Awesome video! I love these. Has anyone seen any of the videos they have for sale?

Good time for a bench workout. No rest for the wicked.

The case for NOT bombing Iran is pretty simple:

They don't have nuclear weapons now, and they won't have them fast enough for us to not be able to respond... we've got pleeeeeeennnnnty of time to work on other solutions.

Zach

That's exactly what we need right now--another war in another country in the Middle East. While we're at it, let's open up fronts in Syria and Saudia Arabia too. No shortage of manpower here for an army, right?

To Coach, Angela Hart, Nicole, Eva, Carrie, Rob, Annie, Dave and all of the other trainers involved in the Vancouver Certification Seminar I wanted to thank you for everything. Attending the seminar was a phenominal experience and it was an absolute pleasure to meet you and to have the opportunity to be trained by you. It has been put out there that CrossFit is like a cult...well if it is then it is one that I am proud to be associated with. Thank you for all of your work and I look forward to seeing you all again. From one truly screwed up person that looks forward to the suffering and agony of the next WOD and then comes back for more. God Bless.

I just read the commentary concerning the bombing of Iraq. I agree fundamentally with a majority of the comments, particuarly the British response to the capture of their sailors. I agree with Zach (comment #3) to a point. He doesn't account for the blackmarket trading of WMDs stolen from the collapsing Soviet state. There is little to no actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of said nuclear facilities. There's what we can see and alot more we can't see. Any land-based monitoring capability we had was lost during the revolution in the 70s. That said bombing will not take care of the problem. If you truly want to stop their nuclear capabilities it will mean a ground offensive, prolonged and costly.

This leads me to the thing that has troubled me most about the Iraq war. If, as Mr Podhoretz has pointed out, we are involved in world war IV where is the shared sacrafice exhibited by my grandparents and parents during world War II. Where is the draft? Where is the rationing? Why are we talking about tax cuts when the war funding bill is costing us 120 billion every quarter. Why are national gaurd troops on there 2nd or Tour and some marines on there 4th. If this is truly what we want to do then prepare for sacrifice. I am a former soldier and currently have family in the direct line of fire and I do not care for the burden of fighting placed on so few soldiers. Therefore I am for it only if there is sacrifice at levels of this democratic society.

President Bush has allowed his new Secretary of Defense to thrown the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the edge. General Pace was as professional an officer as this country has produced. I never thought I would say this, but I've given up on this administration.

This may not be the best place, but I don't know where else to ask this question. I signed up for the Oly Cert. in Vista Sept 22-23. I am from Northern California and had signed up because I will be in the San Diego area over that period and wanted to get the guidance of Coach Burgener. I guess I just want to make sure that by signing up (which I already have) I won't be imposing as I'm not from the local X-Fit community down there. It may be a dumb question but I figure that I should figure it out now rather than feel out of place later.

Oh, and bombing Iran is a bad idea. We're stretched too thin with too many enemies. Let's finish what we started and address the situation as it continues to take shape.

Derek,

customerservice@crossfit.com

I agree with Zach. There is plenty of time to work on alternative methods. Strangle them economically. Promote and support internal opposition. Etc.

There exists at this point a decent chance the current regime will not last. Bombing now turns those in Iran who currently like the U.S. against us.

BTW, Angel, you are aptly named.

Hari,

GEN Pace was Chairman for 6 years. That is long enough. Nobody holds positions high up in the Pentagon that long. SECDEF Rumsfeld also served far longer than average for his position.

John, yes she is, and it's reinforced all the more when you meet her. Sweet gal, tough athlete.

Zach's and John are right in that we have time to wait, and the price for bombing would be unnecessarily high from Iranian retribution. I think we can better get what we want by maintaining the threat of and the ability to bomb them while we let their economy unravel from outside and inside pressures. They have a socialist fool running the economy, they have deteriorating oil and water infrastructure - the people won't tolerate it forever.

