I used to look forward to every new episode of LR&C, but Robert Sheer epitomizes what this show is against, he has become a one dimensional blow hard who listens to nothing and spouts then same partisan BS every time! He does not consider any new opinions and never questions his long held beliefs. Worst of all, he uses cheap marketing type tricks to tell half truths at best, and proclaims them to be facts, with of course, no evidence cited whatsoever! PLEASE GET RID OF HIM! PLEASE, I miss the legitimate dialog that made this show great!
Brian

Wow, where to start?

First, I guess I should point out that the 30+ years includes some of the most productive and most profitable years in our entire history, and have resulted in raising the standard of living for millions/billions of people. You also have to look at where the problems we face today originated. It is a bit of an oversimplification, but the recession and the resultant unemployment come largely from failures in the regulation of the financial sector and the financial weapons of mass destruction it allowed. If I were a Somalia style Libertarian I would say that there is no place for government in this equation, but I am not an anarchist, I simply lean in the Libertarian direction on balance. I do take exception to the idea that you would like to blame the Republican for this since many of the conditions that lead to it were supported by politicians of all stripes, but none the less, it came largely from this lack of effective regulation. It also resulted largely from the policies pushed largely from the left to increase home ownership. The kind of loans that were encouraged were so obviously not in the interest of the potential home buyer. If the issuers were required to either keep and service them, or at least have some contingent liability when they are bundled and sold, we probably would not have seen such a rapid and widespread decline in the quality of those mortgages.

I am not sure where you got your figures from (and do not necessarily question them), but even if our corporate tax rate is at a 100 year low, it is still one of the highest in the world. This has obvious implications for where jobs will be created and/or moved to. In general, there is an issue where one of the key flaws in a free market approach; the inability to account for many types of externalities, must be remedied by the government and regulation. This is something that the USA tries to do (albeit maybe not so successfully) to a much greater extent than most of the less developed world. This is one reason the costs are less in many of the places where the 60,000 factories you mention were moved to. There is a much larger discussion around the costs and benefits of globalization that we could have, but suffice it to say that it is not something that has a painless solution, nor something that can be ignored. I do have some ideas on how we could impose the cost of externalities on the countries that do not acknowledge and address them, but that is a very long discussion.

Finally, do you really believe that we have lived under a "complete free market"? No tariffs? no anti trust? I suggest you might look at history a bit more closely. And to answer your question, no, I do not believe government has no role in leveling the playing field, but I do advise caution in using it. Government is a self-perpetuating kind of beast!

BTW, while Ayn Rand is probably the most well known "Libertarian" she did not consider herself one. Her views were among the most radical, and do not really reflect those of any of the Libertarians I know. Atlas Shrugged is a great book, but take from it what makes sense and throw out the rest:-)

What facts and evidence. There was simply a bald statement that a single payer system would save $400B and allow us to provide healthcare to all. Maybe I missed it.

As to the statement that health insurance and government make decisions about care, that is not entirely accurate. They make decisions about what is covered. You still get to make the decision as to what you want if you are willing to pay for it; much like the government health care program in the UK and elsewhere. If you start to tell insurance companies what they need to cover you WILL impact the actual costs incurred, and they will be passed on (with a stupidly large bump for administration and profit) to the customer/insured. So my argument is not disingenuous. I would just prefer a system that allows me to choose in full view of the costs, what I am willing to do to prolong my life, or improve my quality of life.

Shut down the wars, Absolutely! Increase revenues, maybe, if it is done fairly (another discussion that will necessarily be biased by our own situations).

Universal Values... C'mon, like there is really any such thing. I think I study a bit too much religion and philosophy to buy into that.

Thanks, and I do believe that you are pretty unbiased. I really do believe that both sides do it, but also agree that this is too broad a statement to be useful.

I do hate the way Bush took advantage of 911 to do some very questionable things. I also hate the way the current administration takes advantage of the financial crisis to make bogey men out of highly successful capitalists. This is exactly why I liked LRC to begin with. They used to lay bare these cynical ploys from both sides. I really hope they get back to it!

