I’ve been thinking more about the insulting remarks Rand Paul made in Kentucky when he suggested that skilled, unemployed folks should just suck it up and settle for whatever lower-paying job they can get. What I wrote here doesn’t fully expose his moral and intellectual poverty.
It’s bad enough that Paul doesn’t seem to know that with 15-20 million people under- and unemployed, hundreds of people will be lining up for a handful of jobs. His condescending "tough love" lecturing is oblivious to the enormity of the jobless problem. It’s even more insulting that he assumes folks at the ends of their hopes are not already doing everything they can to stay afloat.
It is a favorite theme of Republicans of varying stripes that the unemployed and poor are there because they deserve to be; their status proves they’re undeserving. Lecturing them on moral virtues is what conservative Republicans have always done.
But the worst part is the cynical hypocrisy illustrated in the same Blue Grass Politics article, in which Rand Paul was also asked how he felt about taking government Medicaid/Medicare payments for his medical practice.
To understand the full hypocrisy of this common Republican belief, recall that because of obstruction by Republicans and DINOs (Lieberman, Bad Nelson) who think just as Paul does, the Congress has failed to pass a modest jobs bill that would fund youth summer jobs and prevent states from having to lay off hundreds of thousands of teachers and cut Medicaid services, while extending unemployment and COBRA health insurance benefits. Yet our can’t-get-its-priorities-straight Congress and dysfunctional Senate have agreed on a measure to keep Medicare from cutting fees to doctors.
Even though he rants against government spending, Rand Paul hasn’t said boo against Congressional efforts to shield doctors from taking less pay for what they do. Instead, he told the interviewers this:
In another radio interview, with a Bowling Green station on Wednesday, Paul defended his acceptance of Medicare and Medicaid payments as an eye surgeon for the last 17 years. Paul said he wants sweeping cuts in federal spending, but as a doctor, he has little choice but to serve patients covered by the massive federal health-care programs.
“I work hard and I don’t see any other person in this country who’s gonna work hard and not be paid for it,” Paul said.
What Paul is saying is that a doctor works hard and is highly skilled, so it’s only fair that persons performing an essential public service be fairly compensated. I think most would agree with the principle. But when Paul speaks to an unemployed teacher with a Masters Degree in Education, even though the country’s educational system is crying out for skilled, energetic teachers anxious to teach, she should suck it up and consider flipping burgers. It’s tough love for her; subsidies for him.
But in Rand Paul’s world, we shouldn’t apply "tough love" to him, because he’s not one of the undeserving:
Paul declined to say how much money he gets from the programs, but he said approximately 50 percent of his income is Medicare and 5 percent is Medicaid. According to the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Paul has been paid $130,461 over the last five years through Medicaid. If that represents 5 percent of his income, then Paul’s Medicare payments over the same period would be more than $1.3 million or about $260,000 a year.
Rand Paul: tough love is only for the undeserving but not for his privileged class.
JC
One more point: I’d have thought a true libertarian would offer his services, and if he can’t sell them at what people can afford to pay, he would accept the market’s verdict and try another job. But what he essentially says here is he’s entitled to a comfortable living as a doctor. He has "little choice" because he can’t prosper as well as he believes a doctor is entitled to, unless he accepts Medicare/Medicaid patients and government payments. And his patients in turn can only afford his services if government pays him the fees he assumes he’s entitled to.
I think that’s a classic illustration of an entitlement system for doctors. Some libertarian.



234 Comments







Exactly. The HCR was about keeping skilled, educated doctors (like Rand) and insurance folks employed.
You are spot on.
Good enough for him, not for anyone else.
This is the best post against this kind of thinking. Thank you Scarecrow!
Randroid “rebuttal” in 3…2…1…
I don’t think that’s accurate. I’ve heard Ron Paul say he used to offer his services for free to the poor who couldn’t afford to pay.
Your statement implies a general offering to everyone but some people can afford to pay and some can’t. The percentage who can afford to pay is much larger than the percentage who are poor and cannot afford to pay. That’s why it’s possible to offer his services to the poor since there are fewer poor.
Regarding your comment “he would accept the market’s verdict and try another job”, there is NO MARKET VERDICT. The market you speak of is the general interaction of people in society and as such it is the individual who decides what they will do, i.e. people have free will.
I doubt that’s accurate. Can you provide a reference to where he expressed a view like that?
I don’t think he would defend a measure like that. I don’t think you understand the libertarian philosophy. By the way, Rand Paul said he’s not a libertarian.
Rand Paul is an empty scoundrel but in my view focus on the issue of reduced Medicare fees for physicians services is misplaced.
Excellent presentation of the true facts regarding physician reimbursement in today’s Washington Post.. Link here..
Rand is a mish-mash of stuff that he has a hard time remembering himself. He has no belief system except he doesn’t like the “little people.”
He did.or hopes to, Senator.
small edit ☮
Typical libertarian response when exposed as to the consequences of applying their narcissistic infantile beliefs.
Maybe a Doctor who created his own board certification just what are the criteria he uses to certify Doctors should settle for less pay until he gets some real certification maybe Rand can qualify as a nurse or something.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Scarecrow and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Great post, profound analysis and intelligible writing. But what your analysis leads to is the more important understanding that the entire right-half of the established political system- the Republican Party, the Tea Party and the now main streamed lunatic fringe of militias and terrorists- is unconditionally fascist which is to say that it is not only UNdemocratic but ANTIdemocratic but represents the consolidation of power of the military and the oligarchy. This means that even “incrementalists” like Obama are not the enemy nor is the weakened structure of representative government we have been struggling to perfect for 200 years. This means that we hafta get off our individual and collective asses and take over our local politics and beef up the Democratic Party structure from the ground up.
For those of us who have recognized the real enemy of home-grown Amerikan fascism for years, we are tired of blamin’ the victims and whinnin that our neighbors and brothers and susters in our communities “just don’t get it”. Mass conflict and real fighting in the streets will come anyway and it won’t come from the triumph of marginal or “moderate” liberals like Obama, it will come from the destruction of our fragile system by people who attack their own troops and let the real evil clean up the mess.
Sorry Brother Scarecrow but we are danglin’ like the spider over the flame – sinners in the hands of an angry God.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, AND DON’T SHOOT THE FREINDLIES FOR GOD’S SAKE!!
Far be it from me to refrain from piling on such a justified target.
Can you back up that statement with actual facts or is that just another ad-hominem attack when presented with views different from yours as if everyone should agree with you?
NIxon said he was not a Crook, Bush said read my lips no new taxes, Bush 2 said America does not torture.
LOL!!!!
Talk about on point.
this may be harsh (but wtf, I do not care), but Rand Paul’s ‘advice’ is cut exactly out of the same bolt of cloth as Rush Limbaugh’s remarks about kids who will be losing their school lunch programs this summer. complete lack of compassion or empathy. These guys are both sociopathic jerks. http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
And one of my real bugs is that as a society, for the last 25 years, we’ve not only been tolerating this horrid behavior, but we have been allowing it to grow, develop, and be promoted.
Citizen konst:
Read the frontpage post by Citizen Scarecrow, he dissects the “libertarian” fascist Rand Paul’s response when exposed as a charlatan and a liar, that’s what this thread is all about…it is you who must come up with “facts” and logical argument to refute the analysis. And I’m bettin’ you are bankrupted of the tools to take on rational argument.
