The Terrible Sweal

What else should it be called, when someone insists that others deserve different and lesser treatment under our civic institutions? Since they tender no intelligible public policy reasons against the legislation, people are right to wonder what sort of mental or character deficiency is responsible for their stance. How does that comply with the criteria of reason?

In every SSM discussion someone eventually asks the opponents these two basic questions. So far no answers are ever forthcoming. If they will not or cannot engage in the essential elements of a public policy discussion, how can social conservatives hope to have the rest of us take their objections seriously?

Riiiiight. You'd be more than willing to recognize their basic rights, if only they weren't so uppity! Nice.

Repeating vicious, unsupported character assassination is part of wha blew it for Harper a few weeks ago. And yet you carry on the same way here. Tsk. The answer to your question is that the evidence of wrongdoing does not substantially touch on the government leaders we haein office NOW. In short, voters don't (or didn't) see a thief when they were voting. And they see that calling someone a thief without foundation is the behaviour of a scoundrel. More Alice in lalaland drivel. I haven't spoken to any ordinary person in the last six months who isn't disgusted at the Liberals, who doesn't think Paul Martin is a liar... Poor Argus, simply cannot assimilate uncomfortable realities. Makes up selective definitions of 'ordinary people' to deny the evidence of polls, news, reason and many interlocutors here.

Yes, I would agree to that. Okay, so can we agree then that healthcare falls within the concept of life-or-death needs? (I.e. it might be a legitimate area for the public interest to infringe on private interests.) If so, what would you say is the basic purpose or objective the state might legitimatey assert for taking action? Perhaps, but in either of the scenarios we're discussing, patients have the ability to pay. In your single-payer system, every single person on the waiting-list has the exact same ability to pay for medical services. There *is* demand. Precisely. The single payer system provides everyone with the same demand power. Under a private purchase system some demand is lost because of some individuals' inability/unwillingness to afford it Price control as a result, not as a method. Limit the number of providers and you raise the price of the service. Limit amount you'll spend for procedures and you lower the price of the service.

There are many reasons people do not get the goods they are prepared to pay for. IOW, there are many reasons markets don't work well (or do not provide "welfare maximizing levels", as you put it). I would not characterize "market failure" as a "public good". Moreover, because "markets fail", that is not ergo a reason the State will do better. Not all market failure resolves around public goods, true. The issue of public goods is a specific subtype. I'll rephrase your question slightly to be certain of my meaning: Why would privately purchased healthcare not generate welfare maximizing levels of healthcare? Phrased this way, you see how two of my three main contentions are the answer to that: -controlled demand is more resource-efficient (health care is a 'natural monopsony'), and -the benefits of having healthy citizens are externalities in the individual's value calculation, but not external to a civic value calculation (the public goods thing).

That's a false and digraceful accusation. Have you been watching Gomery? Yet still the Libs top the polls. Explain that to me. Obviously Canadians would rather elect a theif than an honest politician. Repeating vicious, unsupported character assassination is part of wha blew it for Harper a few weeks ago. And yet you carry on the same way here. Tsk. The answer to your question is that the evidence of wrongdoing does not substantially touch on the government leaders we haein office NOW. In short, voters don't (or didn't) see a thief when they were voting. And they see that calling someone a thief without foundation is the behaviour of a scoundrel.

What a comment. Won't take s stand? You mean won't take the stand you want.

Indirectly, August, you are pointing out that theocrat-types' demands are simply special-pleading.

Okay, let us indeed figure out what we are each actually talking about. I say a public good is one which the market alone does not provide at welfare maximizing levels. Ergo there is a welfare gain if the state provides it.

You showed nothing of the thing. At most, you made the note that inoculations against infectious diseases have positive externalities. You should reread that thread, it seems. Nonsense. It shows that it is underresourced, that's all. You are working under an incorrect understanding of what constitutes a public good. Free ridership (viz your example), is not the same thing. I wish you wouldn't put me to the bother of answering reductionist bumf. I've expressed both ethical and economic reasons.

I don't think I was 'fishing'. Preston Manning, and LornaDueck appear frequently in the media suggeting faith should have a place in our public policy debates. Other posters here echo those sentiments. My post is meant to suggest a minimum reasonabe requirement society should receive before we can sensibly give credence to people making such demands. Z claims to be right because God says so. But X opposes Z and claims to be right because God says so. How is Y to choose between them? Why should Y even bother with either of them?

Your penchant for ludirously strained and nebulously constucted analogies continues uninterupted by my pleas that you discuss the topic at hand. Health care is a public good, as I showed some days back. It is not analogous to firework displays. Maybe it is analogous to a city water treatment and sewage system, but again, the topic here is health care.

