Merry Christmas From the USD Dems!
I hope finals went well for everyone! Out of my 3.5 years at USD, I have to admit that this was the hardest finals week I've encountered...I think I say that every finals though.
Anyway, From the USD Dems to you, we wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and of course, enjoy the break while you have it!
There is no doubt in my mind that Santa Claus is in fact a Democrat. This means it is time for the second annual: What is your Democratic wish list for the upcoming year?
Mine is as follows:
1) Bringing our Troops from Iraq
2) Continued strong funding of college loan/grant programs
3) A Democrat in the White House!!!
Merry Christmas everyone!
WAR IS OVER (IF YOU WANT IT)
I agree about this being the worst finals week ever. Thank God it's over.
Now, to add to your list:
4) rehall No child left behind
5) help stop Global Warming
6) Universal Health care
Posted by greatbrittany on December 23, 2007 at 12:29 AM CST #
Brittany,
1) REHALL? Are you serious?
2) Stop global warming...ok, you just won the award for the most vague remark of 2007. Just how do we do that ...INTELLIGENTLY? I'll give you a Nobel Prize if you can tell me.
3) Yes, universal health care for EVERYONE!!! PLEASE, government, TAX ME! I simply mustn't have any choice! PLEASE, tell me how to live my life!!!
Yeah, yeah, extreme, I know. I said that to prove a point.
I do agree, however, that finals sucked.
Posted by Matt Hittle on December 23, 2007 at 09:05 AM CST #
2. How to stop global warming: carbon emissions tax and methane emissions tax. Spend 10 years moving from a carbon-based energy system to a nuclear-based one. New cars should be electric. Livestock should be taxed as well to drastically reduce our consumption of meat (methane emissions from livestock is more damaging to global warming than all the cars in the world, according to a recent UN report).
3. As for universal healthcare, the taxes should come from people who can afford to pay more. Struggling college students like you and I likely wouldn't have to cough up much. The money from the "better off" would effectively be trickled down to help the poor/lower class. I agree with libertarian sentiment on social issues, but I just don't see why they get so hung up over taxes. Its just money and property, people. That's nothing compared to a 10 year old without health insurance.
Posted by 96.2.68.5 on December 23, 2007 at 10:14 AM CST #
Just money? Just property?
You're advocating a severe form of income redistribution.
Now, I'm all for children having insurance if they can't get it from home. However, misguided policies like SCHIP miss the mark. These are wolves in sheep's clothing; efforts to forward the universal health care statist mentality.
Posted by Matt Hittle on December 23, 2007 at 01:37 PM CST #
Misguided policies like SCHIP? SCHIP has been one of the most successful federal programs ever implemented (that is why states love it so much, it works really well). Oh, kids really like it to with the not being sick and all.
I don't think the "redistribution of income" that would occur from UHC is "severe." In fact, it is needed. 44 million Americans don't have health insurance.
Posted by RCDEM on December 23, 2007 at 02:24 PM CST #
One of the problems with SCHIP, or any non-universal healthcare system, is that it will inevitably fail to include all of the "needy." The "needy" line is not black and white; its a continuous gray scale. When we restrict eligibility, as happens under every non-universal healthcare program, people who truly need government health care will be unable to afford it.
Believe it or not, but I'm actually against income redistribution unless there is a compelling cause behind it. Education (including college) is a compelling cause not only to maximize the potential of individuals but to maximize the potential in a society as a whole. Food, shelter and energy are neccessities as well, especially (and maybe only) if children are in the household. Healthcare is something I would like to add to the list of "compelling" economic redistribution causes. Its a downright tragedy when someone dies from a totally preventable or curable illness but suffers such a fate because they were afraid or unable to go to the doctor.
Economic efficiency is a good principle to understand but its not an "end all be all" for public policy. If you try to argue that universal healthcare is "unfair," not merely inefficent, then I would argue that it is unfair that people who are economically disadvantaged can't afford to stay alive and healthy. If we weigh the "unfairness" then we have economic unfairness versus unfairness of who lives and dies. I think that "living and dying" deserves a little more weight than money... but then again, I don't worship money like a conservative so maybe I'm just bat$h!@ insane.