The article's weak point is that Pod confuses the control Ahmadinejad has v the control of the Supreme Council. Amad was allowed to have power for a while, but that's been sucked back to the more traditional role of an Iranian President/front man. He's not calling the big shots.

They are weak. They are vulnerable in many ways. They can be hit whenever it's necessary, in a number of ways. Most of the media coverage is frustratingly thin on how easy it would be to take them down. No need to rush it. It's simply not necessary now and would cost a lot in retribution.

#4 Rob - for the record, it would not be an Army fight. Iran would be an Air Force/Navy target, just as in the late 80s. They are better prepared now than they were then, but still vulnerable. We don't need to occupy the place to get what we want. Their centralized govt has so badly run the country that it could implode any day. It wouldn't be hard to give them a fatal nudge. Or as Scotty would say, a 'compassionate' nudge.

I humbly second David's comment (#5); the cert was a tremendously positive experience. Looking forward to another dose someday.

Derek (#7) - I would be stunned if you are not welcome to attend a Crossfit cert anywhere. First, if they took your payment it's on them to get you the training you paid for - 2nd, the whole attitude of Crossfit - open source development, take all comers, put it out on the web for all to see and criticize or validate ("take off the raincoats and grab a ruler")- it's inclusive by design. The best I could tell at the Vancouver cert (arrived Friday night not knowing a soul except ones I had seen on videos), if you showed up to learn and work, you were good to go whether male/female, big/little, fit or formerly (and soon to be again) fit. Committed Crossfitters and Crossfit virgins were all getting the same treatment, from what I could see. If you have not been around a group of Crossfitters, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the lack of typical "fitness geek ego." One of many positive but not surprising aspects of the Vancouver cert was meeting many folks who were passionate about crossfit and just plain good folks to visit with. I learned a lot in the classes and during the before/after class conversation. Admittedly, this is all free advice but that's what you asked for!

My only regret was that by the time I could mess around with muscle ups, I was too smoked to make any progress. I realized, though, that I must comfortable in a false grip to make the next step towards a MU. Technique wise, I did my first real kipping pull ups; I've been playing with them for months but wasn't getting the result I wanted until the Sunday WOD when it clicked.

Paul

Great video!

Time left to figure out Iran, when the time is right to decide either way, it should be pretty obvious.

Off to practice handstands!

Gen. Peter Pace was my battalion commander back in 88-90, absolutely no better Marine officer out there. FYI, CCTJOEY, He was Vice chairman for 4 years, Chairman for 2. Losing him is a loss for America. As much as I hate agreeing with McCain(my senator here in AZ), I agree with his stance on Iran. We should heed the lessons of history.

Good points, Apollo. Ahmadinejad has much less power than we commonly give him credit for. The real power lies in the Ayatollah and the theocracy. The Iranian government is a complicated mixture of religious oligarchy and managed democracy, and Ahmadinejad's radicalism as the president is not necessarily indicative of the policies of the more traditional religious establishment. The president in Iran does not directly control nuclear or military policy, and his power is checked by other institutions. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad is not very popular in Iran, whose population is one of, if not the most, secular Muslim countries, much more than say Turkey.

Ahmadinejad is not assured support of the support of the religious establishment. The most powerful person in Iran is Ayatollah Khamenei, the Faqih, or supreme leader. He is the chief of staff of the military, and heads the police force, commands the revolutionary guards, and controls much of the judiciary. In addition, the Council of Guardians has veto power over the parliament, and has rejected many of Ahmadinejad's supported candidates for parliament, perhaps a sign that the religious establishment is fed up with Ahmadinejad's foolish policies. It is possible that U.S. pressure on Iran will further drain Ahmadinejad's support among the mullahs. Knowing that Khamenei can dismiss him at any time, this is important. It is also possible the U.S. pressure will increase the religious establishment's support for Ahmadinejad, out of an aversion to appearing to capitulate to external pressure.

