Let's wait and see if it is true - false flag operations, terrorist attacks

[Loyal Rogue]

Gee-wiz Dave, you're such a cynic.

What on earth would ever make you suspect that the group responsible for defrauding two elections, committing treason by outing an undercover CIA operative during a time of war, invading a country and killing over 500,000 citizens based on a pack of lies, embezzling $9 Billion in cash, and torturing POWs to death would ever stoop to something so low as running a simple false flag operation?

[FlashLackey]

What on earth would ever make you suspect that the group responsible for defrauding two elections, committing treason by outing an undercover CIA operative during a time of war, invading a country and killing over 500,000 citizens based on a pack of lies, embezzling $9 Billion in cash, and torturing POWs to death would ever stoop to something so low as running a simple false flag operation?

V for Vendetta was a movie.

[david petley]

Gee-wiz Dave, you're such a cynic.

What on earth would ever make you suspect that the group responsible for defrauding two elections, committing treason by outing an undercover CIA operative during a time of war, invading a country and killing over 500,000 citizens based on a pack of lies, embezzling $9 Billion in cash, and torturing POWs to death would ever stoop to something so low as running a simple false flag operation?

I think it comes from about 40 years of watching politicians lie and put their own interests before the well-being of their country.

[FlashLackey]

I think it comes from about 40 years of watching politicians lie and put their own interests before the well-being of their country.

I share that sentiment. That's why I don't understand why you guys think its better to have those monkeys in more control of programs than they need to be (health care, etc.).

[david petley]

I share that sentiment. That's why I don't understand why you guys think its better to have those monkeys in more control of programs than they need to be (health care, etc.).

I can't get away from the principals I was brought up with. My father was a union man and a freemason. He believed in free early education (up to university level), he believed everybody should have basic access to some degree of medical and dental care. He taught me that no man is an island, that the real wealth and health of a society was reflected only by the poorest member.

That is why I favour government control over health and education. The trick is to get good decisions relating to those aspects of society, and sadly, you do not need to be well-intentioned, intelligent, or even honest, to be a politician.

david

[FlashLackey]

I can't get away from the principals I was brought up with. My father was a union man and a freemason. He believed in free early education (up to university level), he believed everybody should have basic access to some degree of medical and dental care. He taught me that no man is an island, that the real wealth and health of a society was reflected only by the poorest member.

Quite understandable. But, the principle, in the end is the goal. The best role for government should be the one that delivers that goal best, no?

That is why I favour government control over health and education. The trick is to get good decisions relating to those aspects of society, and sadly, you do not need to be well-intentioned, intelligent, or even honest, to be a politician.

Right. But, we could function perfectly well under a monarchy, if only the king (or queen) made "all the right decisions." At some point, don't you have to recognize that humans are not infallable? The people behind government and private endeavor are all equally prone to the weaknesses of men. The main difference is in what happens when each effort fails. Private efforts go out of business when they fail, losing ground to competition. When government efforts fail, they almost invariably end up becoming campaign fodder for politicians, are near impossible to change and become more expensive over time.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Right. But, we could function perfectly well under a monarchy, if only the king (or queen) made "all the right decisions." At some point, don't you have to recognize that humans are not infallable? The people behind government and private endeavor are all equally prone to the weaknesses of men. The main difference is in what happens when each effort fails. Private efforts go out of business when they fail, losing ground to competition. When government efforts fail, they almost invariably end up becoming campaign fodder for politicians, are near impossible to change and become more expensive over time.

What can be worse is if private enterprise doesn't fail. Private enterprise will almost always place profit over performance, no? And as is very obvious in medical coverage, if the top 20% are making them the profits then they don't really care about the lower 80%.

That's fairly common business practice, no?

Hence why having a public health system providing basic essential coverage, with a private system for those who want a little more, would certainly seem to make more sense.

As an example.

[FlashLackey]

Given competition, private enterprise does not have the option to "place profit over performance" because if they do, their competition will take all of their business. That is precisely why free market economies work well. It is also precisely the problem with many government run programs, there is no competition.

The idea that the top 20% makes the profits for the health industry is complete nonsense. Where did you pull that out of? Only 4.5% of the working population is unemployed. Most of them are probably covered by their parents policies. Most businesses provide health coverage for their employees. That includes the vast majority of the country and the "lower 80%". The top 20% is not more profitable than the "lower 80%" because they also cover themselves medically with insurance. Why would they spend more out of their pocket for $150k medical procedures when they could have insurance like anyone else? A person in the lower 23.5% with medical insurance can go and have a $150k procedure done just the same as the top 20% can.

[The people who get screwed most are the ones who have to pay for medical insurance out of pocket. Not that that would be a bad thing if the system wasn't broken. But, what happens is that the health industry isn't under pressure to offer competitive prices because the people incurring the charges don't have to pay for them (their insurance does). Naturally, prices have become inflated and the margin game is in insurance policies with tricky caveats instead of in which hospitals provide the best care for the lowest price. Businesses and the self-employed get stuck with the bill for the inflated prices.]

[villain2]

I can't get away from the principals I was brought up with. My father was a union man and a freemason. He believed in free early education (up to university level), he believed everybody should have basic access to some degree of medical and dental care. He taught me that no man is an island, that the real wealth and health of a society was reflected only by the poorest member.

That is why I favour government control over health and education. The trick is to get good decisions relating to those aspects of society, and sadly, you do not need to be well-intentioned, intelligent, or even honest, to be a politician.

david

I think you answered your own reason why government should NOT be in control ... because they are not informed or intelligent people in that field. They're not doctors, they're not business people, they're not teachers ... they're people who perform to get votes.

America is supposed to be the every man is an island nation. If that's what it is, that's what it is. You succeed or fail on your own steam. The government is supposed to be there to make sure the playing field is even ... although it fails at that sometimes. If they can't even regulate the playing field, do I want them running it?