Roads and bridges are part of infrastructure, health care isn't. Roads and bridges serves the majority, government health care serves the minority.

I think you got this backwards. Outside of interstate highways, 99% of public roads and bridges basically only benefit those who live nearby, while virtually everyone over the age of 62 will come face-to-face with Social Security and Medicare.

Just making sure I follow your second point.

 

If a government initiative doesn't serve at least 50.0000001% of the population, it shouldn't be the government's business? Or am I reading this wrong?

My point is it can't serve 2% and be for the greater good. I can't give an exact percentage, it's kind of like porn, you know it when you see it.

I think you got this backwards. Outside of interstate highways, 99% of public roads and bridges basically only benefit those who live nearby, while virtually everyone over the age of 62 will come face-to-face with Social Security and Medicare.

 

How many of those roads and highways did the feds build?

How many of those roads and highways did the feds build?

47,182 miles in the U.S. interstate highway system; 2.7 million miles total of paved roads and 1.3 million miles of unpaved roads. In 19th century Kentucky, portions of some of these main drags were privately owned, so you had to pay to use them. Looks like we're going back in time now with calls to finance the new Ohio River bridges in L'ville and Covington with tolls.

Post offices. Roads and highways. Army. Navy. Navigable waterways. These were all "socialized" by the Framers of the Constitution. Sorry to explode the myth, but the Founding Fathers weren't all Christian capitalists.

 

Historically the classic definition of socialism is that the state owns the means of production is all or many industries. I don't think a country that provided an Army, Navy, navigable waterways and the such is by definition a socialist government.

47,182 miles in the U.S. interstate highway system; 2.7 million miles total of paved roads and 1.3 million miles of unpaved roads. In 19th century Kentucky, portions of some of these main drags were privately owned, so you had to pay to use them. Looks like we're going back in time now with calls to finance the new Ohio River bridges in L'ville and Covington with tolls.

I'm talking about the 99% that only benefit locals.

I'm talking about the 99% that only benefit locals.

Unless you sell Bibles door-to-door from Paducah to Pikeville, you're only going to travel about 1 to 2 percent of the commonwealth's roads in your lifetime.

 

Yet your state taxes support all state roads.

Unless you sell Bibles door-to-door from Paducah to Pikeville, you're only going to travel about 1 to 2 percent of the commonwealth's roads in your lifetime.

 

Yet your state taxes support all state roads.

There you go jumping around again. Feds not state partner.

Sorry. I'm right. Vast majority of church giving goes to pay the pastor's salary, pay the utilities and retire the debt on the building. Only a small portion would go to helping "the least among us." Having said that, I'm not sure that some secular charities are all that different ... which goes back to one of my original thoughts ... that Uncle Sam may be best equipped to administer some of these programs to help the poor.

 

You honestly refuse to look at facts and reason when making outlandish claims. There is no way anyone with any credibilty can say the government is more well equipped for charitable work than the private sector. The government is the most inefficent organzation to run anything. Something we have to live with for general saftey which would be military and infrastructure.

 

You can say what every you want in reply but all I have to do is pull an example from a month ago and say "Obamacare".

Unless you sell Bibles door-to-door from Paducah to Pikeville, you're only going to travel about 1 to 2 percent of the commonwealth's roads in your lifetime.

 

Yet your state taxes support all state roads.

 

Do I need to give you a lesson on the difference between the state and federal government in a free market society in our federal system. Sounds like you are struggling. I think the problem lies in that you see it all as one government, which under our constitution is not the case.

I especially enjoy reading the comments of free-market conservatives who lament the lack of price controls in the health-care industry.

 

I'll sit and wait for you to point out one fiscal conservative who wants government price controls on health care. Government eliminated consumer choice in the industry which eliminates a major element of a supply/Demand price curve. Government has eliminated all natural ability of the market to lower cost and price. You can argue until you are blue in the face I'm just pointing out facts.

 

What fiscal conservatives like myself are calling for is for the government to get out of the way because by eliminating elements of production model they will force price/cost higher.

You honestly refuse to look at facts and reason when making outlandish claims. There is no way anyone with any credibilty can say the government is more well equipped for charitable work than the private sector. The government is the most inefficent organzation to run anything. Something we have to live with for general saftey which would be military and infrastructure.

 

You can say what every you want in reply but all I have to do is pull an example from a month ago and say "Obamacare".

You're the second person to not read "some." Medicaid is an example of a program that is best left to Uncle Sam -- and the states. In terms of health care, I trust the federal government far more than for-profit insurance companies. That one is a no-brainer.

 

Unlike you, I don't worship at the altar of unfettered free-market capitalism. The capitalist model in this country is corrupt.

Edited November 21, 201312 yr by Twotoplace

I'll sit and wait for you to point out one fiscal conservative who wants government price controls on health care. Government eliminated consumer choice in the industry which eliminates a major element of a supply/Demand price curve. Government has eliminated all natural ability of the market to lower cost and price. You can argue until you are blue in the face I'm just pointing out facts.

 

What fiscal conservatives like myself are calling for is for the government to get out of the way because by eliminating elements of production model they will force price/cost higher.

If government would "get out of the way," only healthy people would be insurable. You must have been smoking a cigarette in the hallway when the debate over pre-existing conditions took place.

If government would "get out of the way," only healthy people would be insurable. You must have been smoking a cigarette in the hallway when the debate over pre-existing conditions took place.

 

I'm very clear in my belief that I don't think health care insurance is a right.

You're the second person to not read "some." Medicaid is an example of a program that is best left to Uncle Sam -- and the states. In terms of health care, I trust the federal government far more than for-profit insurance companies. That one is a no-brainer.

 

Unlike you, I don't worship at the altar of unfettered free-market capitalism. The capitalist model in this country is corrupt.

Government isn't?