Who would Jesus Insure?
That was the slogan on a placard that stole the show at a tea party attended by Michael Krantz yesterday:
[T]he Medicare recipients who want nothing to do with government-run health care [were] one of the more amusing right-wing cliches of this long hot August. There were no doubt plenty of them yesterday among a crowd that was predominantly older, overwhelmingly white and, I’d wager, heavily evangelical, a combustive demographic that didn’t exactly cotton to the gutsy girl who kept pacing around trying to yell “Health care for everyone!” loudly enough to drown out the repeated death threats and off-topic anti-abortion catcalls that greeted her homemade “Who Would Jesus Insure?” sign. Her question, in fact, was quite a bit more piquant than the ones I was asking.
Paul Krugman on Stephen Hawking:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugm…
Jesus wouldn't insure anyone so why ask the question?
More appropriately, who should those who follow Jesus' teaching insure?
Matthew 6:34
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
Progressives have gotten all kinds of circumstances and life events labelled as "requiring" insurance so that other people can be given opportunity to manage and use money that wouldn't be theirs unless the insurance was mandatory.
Insurances don't prevent accidents, provide for a good standard of living, ward off death, or improve the health care system of the world.
Linking health care with health care insurance reform is the same kind of deal FDR used to get Social Security into being.
The health care system reforms being proposed will simply give less bang for the buck as all Americans are forced to pay for the health care of those that "need" health care by taking today's and some of tomorrow's tax revenues and trying to decide who has the rights to have access to the onging or high expense procedures.
The quality of one's health care should not be linked to how the decisions from a flowchart are transacted concerning a common pot of money that is limited.
Sure, give us a nearly unlimited monetary supply by making our children pay for our health care today and it sounds lucrative, but the system shouldn't be called insurance.
Our "investments" and "contributions" are not being used for ourselves but we are and will be using tomorrow's money today.
This is not a sound business or fiscal model no matter how you look at.
Karl: Have you ever bought insurance of any kind? Do you have a retirement account? Do you find merit in Pascal's Wager? Do you regularly change the oil in your car's engine? Do you have an extra tire in your car's trunk? Do you get check-ups at your doctor? Do you believe that the government should have a strong military in case there's trouble? Do you ever take an umbrella with you when it looks stormy? Do you have a flashlight and candles nearby in case the power goes out at home? Have you written a will? Do you have a gas-powered auxiliary generator at your house? Do you think that God was wise to create a hell in case smart-ass heathens like me came along?
I am not ungainst most of the matters that you have stated. I have retirement funds such as they are. I don't purchase term life insurance, I'm a whole life person that considers my investments one's that provide some degree of protection but also don't surrender complete control of these funds to those who pretty much guarrantee they can win the wager.
I am not pleased God has a design and a plan that makes there be consequences for people who make poor choices. It just so happens that I think anything associated with wholesale gambling like term life insurance and government mandated control of personal income and decisions as matters that leave people with less and less need for personal responsibility in the decisions that they make.
Karl — Are you for real? Way to completely and utterly miss the point.
WWJD?
Would Jesus choose to care for those who are sick? Would he prefer that you, his follower do the same?
If you think so, YOU and your brethren should be campaigning loudly and often for publicly funded healthcare so that all can be protected and nurtured; so that everyone can fulfil their potential; so that everyone can experience love and joy, instead of pain and sorrow.
Instead you trot out gospel that espouses a freakishly nihilistic and libertarian philosophy (is this honestly the best you could find?)
You then, in your later comment suggest that those who need to take use insurance are somehow at fault, since your god imposes consequences for people who make poor choices
You disgust me. You exhibit no charity and even less compassion.
So long as you are fine, screw everyone else.
What a wondrously Christian perspective on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I'm pretty sure Jesus will send you to hell if you oppose universal healthcare.
e Sheep and the Goats
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
And don't forget the…
Do not put your treasures upon the earth, and all that stuff that so many Christians seem to fit.
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, that is what you get when you vote against universal healthcare.