Thanks for renewing my faith in our ability to debate and disagree in a civil way. None of us is truly unbiased as it is a result of our own personal experiences. That is why really listening to others with different personal experiences is so critical.

I am technically working right now, so cannot give a detailed response, but think about things like allowing national instead of the state based health plans, limiting damages in medical civil suits, and streamlining the drug approval processes. Our litigious nature (in the US) is certainly one of the causes for such high medical costs.

As for doctors being paid too much, you hear the same thing about almost anyone who makes a lot of money these days. Who get's to decide? Do you really want the government making these kinds of decisions? Not to mention the issue of fairness to those who sacrificed and worked very hard to get to where they are today. Life is not always fair, but I don't think the government should be in the position to decide who it should be more or less fair to.

As I do not consider myself left or right, I think I have a pretty unbiased view of this. It is one of the biggest problems with our political/media systems today. I do not think you are being particularly objective bout this. Try looking back at the media representation during the Bush administration. The reality seems to be that when a party/ideology is "in" there is much less propensity attack.

BTW, the granny add totally misrepresents the Ryan plan. There would be no change to the plan for people who are now, or will be in the near future, seniors. To me there is very little difference between this and the "Death Panels" BS :-)

And you really believe that this is a right wing tactic... you are doing exactly what you are criticizing! It is an equal opportunity sport. The left attacks at least as much (no, exactly as much) as the right. I don't have the link handy, but look up "throw grandma off a cliff" to see some serious fear mongering misrepresentation and attack from the left. (found it... http://www.huliq.com/12079/throw-grandma-cliff-vi... )

While I do not believe I fit your description, you do make good points. I am very much in favor of reform of the healthcare industry, but do not believe that means making it a government run benefit. There are a lot of ways that the system can be made more efficient and affordable other than a government run single payer system. BTW, both my parents are physicians and have averaged over 30% un-collectable debt over nearly 50 years in the business. They view this as the cost of doing business since they chose the medical profession mainly in order to be able to help people. I am not so sure that is the main motivation for many doctors these days.

As for the accumulation of huge amounts of fruits... are you suggesting that it makes sense for the government to decide how much of these fruits any individual is allowed to keep? That is a very slippery slope, and without using any unnecessarily provocative rhetoric I am sure you must understand the implications. There is a continuum of political and economic ideology, and that slides things a bit further to the left than I am comfortable with. (Using commonly misunderstood terms with exaggerated connotations does not help anyone, it is only divisive).

The fact that they say it is a fact does not make it so. I looked at the article and could not find anything to back this up. Their web site, while clearly biased (as you would expect given the name), does ask a lot of the right questions. I don't find the answers particularly satisfying, but still a great resource. Thanks!

I think the biggest question still remains unanswered though: Should the Federal government be responsible for health care? If the answer is yes (to me, it is not, but I believe in democracy and will accept whatever the majority vote for within Constitutional limits), then we will be faced with the fact that limits on care will have to be determined by the government. (Death panels is just a scare tactic, but limiting what care is covered by a single payer system is a very real issue). Then there is the question of how it should be paid for, but that is another subject...

If we all agreed on what those common goals are I would have to agree with you, but that is not the case. Some of us believe that we should have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the fruits of our labors, and the more the government does, the less we are able to do that. Don't get me wrong, I also believe in sharing the cost of those things that are actual common goods (like you mention, infrastructure, education, and also ACTUAL National defense), but I do not agree that it is the job of the Federal government to provide health care (other than to those who really cannot take care of themselves). Where do you draw the line between individual and collective actions?

You may have guessed that I lean in the direction of Libertarianism (since before it was co-opted buy the tea party to mean whatever they like). The only way it works though, is if we are willing to let some people live with the results of their actions and inaction. That IS individual responsibility.

BTW, I am a firm believer in the concept of individual charity too. And this suffers when the government oversteps its bounds. Look around the world at the level of philanthropy in countries with more and less socialist policies. You will see that we (USA) have by far the highest levels, but don't expect that to last as the tax burden increases and the economy waivers.