Personal experiences with libertarians too numerous to count.
I was at one time a member of my local Libertarian Party. I am surrounded by the selfish wealthy who call themselves libertarians and the angry poor who call themselves Tea Party libertarians.
Good point but I think you have to define what’s wrong with the way things are (plenty in my opinion) and what do you propose to do to fix them.
Someone besides Rand Paul? You have to admit the words Conflict of Interest do become a concern when you found your own board. Just what free market need was his board was suppose to be filling it seems nobody has joined.
What’s your point?
Citizen konst:
You are way outta your league here konst…we all know what is wrong with “the way things are” and we all know that we got into this mess as a reasult of the uncontrolled growth of financial capitalism and it’s control of our politics and military.
In most circumstances there is NO other job. And depending on where you grew up and your circumstance it would dictate whether or not you had a “choice” in the matter. Those who were fortunate enough to be born into money have alot more “choice” than those who grew up with parents who are addicted or very poor or without a father, etc. Not everyone starts out at the same place in life and has the same opportunity.
libertarian who believes and prospers from Medicare…
giggle, coffee spew….
I already got my money’s worth out of that contribution.
I should give more.
ignore the trolls….
No doubt his daddy keeps reminding him what to say.
So you’re saying the AMA board was not created by doctors?
They say the AMA board restricts the supply of doctors thereby being one of the causes that health care costs are so high. When you restrict supply, the price for a product or service goes up because the demand increases.
It’s even worse than that. He should accept whatever he’s offered. That includes a chicken. That would, in theory anyway, bring down the cost of the service. Of course it never ever works like that.
These ‘libertarians’ are no right wing liberals. They’re social Darwinists. And social Darwinism is one big hypocrisy. Among other things…
I think the first part is incorrect but the second part is correct.
Another nitwit here. I’m fixin’ to make a project outa this grifter.
Yes I ran into a few of your friends in the comments.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/34556
A Lib troll doubted wiki that Frederic Bastiat was an Austrian School economist I had to go to the Ludwin Von Mises Institute for proof that he was.
http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&Id=123
All because the Libs can’t accept
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
In other words cause and effect scientific method is secondary to observations that sound logical but are never tested. Exposing their narcissistic infantile beliefs was fun until the comments got closed on my own post ^%$%&!.
That is really something.
Libertarians, the original whiny ass titty babies. Accept no substitute!
Politicians will say anything? Was I being to subtle?
There’s no such thing as “social Darwinism”.
Well said, I have no answers but someplace along the way we stopped demanding what is said be true, and failing to label these cruel, mean and crazy ideas for what they are.
Randroid. Me likee.
She does not seem to like answering questions. I guess that the Republican Senate Campaign Committee hasn’t filled her with talking points yet.
Just like the economy is a personal assault on most americans ability to make a living when there are no jobs. Fuck mister paul and the horse he rode in on.
I meant to what part were you referring to?
Citizen konst:
WTF???!!! If uncontrolled financial capitalism hadn’t happened it wouldn’t a been able to capture our politics and military now would it…you are outta you league here Citizen, read, listen and think about what is bein said herre and then maybe you will begin to develope an understandin;’ of things that may lead to a contribution to our collective understanding.
There is.
And you’re living in it.
This idiocy about workers unwilling to take jobs at lower wages is the standard response of failed economists. John Maynard Keynes describes them in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money:
It was stupid then, as Keynes shows, and it is stupid now, and only stupid people say things like that.
I think the title of this post should be: Rand Paul Exposes Himself. That covers, or uncovers, him much better!
Obviously the opinion of a man who has never heard (and is unlikely to ever hear) the words “over qualified”. Give the disproportionately high numbers of unemployed low skilled workers and new entry level workers, a whole lot of skilled workers are going to hear that. There are also a lot of companies now who refuse to consider the unemployed in hiring.
No I was saying the AMA was not created specifically by Doctors who wanted to get around being recertified.
Rand’s justification for creating a new medical board seems like an over the top over reaction. If I had to guess I would say he was afraid he couldn’t pass the AMA test so he created his own test.
So poor people should take lesser jobs but Rand can just call himself a certified Doctor by inventing his own group?
Sorry I want a real Doctor to work on me Rand just opened himself up to tons of malpractice suits. Every patient especially the Dark ones can sue if he made a mistake.
How does he get medical malpractice insurance is my question?
I don’t remember where I heard this (Bill Maher, perhaps) that real libertarians were just republicans that want to smoke dope.
As one of the unemployed, I have been the subject of the exact scorn that Scarecrow alludes to:
That’s almost scarily accurate in the tongue-lashing I got from a “friend” who is a conservative republican.
This is why I do not have any “friends” who are Republicans.
I’d imagine if he hasn’t been sued since he’s been in practice he may well be a competent opthamologist.
With friends like that….
It’s only a guess but I suspect Rand Paul created his own board in protest of the AMA and it’s specialty boards daring to demand some proof of competence and ethics.
You know libertarians think there should be no such regulation or control of personal business. That it’s up to patients to figure out on their own a doctor’s ethics and competence. That a doctor will be ethical and competent because it is good business to do so.
Same thing with regulating pharmaceuticals. Libertarians favor doing away with the FDA. No point according to Paul . It’s up to patients to figure out. Those selling pharmaceuticals would never sell something dangerous because it is bad for business.
Or just real fast to offer cash to keep things quiet.
It’s called Calvinism.
Or at least has not made any mistakes sever or obvious enough to get caught, which is also a real possibility in his specialty.
Like Thalidomide.
Yes and so many more today as we speak.
They think Corporate Personhood is nicer than Human Nature? When they don’t believe in human nature as much as we do?
God Created Man in his own image but man created the Corporation to be greater than Man…or God?
Demonstrating once again that Libertarians (and conservatives generally) are completely ignorant of economic history. All of those “horrible” regulations were enacted in response to routine abuses by businesses. The same is true of the AMA and ABA, which emerged to eliminate the multitude of quacks with no training of any sort.
LOL! Indeed it is… Perhaps I need to remember my grandparents New England Calvinist roots and try and get that job flipping burgers, thus proving that my skills as an Airline Pilot with an MBA are being well and truly utilized… perhaps being a barista might be more socially acceptable, not sure. Hmmmmm….
Mike Maloy: Rand Paul Is A Right Wing Teabagger Racist Freak Liar
Liar Liar pants on Fire ♨ ♨ ☢ ☣
Except I long ago decided that was just what I was going to have to do but still no luck. What now Rand? Dumpster diving?
From that link:
“. In more than 30 years I have not met a colleague who became a physician for financial reward. The challenge and satisfaction……”
I guess he either asks all the colleagues he’s met if they are in it for the money, or like GWB, just looks in their hearts….
So Herb Spencer never existed? What about the Lochner era Supreme Court and their expansive view of privity of contract in order to further those goals. Justice Holmes even calls out the majority for their Social Darwinist beliefs…
Yes. I have great pride in the changes brought about in medicine at the turn of the last century. It really moved the US into a golden age of medicaal care and research. “A scientist at every bedside” Sir Wm. Oslere
The Rand Pauls of the world would continue the unraveling.
For a brief period money from the practice of medicine may have been motivating for some. But anyone expecting to make income proportionate to skill, talent and training now is a fool.