Some want to hold off on Iran until it is "obvious" what to do. That may be too late. On the other hand, it may also give the religious establishment time to decide that holding on to their tenuous grip on power is more important than standing up to the Great Satan.

If Ahmadinejad was the supreme leader of Iran, it would be pretty clear that allowing him to remain in power would be foolish. However, since the religious establishment possesses the real power in Iran, it is necessary to determine what their ideal foreign policy is, where it diverges with Ahmadinejad's, and how long they will tolerate his showboating, which is a threat to their control of the country. If deterrence doesn't work with Ahmadinejad, will it work with them? Will they live up to their previous revolutionary rhetoric if the U.S. shows that it will respond with overwhelming force? I don't know the answers to these questions.

What happens in the aftermath of a large scale air attack on Iran? Would such an attack result cause the fall of the current regime, creating anarchy, and thus require increased deployment of US troops, a greater strain on an already depleted US army. What would the opportunity cost of long term US involvement in Iran be? Would it jeopardize our ability to fight against a resurgent Al Qaeda, which is showing a remarkable ability to survive with a sanctuary and training camps in the Waziristan section of Pakistan, along with with cells in dozens of other countries, or jeapordize our ability to react to unforeseen large-scale crises in Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, etc?

Is it realistic to expect that we could eliminate all of the weapons program? In the event of a governmental collapse, is it not more likely that the material could get in the hands of terrorist groups, who are more likely to use it more immediately, with less warning, more recklessly, and without any potential for deterrence?

I also think that analogies with previous worldwide struggles, while useful in conveying the gravity of the threats we face, run the risk of confusing the current situation with previous conflicts. Unlike WWII and the Cold War, nongovernmental organizations are as much of a threat, if not more, to us than traditional states are. Islamism, as an a ideology, is, in IMO, a stronger ideology than Marxism is. The enemy is also much more varied, dispersed, and shadowy than previously. For example, Islamic extremism can take the form of a half dozen Trinidadians, the Muslim Brotherhood which is the strongest political opposition party in Egypt, or the Shiite Iranian religious establishment. The Sunni Al Qaeda in Iraq may target Shiite targets supported by Iran. Though we would consider both Al Qaeda and Iran to be our enemies, they are also sometimes their own enemies. It can be dangerous to group all of these groups under the banner of the Islamofascist enemy, in that it encourages us to think of the enemy as a monolith, when it is in fact much more complicated than that.

It's fair to say that I don't come to crossfit.com as often as I should. However I didn't realise that Crossfit is a pro-war political movement!

I could understand maybe a thread in the message board about what peoples opinions are on the rumours about Iran and possible solutions etc, but to post a pro "Bombing Iran" article on the front page of Crossfit.com , with no explanation or balanced counter argument, gives implicit support to that opinion in much the same way as posting Tony Blauer videos implicitly endorses his techniques.

Quite frankly, I'm shocked!

Colin, what does pro-war mean?

If temporarily peaceful and diplomatic policies lead to higher risks in the long term, are they truly peaceful, or rather merely postponing necessary violence? If a militant short term policy leads to more peace in the long term, is it really pro-war, or just forward-thinking?

You complain of a lack of balanced counter-argument. Would you care to provide some? I am intrigued.

hey, all. a non-iran question: is there a Crossfit Louisville? or a decent gym using Crossfit principles? (about to move a continent away from my current workout peeps...) google doesn't seem to have any love, hoping somebody knows of something the search engine isn't turning up.

Russ,

Hitler advocates that exact kind of "peace-keeping" in Mein Kampf.

Relatively, my crazy neighboor is getting a gun. I really do hate the thought of him with a deadly weapon, I see the people he hangs out with. That is the honest truth. I should go over to his house when he sleeps and kill him before he can do the same to me. Or not.

The problem with the preemptive strike philosophy, besides being morally corrupt, is that we do not have that crystal ball to make sure who is in fact going to become violent. I loathe that this idea came from a Christian presidency because it is clearly playing God.