Posted by 96.2.68.5 on December 23, 2007 at 04:06 PM CST #
I misspoke- the misguided policy I was discussing was the expansion of SCHIP, not the initial program.
"I don't think the "redistribution of income" that would occur from UHC is "severe." In fact, it is needed. 44 million Americans don't have health insurance. "
Sorry, Ryan, I'm calling BS. Democrats have been quoting those numbers for years. They are facts, but they're incredibly misleading. I don't blame you, though, you're just repeating the same numbers as the bosses in DC.
As you'll read in this article by Mankiw, those numbers don't say everything you wish they would.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html
To the second poster: You make a compelling argument. However, there are those among us who don't think health care is a right. I am one of them. This isn't because I "worship money." A desire to protect private property from the government doesn't fit under this heading.
I take my view on health care from a purely philosophical argument presented by Leonard Peikoff:
http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html
Unlike Peikoff, I believe children should be covered. However, the expansion of SCHIP was a horrible way to do it.
Now, the primary reason health care is so expensive is because it isn't a truly free market. You can talk about inefficiency all day long, but it's a damn good reason to dislike this policy.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123720.html
It IS inefficient: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=14595
But, aside from that inefficiency, health care is not a right.
Finally, I'm not a conservative.
Posted by Matt Hittle on December 23, 2007 at 06:15 PM CST #
96.2.68.5
That's some nice stuff.
Matt- I don't think he says it is a right, although he very well might. I certainly think there is an argument for people having a right to a good health. Society benefits when we are all healthy as well.
Matt, I'm not going to have a link war with you. We can both find millions of links to support our cause on this crazy thing called the internet. How about you quit saying we are reporting for the "bosses in DC." Although I think we are the top partisan student organization in the state, Harry Reid surprisingly doesn't call...too often that is...
Posted by RCDEM on December 23, 2007 at 08:23 PM CST #
What are you talking about, RCDEM? I just got off a conference call w/ the DC bosses. Oh, what? We're dropping that term now? Okay... umm... wow, this is awkward. Gotta go.
Posted by Tetris on December 23, 2007 at 08:52 PM CST #
First of all...I've heard about a right to health care, but a right to good health in general? Does that mean that we will imprison doctors who fail to save lives or improve patients' health- even if no malpractice were involved? That's what would logically follow from the "right to good health."
I think you meant, instead, a right to health care in general. Well, you know my opinion. Honestly, the link to Peikoff's speech is very interesting, and I urge you to take a gander.
Second: Jeez, Ryan and Chris, you're both taking me too seriously!
I meant those in power, the elected officials. Like it or not, they're the leaders of your party. Yes, I know that you will deviate from the national party from time to time, and we Republicans sometimes may, as well.
However, when it comes to the usage of those numbers, you are obviously following lockstep- and there's nothing wrong with that.
That's all I was referring to, and I- as always- wanted to voice the opposite opinion.
As for conference calls with Reid, Chris, I think he's too busy in his futile effort to get any work done. And, while I totally disagree on almost every issue, I honestly feel somewhat sorry for the man. He and Pelosi must be under immense stress. Here's hoping that the next year of the 110th goes better.
Posted by Matt Hittle on December 23, 2007 at 11:08 PM CST #
I feel language like "this is just coming from the bosses in DC" is just an attempt to distract debate IMHO. It is annoying and unwarranted and does little to credit your arguments.
Posted by RCDEM on December 24, 2007 at 01:18 AM CST #
It's called partisan rhetoric!
When I think of "bosses," it conjures images of mobsters in a dimly-lit room, smoking cigars.
I don't think that's Harry Reid's scene.
Posted by Matt Hittle on December 24, 2007 at 08:16 AM CST #
I didn't mean to imply there is a "right" to healthcare. Simply that it is a compelling interest that outweighs the compelling interests of economic fairness and economic efficiency.
Posted by Tetris on December 24, 2007 at 03:31 PM CST #
I see your point, Chris, but for the sake of argument, I want to know your opinion on a hypothetical-
If it could be empirically proven that a largely free market for health care would both be economically efficient and affordable? In that case, would you be in favor of free market health care?
Posted by Matt Hittle on December 24, 2007 at 10:03 PM CST #