I do not deny that now money from drug companies and other cartels is corrupting whether conscious or not. But cutting the rewards from direct patient care is not a solution.
Do you have one?
All you’re doing is claiming that everyone else is wrong, which is frequently a sign that you have no evidence to back up your arguments.
You should be prepared to back up your claims; show your work.
I will admit that there was also an element of limiting competition with the professional associations, but the same principles apply to the trades unions apprenticeship and certification programs. Reality, unlike free market fantasies, abounds in crooks, charlatans, and frauds. Even Adam Smith recognized that the interests of capital and society are not the same and often at odds and that society needed to enact such regulations as would protect it from the excesses of capital.
Note: “used to” additionally while you require Scarecrow for a link you do not provide one yourself about Dr. Paul’s pro bono eye-care.
That misses the point completely. The point is that Paul was against a cut from Medicare towards doctors fees, something that would save money to the system, but at the cost to Doctor pay. Which is to say that Paul gets his pay no matter what, but then rails against government spending, even though he benefits from that spending. Are you implying that he charges one rate for the poor and another for the well-to-do? Again there needs to be a link for that (especially if you call out the OP about links).
Scarecrow doesn’t need to quote him there since it is essentially what the entire piece is about, the latent hypocrisy in Paul’s argument. That unskilled or underskilled workers should be happy with what they get, while he and other doctors benefit from government subsidies for their job.
They ought to go read about the goings-on that led to the creation of the FDA. I doubt that it would change their alleged minds, but they might learn something from it.
If your doctor kills you – you can sue him…
LOL especially for women. I was flat out told to not expect to hear any decision as to acceptance. into school until all the males had been interviewed and placed. — and to be damned certain I didn’t get married and pregnant in the interim.
Being poisoned by your food or medicines, owing to the addition of adulterants, tends to force people to take action to regulate what goes into them. Likewise thousands of workers being killed by the negligence of their employers tends to promote worker safety laws. These did not simply appear out of thin air as a result of some liberal whim.
So we had a system that allowed Investment Banks, who owe a fiduciary duty of care to their investors to make bests that the investments they are making for their clients will fail. We had a market of goods, mortgage backed securities, that were given AAA credit ratings, despite how risky they were, in order to disguise the investment as something better. Then AIG sells insurance (the bet) to investment banks who still profit once AIG goes under and the fed assumes their debt for the sake of structural integrity.
Now we have a a fed loan rate of next to zero, and banks can borrow near limitless amounts of money and then purchase government bonds which yield a higher percent return then the initial loan, essentially borrow money from the government and lend it right back. Not to mention the lack of lending for job creation.
All of this unregulated, and it is essentially the proximate cause of the economic downturn. A regulated market would first not allow a fiduciary to benefit from their client’s loss, it would not give AAA credit ratings to dangerous securities and it would have a mechanism in place to allow organizations to fail and not socialize their losses.
To quote Red on the 70s show, “What a dumb ass.”
Sadly true in many professions for far too long. Personally I would like to see the regulation of the medical field stricter to eliminate naturopaths, homeopaths, chiropractors, and other semi-respectable quacks (all of whom practice here in Montana) whose practices have no scientific backing and are often refuted by science.
Well, they’re not shielding doctors from taking less pay-they’re shielding patients from getting dumped by their doctors. Might not be their motive but that is the effect. The real stupidity of Congress is that they propped up doctors pay through the health insurers bailout and now seniors and the poor will pay the price if they allow government reimbursements to be even less competitive. But, you know, single payer was too radical and all.
Totally agree about Rand Paul though. Please don’t elect him, Kentuckians, I beg you.
The title of this post should have been “Talking to konst”
So the conservative expects the public measure of individual productivity by the people who will spend every dime of their income into the economy (revenue generating), but require no commensurate measure of individual productivity by the wealthy? My money making money is not a measure of my individual productivity. And if I withdraw my resources from the economy through hoarding, tax evasion, or off-shoring, then am I not as an individual only marginally productive?
According to conservatives, it is capital which creates all value and productivity in the economy. Of course Adam Smith argued that only labor creates value, but what did he know?
Small repair job.
What you mean by “uncontrolled financial capitalism” is ambiguous. I think what you might really mean is the people responsible in some of the Wall Street firms have of their own free will committed crimes and fraud.
Capitalism is a description of an economic activity. Your local grocer performs capitalistic economic actions like saving and investing in order to increase his business. By getting rid of capitalism (I’m not refering to the Wall Street sociopaths) what you would be doing is taking power out of the hands of individuals and concentrating power in the hands of a few people like a council who makes tyrannical decisions for everyone. That’s far off into the possible future but that’s the road that action will lead to.
As opposed to the small group of corporate and financial oligarchs who currently make the tyrannical decisions for everyone?
“…efforts to shield doctors from taking less pay for what they do…”
This is not about doctors taking less pay for what they do. It is about whether medicaid recipients can find doctors willing to see them at all!
Didn’t see many true facts in that link. Would be interesting to actually have some public facts about the business aspect of doctoring. Physician salaries at my university were a secret. That may have changed.
Public pricing of procedures would be a nice place to start. I have asked in advance what something will cost and all I ever got was a puzzled look and ‘I don’t know’. Pardon me for asking.
Of course, I don’t know why I resist that fact. It goes a long way towards explaining the perverse values of so many in our society.
Smith was right. Nothing gets done without some type of labor. If, for example, you have a gold mine, until the ore gets mined and then smelted, into a usable form, all you really have are a bunch of rocks.
Absolutely. Capital neither creates nor adds value, it only makes it possible to create value through labor. The investor class is inherently parasitic, living off the labor of others without contributing anything of value. This also applies to the whole financial sector of the economy.
Little bit of personal history.
When Medicare began to cover my specialty the reimbursement was so low th at I saw Medicare patients pro bono because it cost more to do the billing than what I was paid. Private fees at that time were much more generous then than now and 10% even 20% pro bono was doable.
As time has gone on all income from physicians’ fees has diminished significantly and Medicare with some increases has become more attractive. However the overall decrease has forced physicians out of solo and small group practice. Now moat belong to large management groups to minimize overhead. Most of these through streamlining have made Medicare modestly profitable for some at least.
To cut those fees by 21% will for many make them less than overhead costs.
There has been little innovation and I think the quality of care across the board for all patients has deteriorated under the system that has been operating. Surely some of this has been aa a result of conflict of interest for physicians seeking to supplement income from the pharmaceutical and appliance industries. But there are many other factors, most of which the medical community has no control over.
That is because most physicians belong to big management firms. It is the pencil pushers who set the charges.
I never have had any trouble learning charges if I asked the business people. Not the docs.
For all that conservatives revere and constantly genuflect to Adam Smith, it would appear that none have ever actually read him. If they had, their heads would explode. Not only did he advocate effective government regulation of businesses and capital, he also advocated for progressive taxation, felt that the laws should favor the workers rather than capital, and felt that labor should be better remunerated (that those who produced the value should enjoy its benefits).
So you’re saying the AMA should be granted a monopoly by the government?
There should be no competition to the AMA?
Remember, AMA board certification is not the same thing as a doctor’s license or a medical degree from a medical school, both of which Dr. Rand Paul has.