Tony and Jay,
The question was not one of compassion, it was one of insurance which is a financial transaction giving other people the use and say over where the money comes from to provide for the quality of care that apparently the Unitied States should provide for any and everyone in the world.
That's a financial pipe dream that has limitations or you somehow believe in a supernatural ability to keep increasing the monetary supply. I wish this were possible, but until wealthy and middle class people have enough concern to care for the conditons of their own parents and other sick family members, how in the world can a revenue or tax levy make someone's health care more secure?
By supernatural means, it didn't cost Jesus a dime to heal or provide food for five thousand.
Show me how our great grandchildren can bring our nation back from the brink of insolvency yet not surrender their medical care to those with their own social agenda and I'll listen to you.
This will turn into another politcal boondoggle with the winners getting to appoint who gets the swing votes in medical decisions, real compassionate from where I see it.
Karl,
Compassion dictates what you do with your resources, so it is a question of compassion. We do not have to provide medical care for the rest of the world—how do you figure that?—we're only trying to provide it for ourselves.
The cost of fixing this has gotten so high because every attempt at rationalizing it since FDR has been fought tooth and nail by private interests and now that thing is so hugely swaying in a drunkard's walk of inefficiency and insolvency that, like the auto industry, it will be very expensive to do anything constructive. Oh gosh, you're right about that.
But compassion dictates we do something or the entire thing will work ONLY for those with money. And then the whole thing will fall apart because at some point the inequities will result in revolution, at which point all these debates will be moot.
Karl writes:—"I am not pleased God has a design and a plan that makes there be consequences for people who make poor choices."
Do not blame this on god. Damn, that's the thing most irritating about christians. Yes, there are people who make poor choices. Then there are people who take advantage of those poor choices to make money, gain power, count coup, and it is in their interest that nothing ever be done about those people or their circumstances. God didn't do it, people have screwed this up.
Jay Frazz,
While I'm glad to hear you arguing on the positive side of this debate, forgive me for pointing out that all you've said is based on the same nonsense as those who use the same book to argue against universal health care—or anything else they don't like. Irrationality, even if it agrees with my position, is still irrationality.
Unless, of course, you were being ironic…
45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Rot in Christian Hell.
Jay Fraz writes:—"Rot in Christian Hell."
You first.
Apparently you weren't being ironic.
Mark,
I will repeat my statement.
Show me how our great grandchildren can bring our nation back from the brink of insolvency yet not surrender their medical care to those with their own social agenda and I’ll listen to you.
There is compassion in our medical system. An illegal alien can show up in the ER and get the finest healthcare at no expense. Would the proposed changes to the health care say anything about making these illegals pay for their own insurance? Would it even be able to ask anything about who is receiving the care? Would the care be given and then after the patient walks out the door would people then discover that the patient has no ability nor any intention of paying for anything?
There is a finincial outlay to this whole system which in essence is a form of providing for anyone who shows up in the ER. This could even be a world traveler who happens to get sick or injured while on American soil. If we tell them we will not make them pay do you think they will do so out of some sense of obligation.
No, their mentality makes the US government obligated to take care of them, which is what socialism is all about.
This is not people showing concern for those in need, it is those who know they will have need assuming they have the obligation of others as their right to meet their own needs.
The changes being proposed have a significant unwritten agenda that seeks aid and assitance for the illegal aliens and therefore recognizes them as legally being able to receive assistance(welfare) so that the healthcare systems aren't forced to drive up costs to meet their operating budgets.
Compassion begins with your nearest family members and can only extend as far as one's own financial resources. The Democratic Congress and POTUS seem to think that 10 to 15 million illegals deserve to have their medical needs paid for. This isn't the entire world, but it might as well be since it is such a significant population that state laws have not allowed the Hospitals to refuse care.
The changes I see being described will eeventually make everyone responsible for their own insurance (single payer) which would eventually prevent the public single payer from pursuing faster and better quality care for themselves.
This is not compassion, this is rationing unless the money just keeps flowing from our future grandchildren to us in the present day.
I'm not terribly religious myself, but I find it more entertaining to turn the book that bible thumpers wave at me back on them.
