FCC and the internet

[Steve Furbish]

Samuel Thurston, III wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Steve Furbish <sfurbish at nerdshack.com> wrote:
>   
>> I find your definition of "free"  sadly amusing. It's almost as if you
>> believe that nobody is paying for it?
>>     
>
> How exactly is one supposed to state that the only cost to the
> end-user of the service is through taxation?  There's no such thing as
> "free" and I think that's well understood, so let's not dissect the
> use of a word that means exactly what he used it for.
>
>   
When one uses the word "free" to replace "socialized" in what has become 
yet another political discussion then such dissection is appropriate.
>> So is it "free healthcare" or just some imposed charity?
>>     
>
> You already pay the imposed charity.  
That does not mean that I must embrace it's expansion.


> Medicaid tends to the extremely
> poor. Medicare for the elderly.  Your personal income tax money covers
> employer tax credits for subsidizing employee care.  Your insurance
> premiums are higher to cover the cost of poor- and middle-income-
> uninsured defaulting on hospital bills.
>   
And the reform plans currently circulating in congress want to bloat the 
already broken system by increasing the share I pay in order to increase 
the numbers covered. If you are trying to suggest that growing 
government is going to save me money then you're wasting our time. I'd 
wager that even you have a favorite example or two of government waste?



>> Personally I
>> have nothing against healthcare reform with a state run public option.
>> I'd also like to see tort reform as a big part of managing costs.
>>     
>
> How exactly does tort reform work?  Which lawsuits do you mandate are
> "frivolous?"
>
>   
I'd start with malpractice arbitration as opposed to litigation, 
followed by capping awards based on a standardized formula and IF you 
still insist on government regulation (as in mandated coverage under 
Obama's plan) I'd suggest regulating the profits of  litigating 
attorneys based on the median income of hourly wage earners in the state 
where they practice.


>> Unfortunately, this gigantic federal program we're about to be saddled
>> with will rob the middle class to care for the poor while leaving the
>> rich virtually unphased and untouched.
>>     
>
> let's say for the sake of argument that the CBO estimate of $856bn USD
> over the next 10 years is accurate.  Average that to $85bn per year.
> Annually we collect a little over $2000bn in revenues. Yeah this
> gigantic program is a whopping %4 of revenue spending (that's without
> counting deficit spending, which would make it closer to 2%)
>   
Lets admit, for the sake of argument, that the CBO's estimate is based 
on a plan that is not yet even fully developed and assume that 4% really 
is a tiny number. With the economy tanking and unemployment in double 
digits  pushing through a high cost health reform without doing 
something to reduce that *estimated* $856bn pricetag seems irresponsible 
to me.


>>> Aye, the idea of a (constitutional) monarchy was rejected by our
>>> founding fathers when we booted out your King George so long ago and
>>> despite the apparent  desires of the Obama administration to import it
>>> back here in time for his own coronation there are those of us
>>> "outdated" yanks who tend reject the effort.
>>>       
>
> After 8 years of GWB and Cheney you think it's Obama who wants to
> bring back the monarchy?
>
>   
I think President Obama is merely the flip side of the same coin as GWB. 
So I suppose the answer is yes.

Steve