While I do not begrudge physicians adequate, even generous compensation, I have to say, that when I see the average income of some specialties approaching seven figures, I lose all sympathy. There is no one in the world whose labor is worth that much.
So you’re saying he is a libertarian but he’s lying? That doesn’t make sense.
The issue here is that Paul is effectively self-certified (a clear conflict of interest). There needs to be external certification and most states require, as a requisite for state certification, that you receive such independent certification and delegate that task to the various medical boards, which happen to largely fall under the AMA.
I don’t think it’s up to parients ro figure out but there’s a monopoly by the FDA. There’s a lot of controversy about the FDA in bed with big Pharma and I think there;s a lot of truth to that. If true how much is the FDA protecting consumers and how much is the FDA protecting profits of the big Pharma cartel?
There already isn’t any competition to the AMA. The AMA controls medical school enrollments and sets the standard for passing certification tests for graduation. So, in essence, the AMA manipulates the supply of doctors, there by, driving up the cost.
The averages are not that impressive. And I am speaking of services to patients only.
Those who get into the million range are the exception or are including money from things other than services to patients.
Overall with inflation correction incomes from practice of medicine have declined.
Yes MD’s have exempted themselves from the tawdry business of knowing what they they charge.
Next time I guess I can say just a minute Doc, while I go see the pencil pushers(as if I could get and answer from them) stay right here, I’ll be right back. What you have other things to do? Oh I forgot, my time is insignificant.
LOL spot on Margret (Peg) ☕
Competition has no place in protecting a human right and determining and providing best care equally for all. We have only to look at the current state of medicine quality in this country in comparison with those who do not have a competitive system.
I meant it’s not a valid scientific theory not that some people don’t believe in it.
You either like the results of the free market system at work or you don’t.
Why? Cause I challenge some people’s beliefs? It’s better than the status quo we have now of people thinking that politicians in D.C. will fix everything.
Don’t know anyone on this site who feels that the pols in DC can fix Anything.
On checking, it would appear that the figure I saw was rather high. This and this, however, indicates that physicians’ Salaries (not total income) average above the top 1% and in many specialties in the top 0.1% of the income distribution. I can not get overly worked up about how underpaid physicians are.
If you followed the series of questions and replies with ThingsComeUndone you would understand what I was referring to.
I don’t get your comment.
Many busy people with important jobs keep appointments in a timely fashion.
What happened that physicians cannot do that? Because you are sick and need them desperately so you put up with extremely rude and inconsiderate behavior you would accept from no one else. They should be ashamed of taking unfair advantage of people.
Why the bold? it’s your ambiguity in the statement that creates the confusion.
I think the point is not that certifications and apprenticeships are bad but that some of them prohibit others from working if they’re not members of them.
While I have my own issues with the medical profession, much of this results from most physicians, who now work for group practices, not setting their own schedules (or fees) and being given set intervals for seeing patients, as well as the fact that the doctor cannot always know or control in advance how long it will take to serve each patient. Blame for profit medicine, not the doctors per se, who are often just employees.
I think you should read that again. I said “I’ve heard Ron Paul …” Dr. Ron Paul is an obstetrician.
No, but fewer doctors available does mean less time with a doctor. Less time would translate into lower quality of care.
The point is that you are not allowed to work at an occupation if you are not qualified to do so (it is called fraud) and that certification programs serve to determine that you are. The people who are prohibited from working are frauds.
Well then that makes even less sense… The article is about Rand Paul, but your rebut something by stating something you heard about his father…
That may be what the piece is about but that doesn’t mean it’s supported by evidence without sources.
I agree with the statement but I don’t understand how you are relating it to my observation re a competitive model.
Makes as much sense as anything else libertarians believe or say.
It’s the conclusion, if this then that. It would be like asking for the cite for 2+2 = 4. If Rand Paul rails against government spending (which he does) and doesn’t support cuts to medicare payments (which he doesnt) he is therefore a hypocrite.
The system you have now is the result of applying the wall street business model to the practice of medicine. You want a personal relationship? Find another system.
If you create an ecology that only supports sharks I suggest you don’t go swimming,.
Let’s face it. The Pauls’ are idiots. They sell a populist meme, but in the end they are as corporatist as it gets (and they showed their racism). Nice salesmanship, but now exposed for all to see (please keep exposing yourself). Stupid racists. However, don’t underestimate the anti-incumbent fervor.
Let it be known that there are 2 factions of the Tea Party, one being crazy/cointelpro (you know, with the nutty tinfoil hat conspiracy theory rumors and racism abound), and the other being constitutionalist (albeit misdirected). Please remember folks, that Tea Partiers may be on your side (espescially those within the military), but you will have to make sure you sell logic to them. Not partisanship, not a namebrand, not far-out idealism, but real, factual logic. Alot of these people know what’s real, and they don’t buy Huff’nPuff, nor Fluff’nStuff.
And no, Sara Palin halfway thinking that marijauna laws ought to be less of a factor doesn’t cut it. Legalize and tax it, shut down illegal crossings and deport the illegals that you find. Illegal invaders cost many American jobs, and I will not take any more of it.
I know that going against illegals is against the typical firedog code, but I am here, and I’m here to stay. Illegal is illegal, period (I can go into much more detail about this topic if you want, but for now I won’t). I want jobs for Americans, and I won’t allow the corporations to undercut my wages any longer with their tactics of hiring cheap labor via illegal invaders, nor will I allow it to happen via corporations hiring cheap labor overseas. No more “free trade” so that corporations can travel from country to country as vultures plucking on the dead meat of the cheapest labor they can find.
Nevermore.
Very True DrDick very true… here is a cuppa for ya ☕
I think you’re mistaken. The market (which by the way is not a free market no matter the propaganda you here on tv) is regulated. It’s just that the regulators chose to do nothing.
Fair points. So many things in the medical business are so screwed up. The buyouts of the hospitals and private practices of recent years are a disaster. My long time physician said to me, ‘they offered me a price I couldn’t turn down…and he was gone. From there everything went thru the big hospital and cost me and the insurance a lot more.
Sorry, my original was to konst regarding his statement about the AMA. I was pointing out the AMA is already a monopoly, regarding quantity. And by restricting the quantity of doctors they, the AMA, needlessly drives up prices. Now, I don’t think removing these quantity restrictions would solve the uninsured problem, I do think it would help, even if it’s a small help.
So presumably you’re in favor of punishing those businesses that do hire undocumented immigrants? Including significant fines and possible jail time for management types who, though they may not hire directly, set the culture within a firm that makes lower level management feel justified in hiring undocumented immigrants and paying them less than minimum wage rather than set things so the company can pay a decent wage to a US citizen?
That’s true too.
There is no such animal as a “free market.” All markets are “strongly” regulated, which is what allows them to function. Markets emerge when societies become large and complex enough that routine economic transactions occur between strangers with no strong social ties. Markets rely on trust to function and it is regulation which creates that trust in the absence of social ties. Minimally this includes standardized currencies, standard weights and measures, contract and tort law. These are present in all markets everywhere.
Placing bets against your clients, with whom you hold a fiduciary duty, was and is not illegal, however it is unethical at least as it applies to the financial markets. The AAA credit ratings were gotten because you can shop around the security until you get the best rating, again there is a loophole in laws. The mortgage backed securities market was essentially unregulated meaning that there was a steady flow of “bad loans” to chop up and securitize because you could easily sell them for chopping.