Insurance is at the very heart of the problem in American health care.
Karl said,
"Insurances don’t prevent accidents, provide for a good standard of living, ward off death, or improve the health care system of the world."
Unfortunately for most of us, the insurance industry has formed a barrier between the healthcare system and the patients, actings a merciless parasitic gatekeepers who benefit from denying access for the sick and injured based solely on the ability to pay.
Of course no one plans to have cancer, or to be hit by a truck, or to have a child with a permanent and severe disability. But when it happens to you and your insurance company says "we're dropping you because you are sick and we thank you for all the money you gave us over the years", you will be pissed off. And when you see the CEO of you insurance company on tv boarding his private yacht for a vaction on his private island, and you know that boat and island were paid for with your premiums and the premiums of others just like you, you will see the problem.
The idea behind insurance is that a bunch of people pool their money so that a few can benefit from that pool when they get sick and are faced with medical expenses. In reality, private insurers are rewarded by not paying back the money. It has become a huge legally sanctions scam, and the insurers have become parasites on the economy.
If you get sick, go to the doctor, or to the emergency room, the first thing you are asked for is you insurance information, and in non emergency situations you may be refused medical treatment if you have no insurance. In the case of emergengy treatment, the insurance will refuse to pay a large part of the bill, and you will be stuck with thousands in expenses, possibilly loosing your home and being forced to live on the street when you are least likely to survive.
But the system is perfect the way it is because your God forbids that anyone should show compassion for the poor by helping to pay their bills.
Your attitude makes me wish the supernaturl crap was true so I could lay a vile curse on you, but since we all know it is crap, then I will just put up with the ignorance and hypocracy.
Allow me to elaborate further, when debating with people online I find it is important to figure out what the person speaking believes, then point out how what they believe is incongruent with their own beliefs. This causes them to A) admit their beliefs are wrong B) make minor alterations to their beliefs or C) become more delusional and unreasonable, B being the most common. A person who claims a position due to Christian doctrine will take a certain position based on their biases/beliefs. Now, I don't believe I could change this fundamental belief in the brevity of internet discussion, but what I can do is shift their perspective little by little based on their own perspective. Almost like a miniature wedge theory. While more subtle, I believe this approach can create more long term change and effect beyond 'winning' the limited argument we are having based on terms that we all see as having different meanings.
Jay: Interesting stuff, and well put. I agree that banging heads goes no where. Miniature wedge approach, eh?
Karl: You can argue an economic position all you want, the BIBLE based perspective is FOR universal health care, PERIOD.
I have enjoyed much of your writing Erich and check back frequently for new articles, and yes, miniature wedge approach is my current work in progress. A great deal of my theory has come out of trying to deal with libertarians online and in real life, as their fundamentalist mentality is more dedicated than most religious extremist and they will NOT STOP VERBALLY MASTURBATING about their theories. Plus, by putting myself in other persons views I begin to pick out the subtleties and flaws in my own 'language', as framing and language are the swords of discussion. Unfortunately, this results in my developing so many approaches that I do not have a way to offer a simple approach to discussion as my framing can not be simplified into sound bites and talk radio preaching. Of course a LOT of the time I just troll a bit and hurl insults and see if I can pick a very tiny detail out of the discussion and manipulate that, this approach and theory is very young. Sorry to be so wordy, love your writing, can't wait for more, didn't mean to make the comments thread about me rather than the article, just in one of those moods.
Karl writes:—"The changes being proposed have a significant unwritten agenda that seeks aid and assitance for the illegal aliens and therefore recognizes them as legally being able to receive assistance(welfare) so that the healthcare systems aren’t forced to drive up costs to meet their operating budgets."
So we shouldn't help our own people because these illegals might benefit on our dime.
And that "unwritten agenda" part is part of the threat used to scare us away from even trying to fix this.
You have claimed in the past few years here how much you believe in Jesus. It should not take an atheist to point out to you that Jesus wouldn't have given a damn about borders. You help people. You do what is necessary to help people. And if your ideology gets in the way, then you have not understood his message. Funny how someone who doesn't believe in the religion you claim for your own has to explain that to you.