In proper cases. I think we're going to disagree what constitutes a proper case, though. Yes. But I wanted to establish the scope of what we are disagreeing about. So, next step: would you agree that life-or-death needs of citizens fall within the type of public interests in which in might be legitmate for the state to infringe private interests? (I'm not trying to trick you (as if I could) . I'm just defining the issues between us. Sweal, you've been asked to explain what you mean by this once already. Did I mention this is a basic element of economics? I'm a bit surprised that I should hae to explain this at this point, but okay here we go: when demand goes up (buyers seek more) prices go up. When demand goes down (buyers seek less) prices go down. Now, the neocons say, 'Yes, but these higher prices will induce greater supply, raising the overall quantity of the commodity'. With me so far? Good ... In reply to that neo-con counterpoint, I make these points: -the ability to increase supply in response to demand is limited, especially in the short and medium (i.e. relevant to sick-persons') timeframe. -the same stimulatory increase in demand could be obtained more efficently through government leading the demand rather than individuals. -allowing the individual market to adjust the equilibrium price will mean wealth based inequities in healthcare, which I argue we should not permit (on economic and ethical grounds). You first sentence is almost right, the second is misguided. First: demand is not the patient, it is the money. A patient with no ability to pay creates no demand. Second: we are not talking about controlling suppliers, we're discussing control of demand. (Remember we just discussed private provision of services paid by the 'single (state) payer', right?)

This is getting just stupid. Argus, it is a basic element of econimics that when more purchasers compete for the same supply, price goes up. Presumably private medical clinics already operate at a profit. Adding fees to allow them to stay open later would not be taking any money out of the system. None of which meets the point in point 3. Of course it does, and your answer is unresponsive. No, YOUR answer was unresponsive. I am talking about the cost of market capital, the requirement for profit, and your comment does not speak to that matter at all. I have pointed out at length. You fail to understand it, maybe.

Now THAT was a troll.

Hmmm. Okay, just preliminarily, would you deny that in proper cases, the state may legitimately infringe private interests for the sake of the public interest?

In fact, most uses of courts are for private arbitration in which the two parties pay for court costs. The public courts do not recoup costs from litigants. Litigants recoup them from eachother. None of which constitute 'police' in the way our society implements the term. Let's stick with the reality we have here and now, perhaps? Exactly as a nation state may choose the level of health care it provides to itself. Improbable. I contend the opposite. Private health care will produce at an equilibrium point that will leave less wealthy purchasers in need. I have said I believe health care is a 'right' that our society should provide. I do believe this on ethical grounds, true, but it's justifiable on economic grounds as well. I believe our public policy should act as if it's wrong. If a man's life isn't worth the same as another's why should his vote matter? Why should any of his rights? Not in the least. Please don't be peurile. If you are comfortable with an unequal footing, why enforce an employee's contract against an employer? Or a woman's right against a rapist? Well, I'm not arguing for a state monopoly on supply. Only on demand.

That sounds vaguely communistic to me. The mere mention of 'civic', gives you a red-scare? The Berlin Wall fell iyears ago, August!

But now people who had been so enthusiastic about the SC are instant critics. I don't know who you mean by 'people'. I agree or disagree with the SCC as it seems right or wrong to me to do from time to time, based on the content of the issues and decisions. It would be unnecessary and inappropriate to use the clause in this matter, since this decision did not make a final determination about any Charter rights. Right. This is a public policy issue which attempting to deal with through the courts will ignore important considerations. Directly, it will make the public system more expensive. Indirectly, raising the costs for those who pay privately is a negative because it means you won't buy the SUV, or whatever. I am arguing that health care is something our society should provide to its members, just like police and courts. If society provides it, it should be provided on an equal footing. People seeking their own care interferes with the ability to provide public care. (Yes, I am aware some judges of the SCC disagree with me.) Would it satisfy your criticisms?

Suffice it to say this: You need to revisit the basic theory of supply and demand price curves. Until you get such basics down, there is little hope of you forming a correct opinion about health care. The only economies of scale I can see involve medical and pharamaceutical purchases, ... Economies of scale apply in all areas to some extent. Better management of the public system could probably find more. Presumably private medical clinics already operate at a profit. Adding fees to allow them to stay open later would not be taking any money out of the system. None of which meets the point in point 3. Adding user fees would have the affect of causing people to rethink whether they need to see a doctor quite as often as they do, thus reducing costs. Again, this is not responsive to the point of my comment. The only reason for going private is that the public system is not working. The only reason the public system is not working is that governments won't resource and manage it properly.

You want me to recite all of Stock's faults here again? Just look at the record. Cretien was not incompetent, nor barely literate, and the evidence of thievery didn't come to the public's attention until later. The polls say they wouldn't embrace Day. There you go again. Deny deny deny. Perhaps you could point to what other flaws he has, other than the obvious for you; conservative beliefs. My point (which you insist on blinding yourself to) is that to keep on losing, Harper doesn't need any other flaws than the attitudes, perspectives, and beliefs that he and his party represent.

From time to time we encounter the wish of some to have their religious beliefs be given more effect in public policy. Sometimes we might encounter those who feel that 'secularism' should be adandoned. So here's what I suggest. Advocates of such ideas should first gather up an comprehnsive assembly representing the entire spectrum of human religous belief. Sort out amongst yourselves what is 'true' , and produce a single holy book which you all agree, by consensus, is complete and accurate. THEN come to the rest of us. Until and unless you can get your own game sorted out, all your clamoring is just an annoyance.

First, fetuses don't breathe. Second, you assert that it is human, but that's the issue in dispute, isn't it? That's a completely irrelevant example.

Would Day have done a better or worse job than the clown the Liberals chose - Jean Chretien? Our question demonstrates exactly what I'm saying -- You're missing the point. Day DID do worse... he failed. But he also had no hope of succeeding, so how did Cons ever get the idea he could? Answer: flawed worldview. There you go again. Deny deny deny.