Joey,

I may have not developed my point well enough. Gates said he had intended to re nominate Pace, who is just completing his first two-year term as Chairman, but pulled the nomination when the senate informed Gates that the hearings would be controversial (Pace would be under fire for having supported the president). The lesson this sends to the Pentagon is that they serve not the president, but the senate. Thus, I see a very low probability that the Pentagon will back the president if and when he chooses to strike Iran, not when doing so is likely to be a career ending move. This WSJ editorial puts it best:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010196

#17, Chris,

"Relatively, my crazy neighboor is getting a gun. I really do hate the thought of him with a deadly weapon, I see the people he hangs out with. That is the honest truth. I should go over to his house when he sleeps and kill him before he can do the same to me. Or not."

A better analogy might be this: Your neighbor publicly announces his commitment to "wiping you off the face of the earth." In the past, he has seized one of your neighbor's homes and held the residents hostage for over a year. He announces that he is building the means of killing you in his basement. He makes it clear that he considers killing you to be his religious calling. And he announces that if the police hassle him there will be consequences for the police.

Do you object to discussing the possibility of calling in a swat team?

Anyone knows what knive models do the have hanging from their right trouser pockets?

Chris,

Humans in states live under the rule of law, thus they cannot always take their security into their own hands; they must rely to a certain degree on the police and military to provide security. On the other hand international relations occur in a state of anarchy, outside of the law of states, without any international police force. Due to this fundamental condition of anarchy, in international relations the capacity for and use of war determines who has power and how power holders relate to each other. Thus your analogy is deeply flawed due to the strikingly distinct environments of the actions which it compared. Furthermore, war now for peace later, is not an idea that originated with Hitler, nor is it necessarily indicative of fascist tendencies. Since you brought up Hitler, dealing with him earlier, rather than later, in the manner that I described, which you decried, might have saved millions of lives.

Hari

'Discussion' indicates that the conclusion has not been determined. I think that if George Bush were left in power for any longer, then we would have another war in another country.

There is actually very little difference between the regime in Iran and the regime in the US at the moment - both are very conservative, both are driven by religion, both have no regard for international human rights, both show no respect for any law other than which fits their current situation and both have a proven desire for war. When Bush stood up and berated Iran for holding the Royal Navy personnel hostage, he was laughed at - after all, has he heard of Gitmo?

George Bush will ALWAYS act in a predictable, gung ho manner - it is his nature. Unfortunately it will be left to others to sort out while he and Dick Cheney reap the rewards of the Iraq war. Bombing Iran will lead to nothing other than more waves of suicide bombers which will result in yet more needless death.

There are other solutions - but there has to be the commitment to not take the 'easy' way out.

This is from a former Royal Marine who has served in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Northern Ireland.

#16 nick

There is a complete list of Crossfit affiliates on the main page down on the right. If you don't see one in your area, just search for gyms in and around the town you're headed to. I've done that and then just take a look at their websites. You can usually tell really quick by what they boast what kind of gym it is. I've also looked in the yellow pages for maybe that "diamond in the rough" hole in the wall gym that wouldn't ever think of having a website but has just the atmosphere and not so new and pretty equipment that lends itself to a Crossfit workout.

Hi Russ,

> Russ: You complain of a lack of balanced counter-argument. Would you care to provide some? I am intrigued.

My bad if you got that impression, I meant to complain that the post is there at all. I'll try to clarify: My personal opinion is that an official post on the home page of a major exercise website, which I support financially both directly through the Crossfit Journal and indirectly through monthly membership of a Crossfit Affiliate, should not advocate *any* political opinion, unless it's clearly stated that this is political organisation with certain views. And please accept my apologies if indeed it is and I missed the announcement!

