TomAiello

Yes, but simply providing the money does not destroy the market mechanism. A well functioning market can generate varying outcomes by simply changing the inputs. You can change the inputs without eliminating the market. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Horus, son of Osiris and Isis, god of hunters and warriors. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes, I would. I don't think we ought to give handouts to them (or anyone else), and I'm ok with screening out people who mean us (either us collectively, i.e. terrorists, or us individually, i.e. criminals) harm. But generally, yes, I don't think barriers to immigration are a good idea. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I disagree. You can use the market mechanism (to drive cost down, and availability and quality up) but still create a safety net to keep people from being uninsured. For example, you could allow people to enroll in the federal employees insurance program, then give everyone a cash payment equal to the cost of the most expensive option. People would still have an incentive to choose carefully (because they'd keep any extra cash). Make the cash payment a totally refundable tax credit and you'll be guilty of a multi-trillion dollar tax increase, too, or at least so said the president during the last election, when his opponent suggested the idea. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The cost estimates are based on research conducted by a little known student of economics--a guy by the name of Milton Friedman. The best non-technical explanation of his findings that I've found is in this book (which also has a bunch of other interesting ideas in it). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes. Because the fed's "insurer" is actually more than a hundred private insurance companies. Federal employees (like employees in many large enterprises) are offered a selection of insurance plans to choose from in their benefits package. To qualify for inclusion in the package (which of course, is highly desirable from their standpoint) the companies must agree to insure any federal employee who chooses their plan in his benefit package. It's pretty standard, and looks a lot like the plans being used by most large corporations (and many small ones) in the US today. I don't think it's a complete solution, but it's a quick and easy start that would solve a bunch of issues, extend universal coverage, and reduce the federal (and state) budgetary costs all at once. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Spoilsport! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't think I've ever heard that. What is it from? Who wrote it? When was it written? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Wow. That's a huge and hyperbolic over-generalization. With a well functioning market, prices decline and quality (and availability) increase. Perhaps instead of condemning the "market" in healthcare, we ought to be looking for ways to actually create one--because it certainly doesn't exist now. I'd enroll them all in the federal government's benefit program (the one for federal employees). We could call them all federal employees with a salary of zero, and have the federal government pay for their health insurance, under the existing (and generally well regarded) federal program that provides insurance for current employees. The premiums that we'd have to pay for them to participate in that insurance program would actually be less than what we're spending now on federal and state health assistance programs (medicare and medicaid). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm not sure if you're trying to say that healthcare in the US operates in a free market condition. If you are, I disagree heartily. If you are concerned about market inefficiencies in this case, the best way to correct them is not to disrupt the market mechanism--it's to change the starting inputs. In other words, we'd be better off if we just gave those poor patients the cash to pay for their care, rather than messing around with the actual delivery of the care. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I really do think that people at AIG were largely responding to their incentives in a rational (i.e. self-interested manner). The way to change those behaviors isn't to insist that they behave more selflessly--it's to examine the incentives they face and consider ways to change those incentives. With regards to the NHS business, I am of the opinion that the primary driver in health care quality is patient choice--when people can take their business elsewhere they can demand (and reward) quality care. When they are locked into a no-choice system, they have no power. Empowering the patients (by allowing them to choose better quality, lower prices, or whatever they want to choose), is the most important pre-requisite to providing effective health care. I do not believe that either the UK or the USA have systems that encourage patient empowerment (and give patients the ability to really make choices about their care). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

In my mind, the solution there is to stop giving stuff out to people (any people). I don't blame anyone for responding rationally to the incentives they face. I'd just prefer that the incentives be opportunities to succeed through hard work, rather than the chance to suck at the government teat. I haven't seen the numbers recently, but the last time I looked most illegal immigrants actually contributed more to the government budget (in payroll taxes) then they took out, perhaps partially because they were afraid of being deported if they tried to claim the benefits. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I honestly think that some systems will encourage better local management, and some will encourage worse local management. A lack of accountability generally leads to worse local management. A centralized system with no patient choice generally leads to a lack of accountabilty. The argument here is that the system was exactly what led to the poor local management. Simply typing "NOT" in all caps does not win that argument. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You mean the government run (i.e. socialized, or if you prefer, "National Health Service") hospital? I think you're making the original poster's point far more eloquently than he did. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I would argue that all humans have certain inalienable rights, regardless of their location or jurisdiction. I know that the real world doesn't always work that way--I just think it should. Some people justify this belief by claiming it is some sort of divinity that grants those rights, and as such they cannot be abrogated by the law of mortal men. I'm an atheist, so I'm just going to go with "that's they way it ought to be, because I said so." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It seems to me that it will work better than simply giving sheeplike obedience to the government, no matter what dictates it issues to us. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think you put the quotes around the wrong word there. What is the "problem" exactly? People who want work and are willing to work for less compensation are hired to perform tasks. Those people are compensated in accordance with their agreements. Goods (and services) are produced more cheaply, benefiting anyone who consumes those goods (or services). So, um, what's the problem here? It just kind of seems like basic economics in action. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. I believe that Americans have a right, and a responsibility, to disobey unjust actions of the government. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think Nancy Pelosi is one of the greatest threats to freedom in America today. In this case though, I pretty much agree with her, much as it pains me to say that. Immigration is one of the foundational values of our society. So is respect for family. Our immigration policy (not to mention our work ethic) needs some serious re-examination. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think the difference is probably one of reloading skill. You have the skill and experience to handload a cartridge that's more reliable than (for example) the TAP FPD that I store for emergencies. I do not have that skill. Therefore, the "best" (most reliable, most accurate) ammunition you can keep on hand is your own handloads (or the ability to create them). The "best" ammo I can keep on hand is a commercially produced load (depending on which one I choose, in my case the TAP FPD for handguns and some LC M855 just in case something really bad happens). In terms of keeping stuff around to continue target shooting, training, and generally having fun, I think that almost anything will do for me, because I'm not a competitive shooter, nor do I have the skills to really need the most accurate possible equipment/ammunition. I honestly don't store any of the plinking ammo, because I really don't expect some kind of outright ban. If that happens, I'd probably just stop shooting stuff, hide everything in airtight cannisters, and take up a new hobby (9th amendment litigation, perhaps ). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Me. I also belong to several others. My personal favorite is The Institute for Justice, but I have to give props to The Institute for Humane Studies because I met my wife at one of their programs, back when I was young. I think someone needs to start a 9th amendment group, personally. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Why do you think that reloads are not going to survive long-term storage, compared to commercial ammo? It's not the storage, it's the ammo. Leaving aside precision handloads (because most people lack the skill and equipment to create them), in a real SHTF type scenario, I (and I expect most people) would want a good factory load, mostly for reliability. The mass reloads (like the "canned heat" discussed in the link) are for plinking/training. In a real defense situation, which is what long term storage is generally about, top notch factory loads are, in my opinion, the way to go. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I can agree with that to some extent. But what's that old saying about it not being paranoid if they're really out to get you? Looking at voting records, public statements by the President (admittedly before he was president), by the Speaker of the House, and by leading democratic Senators, as well as the Attorney General, I don't think that the alarmism on the part of the gun industry (or it's customers) is either surprising or misplaced. I do expect that we'll see another gun ban on the federal level. I expect it to be at least a revival of the Clinton era legislation, but possibly even more draconian. I do not expect to see it this year. If the economy picks up and the democrats are able to claim credit for that, I do expect to see a new gun ban next year. I think that intelligent people (who care about this business, and desire to own firearms) are stocking up now, because it's unlikely the furor will subside for very long before the actual legislation comes down the pipe. I do not believe they are unjustified in doing so, or in expecting further legislation. Seeing as various folks have proposed (and enacted) bans on a whole host of different things, including ammunition, I can see why some people are looking to lay in a long term supply. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Sure. I may be confused...are you saying that this specific company is trying to draw attention to themselves, or that there is a larger movement by the gun/ammo industries generally to scare people into a panic rush to buying their products? Honestly, I think this company would have to be pretty dumb to make claims about official DOD statements that were untrue. It's too easy to track those down, if you're interested. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yeah, but their story didn't really have anything to do with that, aside from getting me to look at their web site. And their pricing is competitive enough (and I do believe that the a lot of their sales are LEO or other government agencies) so that they don't really have to scare up business that way. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com