law is pased in an area.. usually a state... crime rates fall, for example. And remember, you said Every Time

Document Please.

I suggest the same applies to health care. When people take over the responsiblity for their own healthcare, the situation vastly improves.

So your argument is based entirely on an idea you have, with nothing to support it.

What about people who are too sick to "take responsibility". Old and easily confused. Not smart enough?

Last time I was contracting and tried to get individual health care, I got a pretty nasty surprise about how much leverage an individual has in dealing with insurers. None.

Could you provide a bit of detail to support this?

I'm imparting a concept, here. Conceptually, when people are responsible for their own wellbeing, including being amred, they're safer. Every time a CCW law is pased in an area.. usually a state... crime rates fall, for example.

I suggest the same applies to healthcare. When people take over the responsiblity for their own healthcare, the situation vastly improves.