Sure regulators could have done more, but there are also not enough laws to cover the market, unless you support executive agencies acting without congressional authorization.
But the current situation is the inevitable outcome of the “free market” you are so enamored of.
In fact the AMA doesn’t control supply of physicians to any great extent. On the whole those accusations are just political rhetoric. New medical schools are popping up all over.
I am not so certain you want to be where there is a huge surplus of practitioners. In fact there is somewhat of a glut in my area and I do at times feel they are ordering trying to find ways to fill their income.
Medical care is a human right not a commodity. It is best determined with that in mind.
Quite a rant, Scarecrow.
First, I read the original article for Rand Paul’s actual advice to people who are currently unemployed, and I found the advice spot-on. I have given similar advice to people who have lost their jobs in the last couple of years: work at something, anything, even if it means a big pay cut. Keep the money coming in. Waiting to find a job that pays as much as the last job is a certain path toward using up your unemployment insurance and delaying your future career possibilities.
You, on the other hand, Scarecrow, would have that Masters in Education sitting at home and whining about no jobs at her old pay level for two years while collecting unemployment payments funded by people who flip burgers, clean toilets, and run a cash register because THEY didn’t have an ego problem.
As for Rand Paul being paid by Medicare and Medicaid…that’s a system you progressives set up. Why are you attacking him for taking care of those patients? They have a hard enough time finding a doctor who will accept those submarket payments. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t: if he accepts Medicare/Medicaid, he’s a hypocrite; if he doesn’t he a cold hearted anti-social libertarian bastard.
Then probably his state and the hospital where he practices don’t have those kinds of requirements. The requirements they have has been publicized in the news.
Maybe that’s why he started his own board. I haven’t read what his reasons are.
There is a very real shortage of physicians, based on the total number of patients and a reasonable work load for the physicians. This is grossly compounded by maldistribution of those physicians. This distortion comes both in terms of specialties and geography. There are far too few general practitioners/internists and far too many dermatologists/cosmetic surgeons. While some major urban centers and other relatively affluent areas have a surplus, rural areas, like here in Montana, often have no physicians at all.
I think the point was that we are cutting teaching positions because of a lack of funding (funding that would come from the 120Billion in aid to states) not because there is a lack of demand for that position. The teaching cuts come at a cost of higher teacher to student ratios which create a less than favorable education system. While Rand Paul stats that he could not practice medicine but for the government subsidies, which is to say that there is not a lack of demand (patients) but that there is a lack of money for that job. Essentially he got his, eff you.
A little bit of personnel history.
My adult disabled child is on Medicaid. Make that a privatized Medicaid HMO. We have switched providers twice because of their inability to provide a local PCP.
When HCR adds 10 to 12 million clients to Medicaid, where are they ever going to find a doctor to see them. Just this week I read an article about governors begging congress to adequatly fund Medicaid before they are forced to make draconian cuts.
Note that I live in the most populous county in TX. There is no shortage of doctors here.
You are missing the point, again.
Yes, I’m in favor of fining those that hire illegals… to the max. I know this is a sensitive issue, and I don’t really blame those who came here for a better life, but the fact is, they are illegal, and it’s time for them to head home. Oh, I know it’s not so simple to say that for illegals who have raised families here, even grandchildren. However, we cannot afford to toss our laws aside on a whim, nor can we alow our border to be openly and brazenly invaded.
I am a realist.
No, Rand Paul is not ‘self-certified.’ He was one of about 200 opthamologists that set up a certification board that would treat all members equally. Prior to setting up this board, there was a two-tiered system (approved by the AMA) inwhich doctors in practice before a certain date were considered ‘lifetime certified,’ while doctors in practice after that date had to renew their certifications every ten years. Rand was certified and re-certified under the old system, but he considered it patently unfair that those who made the rules (the older doctors) had exempted themselves from the certification requirements.
Rand Paul does not certify himself. He is a member of an organization that has certified him. Same as the AMA.
Funny, but the officers of that board consist of Rand Paul, his non-physician wife, and IIRC her non-physician father.
Couldn’t Agree with you more. Medical care should NOT be a for profit endeavor. Healing should be the driving force and Morality. Do no harm, maybe that also means financial harm???
Exactly. For profit medical practice should be illegal.
Then why does he refuse to answer how the “certification” for the group he founded and is run by his wife is done? What are the objective criteria by which he and any others (since he seems to be the only person certified only by this group) can be said to be certified?
If the 10 to 12 million undocumented workers were deported, the American economy would collapse within 6 months. Who would do the work that they do?
No they’re not frauds. They’re just being excluded from an “exclusive” organization.
And my point is is there any supporting evidence that he takes the position you claim?
This is from the bottom of the article linked in the first line of the post.
How do you figure that illegal invaders leaving would cause the downfall of the U.S. economy? We (that being the citizens of the United States of America) would do the work, just as we did before. Do you remember those days?
How many people do you suppose are out of work due to illegal invaders? In my town, those same illegals are often times not even paid for their work, and certainly aren’t allowed to have a water break. But continue on with your grand plan of opening the U.S. border to any traveler that comes along, if that’s what you wish. Is that what you wish?
This is the whole quote to which I was replying to (you could have read it in the previous comments):
I was replying to that.
See comment 150
“While Rand Paul stats that he could not practice medicine but for the government subsidies, which is to say that there is not a lack of demand (patients) but that there is a lack of money for that job. Essentially he got his, eff you.”
I think you read too much into his statement. His practice, as it exists, includes patients that he could not afford to serve without compensation. If he were a true libertarian, he might choose to accept those patients that can pay his market rate and donate his time and resources as he sees fit to those who can’t. But Rand is not a libertarian, and he has chosen to work within the system, accepting government payments, low as they are, as part of his business model. The danger in this non-principled approach (he considers himself more practical than his principled father) is that the fact he accepts ANY funding will be used as a stick to beat him if he doesn’t support ALL funding.
As you’ve pointed out, the perception might be “eff you” if and when Rand doesn’t support someone else’s spending priorities.
The Wall Street model you’re referring to is not capitalism. The Wall Street model is a parasitic system.
I hope mister paul is in practice long enough to become a victim of his own beliefs.
The question to ask is where do they get the money to make such an offer.
That’s not what allows markets to function. The regulations is what allows cartel organizations like the Fed to bail out their “too big to fail” friends and the MMS giving free passes to BP.
I don’t think it’s the result of the free market. It’s the result of corporate-government special privileges.
You got me. I don’t know. I suspect that he felt he had already passed the ABO certification three times and was tweeked by the rule changes that exempted the older opthamologists. Yeah, it’s possible the NBO is a certification mill. I just don’t know.
Since he was certified by the ABO until 2005, he is on-par with opthamologists who last took their certification tests prior to 1992.
Take it for what it is worth.
Where do they get the money to buyout the medical services?
From our financial system set up by the banksters, for the banksters and of the banksters.
Their tentacles are everywhere, most no doubt, still unseen.
Don’t know how to break it to you, but the AMA doesn’t do board certification. “AMA Board Certification” – bolded or unbolded – is an oxymoron.
Umm, in the real world 24 of the 26 approved US medical specialties are regulated by the American Board of Medical Specialties, not the AMA.
The ABMS is one of three organizations that collectively oversee approved US medical specialties: none of the three answer to the AMA.