We're not talking about tactics in this instance, Karl—just what is right.
Oh, and you might consider that the insurance/hospital corporate complex relies on that very compassion you mention to keep things pretty much as they are.
Mark and Jay,
These are moral financial issues, that could very well bring down our nation to a dictatorship – history has shown this over and over again.
Ignore it all you like. Unless people with moderate to great wealth voluntarily give of their resources to help others and not hoard it to themselves no amount of forced taxation and revenue raising will enable a democratic governemt to break the cycle and satiate the abysmal cycle of greed and envy that is one of the root probelms with human nature.
I know there are problems with corporate boards and corporate leadership compensation, fringes and benefits. There are also problems with governmental outlays, lobbyist influence and fringe benefits.
Our nation is stuck in a mentality of we'll let some people get the perks and then we'll go ahead and get them ourselves. The problem is the proposition of getting the perks and benefits from a dry well is going to destroy this nation.
Very seldom are ethical considerations even brought into the matter when the political or corportate powers are getting what they want, when they want it. The ethical issues only seem to arise when someone gets tired of seeing others get too much of the pie and then they want their share of it as well.
In the late 1700s, a Scottish history professor, Alexander Tyler, studied the democracies that had existed until that time. He had this to say about democracy in general, “A democracy is always temporary in nature: it simple cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
These are issues of ethics which arise from people thinking public money has no limit and debt can be raised as long as monetary supply (future debt) and its repayment can be held off further and further into the future.
Warren Buffet has also commented on the surface about the economy but also about the real long term concern – the debt and monetary crisis.
http://shaferfinancial.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/w…
Karl: You mean like the huge failure that the European health systems that have plunged them into dictatorships in the last 40 or 50 years?
Find success, adapt, replicate, it IS that simple. Our system is not working, look to others that work better and model on it.
Quote:
In the late 1700s, a Scottish history professor, Alexander Tyler, studied the democracies that had existed until that time. He had this to say about democracy in general, “A democracy is always temporary in nature: it simple cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”/Quote
ALL political systems are temporary. What Tyler is saying is literally, Democracy does not work because people vote their best interest. What are you proposing, a plutocracy, name a better system of government? Tyler's statement was a smokescreen statement, he did not say anything other than, don't bother the wealthy or the system may fall apart. I suppose that is why so many democracies have failed in the last 50 years versus all those other systems?
Quote
These are moral financial issues, that could very well bring down our nation to a dictatorship – history has shown this over and over again.
/quote
Yes, ignoring could turn the nation into a dictatorship, participating in it could turn this into a dictatorship as well. Retarded statement.
Quote
Very seldom are ethical considerations even brought into the matter when the political or corportate powers are getting what they want, when they want it. The ethical issues only seem to arise when someone gets tired of seeing others get too much of the pie and then they want their share of it as well.
/quote
Imagine that, people don't like being treated unfairly. After all, those with money never get special treatment do they, but hey, they go to war and die to protect the country too, don't they?
Quote:
Warren Buffet has also commented on the surface about the economy but also about the real long term concern – the debt and monetary crisis.
/quote
Yes, he also said it was unfair that he was only taxed 18% capital gains on the money he made and his secretary paid 36+%, so naturally you agree with his belief that the wealthy should pay a higher portion of their income in taxes right?
Did you actually understand what you wrote?
Karl writes:—"These are moral financial issues, that could very well bring down our nation to a dictatorship – history has shown this over and over again."
That's a bit over the top and history has not shown that again and again. Don't know who you're reading, but…
Moral financial issue. Yes, I agree.
The system cannot be sustained the way it now is. Can we agree to that?
Therefore, it behooves us to change the system.
But if you start with the premise that the way it is now is somehow sacrosanct because it's capitalism as opposed to socialism, then you will never fix it.
The conflation of capitalism with the establishment of our republic is one of the most pernicious misconstruals the Right ever came up with. The generation of the founding fathers was comprised of mercantilists if anything, but mainly the national economy was subsistence. This is what Jefferson wanted to maintain and what Alexander Hamilton was hell bent on destroying. We can all guess who won in the long run.