I have not actually offered any opinion as to the validity or not of the article in question, or the subject of Iran, and even if I wanted to, would not do so here as I don't believe this is the place to do so. Because I object to what appears to be the use of Crossfit.com to promote someone's personal political opinion, please don't assume that it automatically follows that I disagree with that opinion, I may or may not.

Let's spin this round, would Crossfitters be comfortable if tomorrow there's a different article promoted? How about some of these titles, would these all be ok too?

- The case for free health care.
- The case for g4y marriage adoption.
- The case for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
- The case for Jihad.
- The case for the minimum wage.
- The case for white supremacy.

It matters not whether you agree or disagree with some of these topics, my point is would you be happy with ALL these posts and articles appearing on crossfit.com homepage? If not, then you shouldn't agree with "The case for bombing Iran" being here either.

#19

Hari:

You just made my point for me. You advocate the use of a separate and ideally impartial entity to deal with the situation, the police. Calling in the SWAT Team is the exact opposite reaction as us individually going and bombing Iran.

If only there was some way for all of us NATIONS to somehow become UNITED.

#23
> If only there was some way for all of us NATIONS to somehow become UNITED.

There was a thing called international bolshevism, it almost got us ALL very united in brotherhood. Today we have the three branches of world power: funded by IMF a UN, NATO and The Hague. The thing is, there is no such thing as "impartial power".

In my opinion fighting is ok and healthy (it's a reflection of fitness if you like), being full of guilt is not. If USA bombs Iraq i would like it to admit it did it for oil (and Israel?), not because it wanted to spread democracy and freedom, then i will have no problem with it.

I don't understand CFers who advocate leftism. We train hard to be healthy, to be elite, to cut the throats of those who oppose as. How can it be that when it translates to government politics, some say "it's bad to kill Vietnamese" or "it's bad to invade someone to get his oil" or "it's bad to be proud of who we are and like the things we like". I say get away with it, men!

#24

Interesting, me not wanting to bomb Iran makes me leftist, that's illuminating. I would consider my position conservative in every sense of the word.

I would hate to think that my brothers are dying just so that MILF who lives next door can drive her SUV. That is truly a sad thought.

Fighting is OK, and fighting is healthy. Lighting up a country should be taken a little more seriously I feel. The consequences are slightly higher than your average fist fight.

No rest for me today. Probably going to regret it. Did two rounds of ten reps each of the following:

Manmakers with 25lb DB's
Bear Complex with 95lb BB
Floor Wiper + press with 135lb BB
Chest slap pushups

19:07

No rest here either. Will do another DeadLift workout today and run/swim.

Mary Ann - still think I'm a slacker haha!

> epsa: I don't understand CFers who advocate leftism. We train hard to be healthy, to be elite, to cut the throats of those who oppose as. How can it be that when it translates to government politics, some say "it's bad to kill Vietnamese" or "it's bad to invade someone to get his oil" or "it's bad to be proud of who we are and like the things we like".

I am truly appalled by that post.

I have been away from crossfit for a while, I was hoping when I logged on this morning I would find something else besides a middle east topic. So I am sending a shout out to the powers that run this board:
Go with comment 22 and pick a new topic from his list--except free health care of course.

- The case for g4y marriage adoption.
- The case for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
- The case for Jihad. (theory of course, NOT Jihad in iran or iraq)
- The case for the minimum wage.
- The case for white supremacy.

anything but the occupation of Iraq or the tension with Iran--vomit

"My personal opinion is that an official post on the home page of a major exercise website, which I support financially both directly through the Crossfit Journal and indirectly through monthly membership of a Crossfit Affiliate, should not advocate *any* political opinion, unless it's clearly stated that this is political organisation with certain views. And please accept my apologies if indeed it is and I missed the announcement!"

You're arguing that your money should buy corporate silence on all matters political unless you are forewarned that the corporation chooses not to enter into this pact and so informs you up front? Maybe you should try carrying around a contract for businesses to sign before they accept your money.