The AMA – which I’ve never joined or wished to join – is a trade group comprised of some, but by no means all, US physicians.
[in reply to 92: Remember, AMA board certification is not the same thing as a doctor’s license or a medical degree from a medical school, both of which Dr. Rand Paul has. ]
No, you don’t. Seriously. And don’t think it’s some joke if he wins. I do predict that he will win. Like I said before, there is anti-incumbent fervor, and that may be just enough to carry the day for Rand.
Personally, I know that this is a pox on the GOP, and they are about to fall. But then again, what do I know?
Paul and current Kentucky AG Jack Conway are contesting an open seat so anti-incumbency fever has no play as both can claim to be outside DC Village and thus outsiders.
The people who run the GOP would agree that Rand and Ron are a “pox.” Personally, I think the GOP elite are an unprincipled bunch of boobs that have sold-out America to the highest bidding lobbiest. Rand and Ron are just the doctors to cure their ills.
I agree. It presents a huge problem. The Medicaid and Medicare fee schedules collectively currently barely cover overhead. Slam the physicians all you like but they have to have a revenue stream that will at least let them send their kids to college. Otherwise they will find other things to do — like going into politics.
Nobody is excluding them. They have voluntarily withdrawn. they only way they could be excluded is to not meet the standards for certification, which they have not sought.
No. It also happened in the late nineteenth century, when there were no government interventions and has happened everywhere capitalism has been tried.
That’s what I was thinking. That would drive prices up .
I am sorry, but you are quite simply wrong. All market systems, everywhere and at all times, that we have documentation of are subject to strong regulations.
“There already isn’t any competition to the AMA. The AMA controls medical school enrollments and sets the standard for passing certification tests for graduation. So, in essence, the AMA manipulates the supply of doctors, there by, driving up the cost.”
The kindest thing I can say about the above is that is afactual.
In real life, the American Association of Medical Colleges accredits US medical schools. I was elected to their student component board (OSR) for three years in the mid 80′s and went to all the AAMC’s annual and quarterly meeting over that period. As part of the AAMC’s student board, I was entitled to sit in on many of the other AAMC governance meetings, and took full advantage of the opportunity.
At that time – first years of Reagan’s destruction – the AAMC would have been thrilled to see new med schools completed. The AMA’s rep to the AAMC also wanted more med schools: more graduating docs means more potential AMA members.
I admit that at some point over the last twenty years the AAMC briefly drank the economists Kool Aid that said the best way to hold down the America’s health care costs was to have fewer docs (and more “physician extenders”). Now that that little bit of economists’ delusions been discarded (turns out patient demand is the far more relevant variable), the AAMC’s back to wanting more med schools.
Med schools are incredibly expensive: at every level, medical education requires folks who are trained to set aside time they could be using for patient care and instead use that time overseeing trainees’ care. [I've done my part as volunteer faculty for more than a decade, but even an "all volunteer faculty" model still has a big opportunity cost: the time the fully trained docs "attendings") spend with trainees could otherwise be used to see more patients, which would - in general - bring in more revenue for the med school.]
What’s effectively prevented needed growth in the number of US medical schools – as well as in the “throughput” capacity of existing medical schools – is grossly inadequate Federal investment, together with a steady diversion of remaining health care resources into the profit margins/overhead of Pig Pharma and Pig Insurance.
AMA ain’t causing that.
The only income related constraints in medical education I can discern are at the level of admission to the potentially very lucrative procedure based specialties (invasive radiology, cardiology, gastroenterology, opthamology, and many surgical specialties).
Physicians train in these specialties after they complete medical school (in the case of GI and cardiology, after they’ve completed their post-med school training in the medical specialty called “internal medicine”).
Even the lucrative procedure based specialties needn’t fear expanding through-put for US medical ed: more docs means more referrals of more patients who need the pricey procedures.
The appropriate pressure point for the procedure based specialties (pbs) are the various specialty societies and the societies delegates to the various pbs specialty boards.
Expanding the number of training slots for the now-lucrative procedure based specialties is the only way I know to expand this section of the physician workforce.
[Of course, many assessments suggest that what the US actually needs are more of the lower paid primary docs, not more of the high paid procedure based folks.]
I think you’re mistaken. Corporations and some politically connected individuals have been getting special privileges from governments for a long time.
I doubt you can define capitalism and if you just do a copy and paste from a reputable source then you would find that what we have is in fact NOT capitalism.
LOL.
This is up there with “you don’t understand libertarianism.”
The point was the agencies are to benefit the cartels.
I doubt you can define capitalism and if you just do a copy and paste from a reputable source then you would find that what we have is in fact NOT capitalism.
Would you care to give that a shot yourself, since you seem to (not)define it in ways that bear no resemblance to any economic system which has ever existed anywhere in the known universe. Capitalism is what capitalist systems do, starting back in the 17th century. The 19th century was the heyday of laissez faire (essentially unregulated) capitalism. You really need to read some serious economic history (I would suggest Brad DeLong or Eric Hobsbawm) since you seem to be woefully ignorant in that regard.
Oh, the idea the AMA sets graduation criteria is also afactual.
The body that sets curricular requirements for US / Canadian med schools granting MD degrees is the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, or LCME.
Both the AMA and the AAMC appoint reps to the LCME board, but the LCME is notoriously refractory to guidance from either org.
How independent is the LCME? At the AAMC we student reps had succeeded in moving the AAMC to direct the LCME to change their NBME exams to “pass-fail”.
Once the relevant AAMC committees had signed off the proposal, we thought we’d won. Silly reformers.
The LCME rep to the AAMC went through the AAMC bylaws with a fine-toothed comb and found a clause requiring a future re-vote: which gave the LCME folks enough time to recruit basic science folks and lobby the proposed change into failing.
For all practical purposes, the LCME dictates curriculum and graduation standards to the AMA – and all too often, to the AAMC.
(Why did we – ok – me – want this? Exam scores beyond p/f did not predict clinical competence, yet the basic science PhD’s who’d hijacked much of med ed at that time used the scoring results to continue their parasitic niche in the curriculum, and hence their jobs. Instead of memorizing pointless basic science carp, we could have used the time learning about competent care of patients.
Fortunately, much of that old system’s now overthrown, although the tests that replaced the NBME still aren’t pass fail, yet the scores in the pass range have no other predictive value.)
There’s an article about the AMA at http://mises.org/daily/4276
Does that concur with your experience with them?
You really are quite [Edited by Moderator. No names please], aren’t you? I am a Ph.D. cultural anthropologist who specializes in political economy. I was referring to premodern as well as modern markets, including the ancient Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian markets; indigenous MesoAmerican and Incan markets in pre-Columbian Americas; and West African traditional tribal markets. There were no “cartels” in those systems and they all had strong regulation. It is the presence of strong regulation, to prevent and punish cheating, which creates the trust essential to the operations of markets in the absence of strong social ties between the parties to economic exchanges.
Thanks, Kirk, for shedding some actually informed light on this subject.
Oh fudge: omitted the linky for LCME: http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/nov09/lcme.htm
I have read some though there’s much more to read. Reading Brad DeLong is good for a laugh nothing more. It would be a waste of time reading his articles.
Hardly a definition. I’m sure you could provide a real one.
Truth from the von Mises Institute. Now I understand.
