Decent debate

Decent debate

: Take a look at the comments — 54 at latest count — about the health care crisis in this post below. With the exception of one twit banned last night, the discussion is helpful, civil, intelligent, conversational. It’s a decent debate. I said I hoped that we could devote our breath and bandwidth to something useful, like the healthcare debate, instead of useless, like the Swifties and the Mooreites, and, voila, given a real subject that really matters there is real debate. I’m relieved.

  • Andy

    The debate in Congress and here reflects the complexity of the problem. One path is a theoretical single solution. It sounds wonderful, it sounds simple and it should work in a perfect world. The problem is that we do not live in a world of angels, altruists, and noble bureaucrats. Innovation dies under regulation and bureaucracy
    As a society, we have found competition is the only force that over time consistently improves quality, improves customer satisfaction, and unleashes human ingenuity in every area.
    Competition means that some will benefit more than others. That brings us full circle. How to have the benefits of competition without the inequality of outcome?
    The problem lies not with our medical system and practitioners. The problem lies with the distribution of services and the deep American philosophical confusion about success and wealth.
    This is a 100+ year old argument. It has fostered several economic theories that in practice slaughtered millions. It rages across college campuses and the internet. It even colors the reporting of the news in our daily press.
    The contest of ideas, like market competition brings about better services and unleashes our ingenuity. To expect a solution is to desire an end to ingenuity and effort.
    Our political and economic system is designed to forment competition, contest and compromise. We are better for it. When faced with a choice, I choose the path that leads towards more competition and innovation. I believe that our society benefits when risk takers can achieve a market reward.

  • http://opinionpaper.blogspot.com Brett

    Once again, this is another reason why your site is a must-read. Kudos to you for your willingness to allow everyone to talk it out.
    I’d recommend that you do the same on other topics of the election. For example, Kerry would like to see Super 301 re-instated in trade negotiations. I haven’t seen much about this topic among bloggers, but from my reading of it to get informed, it’s been effective in the past, but seems that for today’s world, it might be heavy-handed and appear unilateralist. Is that true? I have no idea. But it’s important to Kerry’s intended policies.
    And again, thanks Jeff.

  • http://tomgrey.motime.com Tom Grey – Liberty Dad

    Health care IS important, but unsolvable in the current paradigm. Because it’s not fair for the health-conscious & responsible to be FORCED to be huge net payers to the irresponsible.
    There’s no way to make it fair.
    Other, peaceful, voluntary systems will leave a good number of the irresponsible sick either in emergency rooms (only) or nowhere. This is also not good.
    Unreal Perfection is not an option; it IS good to see more costs & benefits of each.
    Sorry, Jeff (really, I am); your own Press – guilt in enabling Kerry’s lying is, still, blinding you to the importance of the Swifties. You, especially, should have been all over the story of their May 4 conference when every commanding officer was against Kerry. Had you and the press NOT FAILED, then (or in 1986), there was still time for Dems to choose Edwards, or somebody else.
    Leftist Press failure to get the truth about Kerry is an important part of the story, and the buying/ reading/ watching public wants that truth. And deserves it. Kerry’s dead meat. And who is US President, and why, IS more important than the precise compromises to be made in health care, or social security, or immigration, or even Iraq.
    ++” We stopped our war. “
    Yes. You and other well-meaning Leftists did that. You got the USA to leave SE Asia, and not look back.
    You think that getting the US immediately out of Vietnam, like Kerry advocated in 1971, is the morally superior position.
    Even after the evil commies committed genocide.
    The choice was more war, or (US) peace and genocide. You supported the “peace and genocide”.
    Real choices are tough — with real results.
    (I hope I don’t get banned for this)