It turns out that corporations have free speech rights. While most are run by individuals who cower in fear of ever offending any customer, Crossfit is not one of them. On the other hand, Crossfit also lets irate customers complain on its home page.

EPSA:

Just to clarify, killing Vietnamese, that would be BAD. Remember it was not the Vietnamese we were fighting, it was a political movement. Hell, we were supposed to have been protecting half of them.

And invading another country to take there oil would also be BAD. That one is called stealing. Again, remember, we went to war in the 90's because someone else tried that very same thing.

Sorry to sound patronizing, I just don't see any other way around it. I hope your post is actually sarcasm.

I don't see what the connection is between Crossfit and these political questions? What does getting in shape have to do with politically divisive topics like Iran or Iraq or GWOT? Shut up and train...

Looking forward to doing a CF seminar one day, hopefully one will happen within driving distance of Vermont!!

Today did modified and scaled Diane, still a little shaky from yesterday's squats. Did DL and Bench Press (instead of pushups). First two sets broken.

21 reps
DL @ 185 broken x 6
BP @ 115 broken x 4

15 reps
DL @ 155 broken x 2
BP @ 95 broken x 2

9 reps
DL @ 155
BP @ 96

Chris

Just my 2 cents. Bush and his warhawks have already picked enough fights we haven't finished. That is what is missing from most arguments concerning why Iraq was/is such a huge mistake. Iran with a nuke is a much bigger issue than Saddam ever was. But since we are in Iraq it weakens us elsewhere. Makes us unable to respond elsewhere if need be. That nut in Iran realizes this and that is why he is pushing the issue. Bush made a tactical mistake. Of course this is all hindsight being 20/20, but you would have thought someone smarter than I would have ran through the potential outcomes. Not saying our service men and women are to blame for any of this but Bush and his administration grosely miscalculated the war in Iraq and it has put the US behind the 8-ball elsewhere in the world, including the home front. Bush will go down as one of the worst US Presidents in history, rightly or wrongly I am not sure.

Know our history and that of Iran.

Iran has practiced and exported terrorism since I was a child. They're not losing interest in it either. Quite the opposite.

The fight is coming. It can be done on our schedule at a time and place of our choosing, or in the alternative, at Iran's convenience.

Bomb them now, or fight them where they wish later. Both options are ghastly.

But make no mistake: the enduring fight is on, heating up, boiling over, and coming to a town near you. This will not stop, diminish, or just go away. It's not something we'll be able to absorb. There's no walking this off. It's going to hurt.

lets keep our fitness goals- which are probably all similar- and our political beliefs- which are probably all different, and a lot more inflammatory- seperate, just to keep us all happy. there are lots of sites for things like that. dont let it dilute the awesome message found on crossfit!!

Re being irate about some front page articles on rest day? Been there, done that. Why are the articles so frequently from one place on the political spectrum? Well, we can speculate, but it really doesn't matter, in the end.

I've finally come to think of these rest-day discussions as simply another form of CrossFit conditioning - mental this time, not physical.

My mental workouts are the equivalent of MetCon - disputing with *many* who think other than I do. OTOH, their mental workouts are the equivalent of ME ... it takes truly heavy lifting to support some propositions which are morally unjustifiable.

IMO, it would be a good extension of CrossFit principles to change up the political orientation of the articles ... so that my opponents get to do some MetCon too, and I have to do ME.

Hari and FireSmac,

You are right GEN Pace is a great leader and professional. I was wrong about CJCS timing.

I don't know that I fully agree with the decision, but if you are going to buy space and time to make things happen, his job is a place to start. He is not in a War Fighter Job. He is not a Service Chief. It is a political job. He runs a commitee of advisors.

On CrossFit, what does the article have to do with political stance? It is just an article. It is not an editorial written by the owners. Quit whining.