Really? You are qualified to judge the work of one of the most respected historical economists in America? I do not always agree with him (mostly because he believes capitalism is inherently good), but he is knowledgeable, thoughtful and honest. Ayn Rand does not qualify as a reliable source on either economic theory or history.
Then perhaps you can link to some of your research or published articles.
What do you refer to as “regulation” in those markets?
There’s too much to discuss here. Can you provide links to your research?
I’m qualified to have an opinion.
How did she come into this thread?
If you want sources, I suggest that you read any general economic anthropology textbook, some of the ethnography on West African markets, or the ethnohistorical literature on ancient political economy. There is an abundance of such material. My own research does not bear directly on this topic and I am pseudonymous, in part, to avoid harassment by internet trolls.
As I stated above, I’ve never had any association with or participation in the AMA: I shun corporate servants, I do not join them. That said, some of the chapters in the state medical societies that are affiliated with the AMA do good progressive work. The CMA – California Medical Society – has sometimes endorsed quite progressive goals and strategies.
The article in the linky you provide is one of the worst-informed descriptions of the history of US medical education I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. Though I don’t agree with Paul Starr on a great many topics, his book “The Social Transformation of American Medicine” provides a factual account. His book won a Pultizer. Were the screed in the linky printed out, it would be in the running for a Pampers award: it’s only fit for ass wiping.
The article in the linky does conform with one aspect of my experience in medical practice. The author’s assertions and thought processes are quite congruent with those of many of the unfortunate individuals I treat for severe symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia.
You fundamentally do not understand the tenets of neoclassical economics if this is how you think it works, even if we’re granting that neoclassical economics isn’t a canard to begin with.
Demand does not “go up” simply because there is scarcity in supply. There’s essentially no supply of 100,000 cu/ft lead bricks, but that doesn’t correlate to some similarly asymptotic demand for 100,000 cu/ft lead bricks.
And you want sources and credentials from me?
As important, you should provide links to yours, as well as these definitions you continue to demand, instead of all the simple assertions you made.
Without such, you debate in bad faith.
My pleasure – thanks for your abundant illumination.
I do fear both our efforts are approaching the von Schiller limit. If so, we contend in vain.
So you won’t provide links your research?
Here’s a few you might be interested in reading that may provide some insight into economics before Keynesianism was used as an excuse for politically unpopular policies:
Links are direct to pdf files though they are also available as hardcopy at the mises store http://mises.org/store
Human Action http://mises.org/books/humanactionscholars.pdf
Man, Economy, and State http://mises.org/books/mespm.pdf
He provides references in the end notes of the article, though I haven’t checked them.
Here are some links for you:
Early State Economics, Henri Claessen, ed.
Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth-Century Political Economy of the Valley Of Mexico, Ross Hassig.
Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology, Richard Wilke
Economic Anthropology, Stuart Plattner
You fundamentally do not understand the tenets of neoclassical economics if this is how you think it works, even if we’re granting that neoclassical economics isn’t a canard to begin with.
Demand does not “go up” simply because there is scarcity in supply. There’s essentially no supply of 100,000 cu/ft lead bricks, but that doesn’t correlate to some similarly asymptotic demand for 100,000 cu/ft lead bricks.
Given that fact, I’m having a very, very hard time believing that when you read Mises, that you actually understand what he’s saying. I have even less faith that when (if) you read Keynes, that you understand what he’s saying, because his work is a point-by-point refutation of neoclassical economics through empiricism. In the general vein of, “This principle of neoclassical economics says X should never happen, here we can observe X as happening, so how do we reconcile X with what we think we know about economics?”
The problem with it is that you have to understand neoclassical economics (which I think it’s safe to assume based on your supply/demand comment that you do not), you have to understand why X shouldn’t happen given neoclassical economics, and then you have to understand the reconciliation process.
I am sorry, but there is nothing at the Mises Institute which would be useful even as toilet paper. Do try to find reputable sources.
I actually fear that we have already passed that.
late to this, but my question is whether Dr. Paul got his M.D. from a state-supported medical school. If he did, the taxpayer paid for half of his medical education. If he did a residency at a typical teaching hospital, the taxpayer paid the stipend for his residency.
I believe he graduated from Duke Medical school
This is the sequence of questions/replies.
You said
I presume you said that in order to assert that you are qualified in economics to know about regulations and markets.
Well I asked you for links to your published research and you refused. (Not that you’re required to provide any.)
I wanted to see your view of markets in history caused what you said sounded biased towards one point of view. Now you may or may not be correct in your assessment of markets in history but since you provide no references to your research …
I’m not a PhD nor do I claim to nor published research papers.
As I said in the post cited, my own research does not bear on this topic (I deal with pre-state and therefore pre-market societies). I have been trained in economic anthropology and have read extensively on the topic, including material on market systems. Check the references I gave you above. Those are just what I pulled off my bookshelf in a couple of minutes. A quick search on Amazon will turn up many more.
All these comments are way off-topic of Scarecrow’s original post. Sorry Scarecrow.
What are you talking about? How did this enter into this thread?
Which comment would that be since you haven’t replied to it?
It is a reputable source. Just because it doesn’t happen to agree with your philosophy doesn’t mean it isn’t.
I would also point out that I gave you sources for economic history, which reflect two radically different perspectives on the topic. You accuse me of only giving one perspective on the history of markets, which is true, but you do the same. Mine at least has the benefit of being factually correct.
Thanks for the links to standard textbooks. I guess you don’t want to provide links to your PhD research? Everyone who has a PhD has published research.
I replied to it earlier. It was your #27 where you said:
That is false. Demand does not “go up” simply because there is scarcity in supply. Per my first reply at #186:
With respect to whether or not Mises is a reputable source, it is if one divorces oneself from empiricism as a measure for reputation. If what you’re looking for is a treatise on the abstracts of neoclassical economics, then Mises is a perfectly good source of information. However, while an authoritative source on that construction of economics, it is not a useful source with regard to practical application, because neoclassical economics fails several empirical tests of its own theories, significantly so when studying employment, and it becomes continually less useful as markets advance.
Your reading comprehension is obviously quite limited, as I have addressed this several times and am not going to waste any more time repeating myself or arguing with trolls.
That’s true. Demand doesn’t increase though price of the product or service increases because demand has not decreased with supply.
Empiricism has it place in science but tell me how empirical is it to treat the economy of a nation of over 300 million people as an aggregate?
I’m not going to waste time with people who claim to be PhD scholars who won’t provide references to their research who used their PhD status to back up their claim to a comment they made as though they were an authority on the subject. (comment #176 http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/55677#comment-211197)
konst, if you want to bask in some weird, glorious persecution complex, spare us that crap in a Scarecrow offering, and author your own diary again, where you can have as many food fights as you please.
If republicans and lberatarians like Rand Paul are so racist, how do you exsplain their pro-life position? There is a wildly disproportionent amunt of abortion among people of color in America. Planned Parenthood abortion depots always seem to wind up in neighborhoods where minorities live.
So how on earth would he right’s position on life beneifit racist white people?
Libertarians are farther to the right than I am willing to go. But I have seen much more evidence of racism and race exploitation from my recently former party the democrats, than I have seen from the right.