But there is nothing fundamentally democratic about capitalism.
You need to ween yourself away from the religious awe in which we hold what basically amounts to a fiscal theory.
You are correct, if we try to do a universal health care package while preserving the system as it exists now, we will bankrupt ourselves. That is kind of the point of all the shouting. Therefore, to make the system amenable to the necessary changes, we have to change the system.
You bitch about the looming spectre of socialism. Think about how evil it is next time you drive on a public road, walk down the street under lights provided by public utilities, drink clean water because standards have been set by a—gasp!—government agency! Our police force is paid for through taxes, so is our army; building inspectors, teachers, the army corps of engineers, public health workers, public defenders, safety inspectors, and on and on and on—guess what, those are social services underwritten by a pay structure that is not capitalistic. This country wouldn't function if all that were privatized because it would cost too damn much and neighborhoods not to mention cities would become balkanized based on income levels. Equality is not a capitalist benefit.
I love what capitalism does, but like anything else it is simply a system, one that in this instance is not working very well, and I for one am not terrified of trying something different. Eventually the system we have now will price itself out of reach of half the country—all you have to do is look at the rising costs that Obama is saying must be brought under control. When Bush passed his prescription drug benefit, he abandoned our chief instrument in the war on rising costs by declaring the government would not negotiate prices! Guess what, the market did not lower those prices!
Yes, this is a moral financial issue—you have to ask what it is you want to save, though: public health or Wall Street (metaphorically). Sounds to me like you've chosen your side. But just to remind you, Jesus was not a capitalist. Couldn't have been, it didn't exist back then.
Jay,
Most European systems were pulled from the brink of a totalitarian dictatorship only within the last century. Give them another couple of decades and they may likely be right back there. Most over there call themselves democratic socialists. They do this to try to keep the class greed and envy from causing civil disruption. After all, you just said governments are temporary. What makes you think they will succeed in making their citizens and foreigners content with each other? Different groups of class envy and greed, but the same issues are there.
If "all" political systems are temporary why do you think the European nations that are currently fairly more socialistic than the US, will stay that way? What if the US becomes socialistic then they? Will they try and follow suit?
I stand by what I wrote concerning the real nature of the problem. It is both individual and collective greed and envy that has fueled the spiral of our budget deficits.
Too many people think the government can fairly and justly distribute the wealth to the "rightful" owners that produced the wealth to begin with. This is why the huge "stimulus" bill was mostly a pork bill trying to make up for 14 years of perceived inequities in Congressional legislation.
The problem is this kind of spending is not distributing wealth, it is distributing debt into the future.
The problem is being approached in two directions by the populace. One set wants willing charity to begin at home and spread to the needy in ways that encourage personal accountability and ethical compassion. They don't like debt either personally, or collectively.
The other set wants an impersonal one size fits all forced "redistribution" to be as wide spread as possible so that there is virtually no personal accountability and very little ability to call it ethical compassion. This perspective says not to worry about debt, its all just an illusion that those with the money will eventually have to pay or bite the bullet.
The one says teach the man to fish the other says give the man a fish, which is more ethical and compassionate in the long run?
Forced taxation and revenue raising that puts money into a public pot that competing sides struggle to have control over is not charity or compassion for those with real needs.
Buffet pays less capital gains overall because of the amount of charity he and his businesses are involved in and the structure of the tax laws, he knows that. Nothing is stopping him from paying or reimbursing his employees capital gains taxes. If he wants to give some of his money into a system of taxation and public revenue distribution he shouldn't complain that someone who works for him pays more percentage capital gains tax than he does.
The man gives millons away to causes he happens to feel are worth while. The "givernment" on the other hand would definitely do a better job with those millions, I'm sure. Really it would only give it to the associates of those who are now able to dole out the pork.
Charity begins as home, "redistrubution" begins in State and Federal Houses. We should be able to trust both sources, but like that's going to happen in any nation with a people who see the two as opposite and competing methods of solving the problem. They should be complimentary to one another, but they are kept as adversarial.