On Iran. I don't favor an imidiate attack on Iran and not for world political reasons or military flexability issues. There is a good chance we can wait a little while in order to let Iran's economy and political situation develop towards something not as anti-American/Western Civilization. Unlike N. Korea, this population knows the rest of the world exists. However, this nonsense of Iran sending in fighters has got to stop. Limited action "bomb and go's" might be in order for certain things such as lighting up training camps. Either case we need to continue developing intelligence, so we are not suprised.

On Iraq, though the violence has only made a marginal down turn, the situation has morphed. With the Sunnis now seeing that their true enemy is Al Quada. True we might be looked at as Occupiers, but not generally as murderers. The situation is evolving again. I only hope we are smart enough to reap the benefits.

*** MY APOLOGIES ***

As I stated in my first post "I don't come to crossfit.com as often as I should." (I don't follow the WOD as posted here) so I was unaware that rest days are a regular political discussion days, of the form: post a controversial opinion and discuss. As has been pointed out to me.

I also said "please accept my apologies if indeed it is and I missed the announcement" which it appears I did, hence, please accept my apologies!

I'd like to think that in a world of 6Bn people, I'm not such a freak that I have a completely unique reaction to things, and that if I have been put off by a link to from the home page to "The Case for Bombing Iran", others who may been visiting Crossfit.com for the first time (maybe because I've told them what a nice bunch you all are!) may make a similar mistake as I did and have an adverse reaction.

So I would humbly suggest a simple sentence of explanation to the posting of such articles, to explain why they are there. Whether that be because that is the official Crossfit stance, or just a discussion point based on some quacks opinion.

Cheers.

Will G,

I don't believe Iraq was a mistake. At the time the natural concern was Iraq, not Iran. To say otherwise is revisionist at best. I know of know war that mistakes are not made. The biggest mistake the President EVER made was assuming that the left in our own country, let alone Europe, would stop the antics lond enough to be of help. Unfortunately I distinctly remember "Quagmire" being thrown around with in 3 weeks of the initial invasion of A-stan and how "Bogged Down" Coalition Forces were.

I was amused at the reactions of Europeans towards President Bush during this last tour through Europe. On one hand you have the Socialists literally dressing as clowns and protesting like spoiled children in Germany where America is directly linked to their Freedom and Security in a major way. Then contrast that with Albania where they had three postage stamps emblazened with the Presidents face and a street and federal building named after him.

Interesting comparison and mirrors our own political divides in no small way.

We have a population so detached from struggle they make up things to care about (health care, race, criminal rights, Socialist agenda) and ignore those that would take their freedom or lives. In many cases, like this weekend in DC they cozy up to the enemy in an effort to bash America and Israel.

We also have a population that keeps its eyes on the real wolf. Yet are demonized by the other group and called "hawkish".

Spider Chick is right, the fight is coming. We can not negotiate our way out of this. They want it. We must choose when and how to respond, hopefully premptively.

I didn't read it until now, but I just gotta say that the Spartan list from 070609 has to be the toughest thing I have ever read. Thank you for posting that Ludger, it is going up on my wall!!!

CCTJOEY,

I agree that freedom must be defended. The questions are how, and against what.

Obviously, there are and have been foreign threats. Islamist extremism is a current one, though frankly I'm much more concerned about China, and a resurgent Russia. Putin's proving how close Fascism and Communism really are.

The issues you see as secondary though, like disparities over health care, racism etc., are examples of domestic threats to freedom. Systemic poverty, the emergence of a permanent underclass with a markedly more criminal culture ... these things are much more potent threats to freedom than islamist terrorism.

The Left and the Right each think the threats they see aren't fully understood, if understood at all, by the other side.

On a picture perfect morning here at the Jersey shore, I rode for 2 hours with a local bike club. I was ok until they did sprints, and I got dropped like Organic Chemistry! All right guys, let's see how many pullups you can do...

Blaming Iraq on the leftists is such a predictable cop-out. I predicted this when the Democrats won the House and Senate, that the hawks would seize on that to make a scapegoat, and shift blame from where it belongs.