We have one sitting senaotr who ws a memeber of the KKK, he is Robert Byrd (D). A democrat president segregated the Amy- Woodrow Wilson(D). A democrat president created the JApanese internment camps and nuked two heavily populated Japanese cities while Japan was begging to surrender after we defeated the Facist in Europe.
Racism is aa double edged sword. Racist people not only discriminate against those who do not share their race but they also blindly defend and promote people people who share their race. Obama is quick to passs judgement on white people even though it was his “typical white” grandmother who was forsed to raise him because his parents were to busy speading Marxism across the globe.
Except that’s not what you said.
I’m not sure you understand the meaning of the term “empirical” based on that question. However, it is an aggregate, turns out that makes it easier to predict in some ways, and harder in others, but it is an aggregate. That’s really irrelevant though to this discussion.
First, what neoclassical economics de facto asserts about permanent involuntary unemployment, in that it shouldn’t exist, is demonstrably false, because we observe it as existing. Thus, we can abandon neoclassical economics as a thorough examination and understanding of employment.
Second, if your position is essentially that empirical evidence is outside the bounds of economics, then literally every way of thinking about economics is both completely valid and completely worthless, because it’s all fiction. If that’s what you’re indicating, and you’re going to point to Mises as a credible source of insight on economics, then one ought to be able to rightfully point to Hamlet as a credible source on economics as well. As the testing of one’s theories has no place in the discussion.
No it isn’t what I wrote. I was thinking of the demand for a decreased supply.
No that’s not what I meant. Treating the economy as an aggregate as though inflating the money supply has no effect until you see it in an aggregate general price level is ridiculous. Inflating the money supply has effects way before Keynesians see a “general price level” increase in their aggregate statistics. See http://www.economictheories.org/2008/08/effect-of-changes-in-money.html
First, Monetarism and Keynesianism are not the same thing.
Second, both frameworks for thinking recognize the capacity for spot-inflation as a side-effect of expansionary policies with a dysfunctional financial system.
Jim Moss is upstairs!
Driven to Destruction – Generational Theft And The Struggle For Sustainability
Try reading Paul Starr’s “The Social Transformation of American Medicine.”
Not only will you learn a few things but it’s long enough to keep you occupied and away from here for awhile.
Their pro-life (except for that whole death penalty and supporting illegal wars) stance is nothing but racism at its core.
They are afraid, like the Israelis who kill Palestinian women and children and delay at roadblocks pregnant Palestinian women who are in labor, that if white people get abortions they will become demographically insignificant.
It’s racism day and night with these people. It may be subtle but it’s there.
You have a hostile attitude. I guess for some people here, if others have a different point of view that’s considered like it’s treasonous. You seem to be saying everyone has to conform to groupthink. At least the founders of this site and many others here have a more realistic attitude.
Hey just write your Own Diary and have at it. you are worse than a circular firing squad with your circular logic…
Oh by the way Pups great thread…
Look up groupthink and you’ll see the attitude of some people here.
Here’s some help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
Differences of opinion is not tolerated here by some/many people at these diaries.
Moderator please delete my account on here.
Problem is that most of them are really radical neolibertarians. They believe in corporate welfare and especially the kind of opportunities for corporate welfare that “preemptive” (and illegal) endless wars of aggression can provide.
Konst…his “Board” was constituted of himself, his wife Kelley (as VP), and a friend. Kelley has no academic training or credentials in opthmology or any other Science. She has an English degree from Rhodes College. She asserts she is a “freelance writer” but also is an employee of Paul’s surgical practice in “billing and communications”. So her role on the credentialling board is not only nepotistic, but a financial conflict of interest. When Kelley Paul was asked about the standards, procedures and requirements of the Board she was unable to state what they were. She replied that “this wasn’t my area”.
Even more telling is the Board’s business license was allowed to lapse immediately after it “certified” Dr. Paul. It was only re-established when recertification was necessary.
This is clearly a sham structure created with the intent of certifying only a single person. There is no evidence it has certified any other opthmologists, or has any other purpose than circumventing the established and recognized Board.
If one lives in a highly caste structured society there is a need to have high levels of reproduction amongst the poor in order to sustain the worker class, keep competition for jobs high, and salaries low. Opposition to provisions for family planning (abortion and birth control) prevents the poor from having access to the medical services easily obtained by the wealthy. Having fewer children centralizes wealth…allows wealth to be distributed to fewer offspring, and allows them greater access to educations and privilege. The poor must distribute their far more limited resources (remember…lower wages + higher unemployment) to more children….perpetuating the cycle of poverty, illness, malnutrition, and locking them into a social class with little chance of escape.
That’s why supporting family planning resources (including abortion) is NOT racist. Women of all races should have the choice of controlling their reproductive fates and should be able to do so in healthy environments (the same environments that white elites have the opportunity to obtain). Abortion is used by the poor largely because they don’t have access to the other means of birth control in any reliable way. Children are denied the knowledge and materials from schools, parents are working and unable to fully supervise their latchkey kids, etc.
Dr. Dick teaches at the University of Montana, Missoula….you are WAYYYYYYY off the mark here.
Many people rave over Rands Daddy, and alot of what HE says sounds good, but if we would let Him implement everything He talks about, we wouldn’t have a Country left.
Think about this. Every politicain says what He or She thinks, but never askes what the people think. To be a Representative one has to think like ones constituents, or in plain terms You are not representing them. When these people do what they think, and vote for what they think, they should not be in office.
I have never met a person who has all the answers, knows eveything, and I would trust to decide everything for me. Yet we do this with our politicians all the time, and they prove by the mess our Country is in that what they thought, “was wrong,” or we would have no problems.
People will probably elect Rand Paul even after hearing His ideas, and then wonder why, when He votes what HE thinks.
Everyone who has a Ph.D has published research?? How profoundly ignorant. Boggles the mind how ignorant this is. I am a Ph.D., have about forty publications, am a reviewer for a major journal, but golly gee-whiz, almost none of my colleagues have published research.
Where in the world did you get the idea that Libertarians are anti-abortion?
ROFLMFAO!!
Does Your Chewing Gum Lose Its Flavor
Yes, I consider anyone who advocates Mises, unregulated markets, and free trade, after all that the U.S. economy has been through as of late by following the Mises philosophy, to be treasonous to a certain extant.
konst:
The moderators here are to busy to care about deleting your account here, and even if they did, it won’t take back anything that you have said here. Sorry to burst that little bubble of yours. You got pwned.
While groupthink is always existent everywhere you go, that doesn’t mean that you can arbitrarily throw out all ideas of any given group. YOU have to be above that, and take the good and the bad. If you don’t like the way a given group thinks, then YOU have to work to change those perceptions using logic and verifiable truths.
That’s the way things work. You’re welcome.
I think I can make a pretty compelling case for free-trade, it just won’t look very much like the free-trade that you’re used to seeing, because it will focus as much on labor mobility as it does on capital mobility.
The kind of neoliberal free-trade we get today centers entirely around capital mobility, and entrenching the captivity of the respective domestic labor markets, which is why it ends up being so damaging and exploitive.
My ears are wide open. I’m all for international cooperation (that’s why we presumably have ambassadors), but as for globalists (who recently tried to shove globalism down our collective throats), not so much.
Make your case for free trade, or I will simply point you back to Alexander Hamilton, and I might even call you a traitor.
You have been warned. LOL.
http://liswiki.org/wiki/Dissertation