Show me "progresive" governmental leaders that give to charitable organizations like Buffet does and I'll have to start rethinking my views on who I vote for. Should this be a factor in who we vote for?
The one says charity is some refreshment at the pub on Friday night and I'll let the bureaucrats fix the doors falling off the sheds. The other says I'll do what I can to fix as many of the doors in my neighborhood by Friday night, and then I'll send my 10 percent along to the bureaucrats so they can pass along some refreshment to people with issues of class envy.
Karl writes:—"The one says teach the man to fish the other says give the man a fish, which is more ethical and compassionate in the long run?"
It's beside the point if either the fishery is off-limits or has simply been fished out.
The argument that things might go bad is no argument against trying to find solutions, even if those solutions run counter to our prejudices. Right now they are going bad and it's systemic. So do we stick with what isn't working or try something new?
Rhetorical question, actually. It's a no-brainer for me.
I would like both sides of this debate to consider a few points before posting more orthogonal arguments.
1. Virtually every nation on our planet has a mixed economy: part capitalistic, part socialistic. The only difference among them is where they draw the line separating the two; i.e., which products and services do they choose to provide via capitalism and which do they choose to provide via socialism.
2. There does not appear to be any magic formula for where to draw the dividing line. There is a wide spectrum of successful societies — some are highly socialistic, some are highly capitalistic. What seems to matter most is drawing the line where it best suits the people. Some populations clearly prefer being more egalitarian than others.
3. Much of today's right-wing paranoia about socialism appears to have its roots in the anti-communist paranoia of the 1950s. I say this because I have heard all sorts of screaming from people on the right against universal healthcare (for example), but I have yet to hear any rational (much less valid) explanation from them about why this would be as disastrous thing as they claim. To the contrary, most of the arguments I've heard from people on the right rest on false claims about the universal care systems of other countries. They scream that universal healthcare would cause rationing or long waiting lines for treatment, or a collapse of America's economy, but there are no facts to support these arguments. Plainly, other countries have made it work.
4. There is no essential link between capitalism and democracy. One is an economic system, the other is a political system. Indeed, consider the modern corporation: it is a child of capitalism, yet it operates as a dictatorship.
5. Be very cautious of using America's past success to argue the supremacy of either capitalism or democracy. America's past success has resulted from the fact that, for most of the past three centuries, it has been exploiting and exhausting a huge storehouse of previously untapped natural resources — first those within its own borders and, more recently, those found in other countries. Accordingly, America is an outlying data point from which generalities cannot be validly drawn.
6. Moreover, America is consuming planetary resources at an unsustainable rate, so it is very, very dangerous to suggest that 'more of the same' — i.e., more American-style capitalism or more American-style democracy — will be a successful strategy for long-term success.
7. My own belief concerning America is that its current two-party political system (Democrats and Republicans), which creates highly artificial and antagonistic divisions among America's population, will not be a successful long-term system. Each time America's political system oscillates between Democrat control (under which government programs generally are created) and Republican control (under which government programs generally are dismantled), more chaos and expense seems to result — government programs are created under one administration only to be eviscerated under the next. I simply don't see how America can maintain successful long-term growth with a government that has a 2-year or 4-year time horizon. Whether a better strategy would be a multi-party system (e.g., a parliament) or a one-party system (e.g., as in China and in most of the world's corporations) remains an open question. Indeed, for all we know, China (which has existed as a nation many times longer than has America) might have a superior system (at least in terms of its survivability, if not in terms of its human rights record).
What's wrong with getting as many people from all sides to admitt their preponderance to let government take the fall for their own greediness. Make every CEO, Board member, public official and lobbyist that grossly directly benefitted (lets say over .50 million per year)related to outlays related to either governement regulations, "changes" to government regulations or direct government pork or bailout funds donate their grossly gotten proceeds towards reduction of the federasl deficit.
If it can be shown that the products or services are not in anyway being directly subsidized by taxpayer governmental funding, leave them alone.
Maybe this will keep something in the pond worth fishing for.