Comments on: Smaller Government = Campaign Finance Reform http://troglopundit.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/smaller-government-campaign-finance-reform/ Just another bloviating troglodyte Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:19:58 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Ken Van Doren http://troglopundit.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/smaller-government-campaign-finance-reform/#comment-1213 Ken Van Doren Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:04:30 +0000 http://troglopundit.wordpress.com/?p=4073#comment-1213 Lance makes an excellent argument for what has been my position for almost as long as he has walked the earth. The more government is involved, the more political virtually everything becomes. Ultimately, there is more money to be gained in the political process than in production of goods and services. And the more money spent lobbying, either to protect your rights, or to fight have government pick your neighbors' pockets on your behalf, the fewer producers there will be, the fewer goods and services, the higher the taxes, the higher the costs of goods and services, and the more disadvantaged those who are barely making it will be. And the less prosperous society will be. Doubt me? ummmm look at today's economy. And unfortunately Jack is so---set in his ways, set in his thinking that he is virtually impervious to rational argument, but here goes: Jack, what makes you think that the government employees in your system will not be as self interested as those currently? Why would they forgo use of the political process, just as other special interests do? You ignore that it is third party payment more than anything that has increased medical costs, as neither the biller or the patient has a vested interest, or at least a greatly diminished vested interest in controlling costs. It is far easier to pass a bill to a third party than to a cost conscious, and/or limited income patient. And here is one that should seem obvious, especially given the political bent of the current administration. Single payer would make it easier for health care to be fully unionized. In fact, this adimin. would likely require it. That sure helped the efficiency of the auto companies, didn't it? NO WAY IN HE>>>>>CK that government control will diminish costs, at least not without severe rationing, which is another hallmark of the socialist systems. Most leftists object greatly to monopolies, recognizing that they ultimately harm consumers, and charge more than they could in a competitive economy. Why would health care be any different? ( and yes, single payer would likely de facto become single supplier.) I will not bother re-making the many other arguments I have already made elsewhere. No point, Jack will not listen anyway. Lance makes an excellent argument for what has been my position for almost as long as he has walked the earth. The more government is involved, the more political virtually everything becomes. Ultimately, there is more money to be gained in the political process than in production of goods and services. And the more money spent lobbying, either to protect your rights, or to fight have government pick your neighbors’ pockets on your behalf, the fewer producers there will be, the fewer goods and services, the higher the taxes, the higher the costs of goods and services, and the more disadvantaged those who are barely making it will be. And the less prosperous society will be. Doubt me? ummmm look at today’s economy.

And unfortunately Jack is so—set in his ways, set in his thinking that he is virtually impervious to rational argument, but here goes:

Jack, what makes you think that the government employees in your system will not be as self interested as those currently? Why would they forgo use of the political process, just as other special interests do? You ignore that it is third party payment more than anything that has increased medical costs, as neither the biller or the patient has a vested interest, or at least a greatly diminished vested interest in controlling costs. It is far easier to pass a bill to a third party than to a cost conscious, and/or limited income patient.

And here is one that should seem obvious, especially given the political bent of the current administration. Single payer would make it easier for health care to be fully unionized. In fact, this adimin. would likely require it. That sure helped the efficiency of the auto companies, didn’t it? NO WAY IN HE>>>>>CK that government control will diminish costs, at least not without severe rationing, which is another hallmark of the socialist systems.

Most leftists object greatly to monopolies, recognizing that they ultimately harm consumers, and charge more than they could in a competitive economy. Why would health care be any different? ( and yes, single payer would likely de facto become single supplier.)

I will not bother re-making the many other arguments I have already made elsewhere. No point, Jack will not listen anyway.

]]> By: MoneyedPoliticians http://troglopundit.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/smaller-government-campaign-finance-reform/#comment-1209 MoneyedPoliticians Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:28:15 +0000 http://troglopundit.wordpress.com/?p=4073#comment-1209 And importantly, Lance, you will not get these politicians to first cut off their cash flow in the hopes that public funding will open up. They must first ensure the funding mechanism of their campaigns, and then they can start turning their back on unnecessary spending and taxes. And importantly, Lance, you will not get these politicians to first cut off their cash flow in the hopes that public funding will open up. They must first ensure the funding mechanism of their campaigns, and then they can start turning their back on unnecessary spending and taxes.

]]> By: MoneyedPoliticians http://troglopundit.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/smaller-government-campaign-finance-reform/#comment-1207 MoneyedPoliticians Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:40:04 +0000 http://troglopundit.wordpress.com/?p=4073#comment-1207 Lance, just exactly what is it about money do you not understand? Taxpayers want smaller government and the special interests that give campaign cash want just the opposite. Who do you think is going to win that argument? Get the money out of the political system and you'll get your smaller government, because the politicians will be working for us instead of them. Your fantasy that politicians will somehow reduce government and shut off their revenue source is not very realistic. It isn't going to happen. Jack Lohman Lance, just exactly what is it about money do you not understand? Taxpayers want smaller government and the special interests that give campaign cash want just the opposite. Who do you think is going to win that argument?

Get the money out of the political system and you’ll get your smaller government, because the politicians will be working for us instead of them. Your fantasy that politicians will somehow reduce government and shut off their revenue source is not very realistic. It isn’t going to happen.

Jack Lohman

]]>