Weak.

Is blaming others an implicit admission of failure? Looking for a face-saving way out? You just keep blaming the boogeymen, but don't look in the mirror, please.

War isn't the answer to anything. Eliminating Ahmadinejad is however an answer to a serious problem or future problem. As a society we should start focusing significantly more resources toward education and cultural diversity.

I am truly pleasantly surprised!!!

It seems the worm has truly turned. I would never have expected the posts I am reading today from many CF posters.

Coach, am I to assume you have run this article before and have decided to repost it as a litmus test? Just wondering and thanks again for the best program in fitness.

Ricky

Spider Chick does have it right. And I would add that those that are here for "fitness" should know that you can find that elsewhere. If you're here to get ready, to steel your mind and body to give of yourself, then CF is the right place to be.

To those that are "appalled" at CF having a political agenda or catering to a "hawkish" clientele, possibly alienating those that are here to "just get in shape"- go read some Muscle and Fitness or something. CF appeals to "Spartans", Soldiers, Marines, Warriors and those that keep their eyes on the wolves in our world (thanks JOEY). Colin McNulty might be a point-of-the-spear operator, and I don't know it, but I doubt that. The call to "bomb Iran" is a way of saying that accountability, which can come in many forms, is MANDATORY. We (the U.S) have been given so much and we owe so much more. JOEY (always the intelligent voice of the hawk) says it well in #39- the American people do seem to be detached from the struggle. Moreover, we want immediate results and we call Iraq a failure, or a Quagmire. We will fight this war for many years to come; possibly looking back to how much easier it was in Iraq and Afghanistan than the battlefields of the future. We should be grateful to have a rear-area where peace (think death-squads not protests) and luxury (think safety not swimming pools) are bountiful. We owe our communities to ready our bodies to defend ourselves in the event that diplomacy fails or radical Islamization spills over the containment walls that are our laws, policies and retaliations- here, in Europe, in Israel, in Africa, in SE Asia, or in even in California (Ha).

#17 Chris makes a very, very poor argument against pre-emptive strikes. He fails to take into account that he must play God to judge and punish his neighbor. That in no way is parallel to the checks and balances of (whether you believe it or not) smart people put in critical positions to do difficult jobs that others are NOT up to the task. Nobody is dumb enough to "bomb Iran" to circumvent what could happen or for lack of a crystal ball what might happen. Perception has largely edited reality and we seem to have perceived that opposition to the war means that it is unjust or it was rash or unnecessary. The realities are very different.

RE: your crazy neighbor-
1. when he shows you the gun to announce a threat, call the police.
2. If a burglar comes through your window in the night and r@pes your wife, knock on his door and beg to borrow his gun, and then call the police.
3. And if comes outside waving his new piece over his head shouting "allah ah-akbar", seal the deal with well aimed compassion- assuming that you've readied your body with sound mental and physical fitness to do battle.

And to Coach: I’m offended that the WOD doesn’t include magazine exchanges in between muscle-ups, or post burpee shot-group reps.

Least we forget: "Let's roll. . . "

First things, first. Let's continue to press the fight against Islamofascism-Iran is increasingly looking like just the latest front that's going to require certain action-so that we still have a country in a few years where things like

"- The case for free health care.
- The case for g4y marriage adoption.
- The case for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
- The case for Jihad.
- The case for the minimum wage.
- The case for white supremacy."

can still be debated instead of having our opinions dictated to us by the Supreme Council, or Dear Leader.
We have to realize that there's a hierarcy of concerns and nothing is more pressing at this moment than the safety of our country and the preservation of our way of life.

Bret, if your comments are pointed at me, then I will explain.

I don't blame Iraq on the left. I blame Iraq on Iraq, Al-Queda, and Islamic extremism

I point to the left as being unsupportive for politically shallow reasons. Not honorable ones. Which is true from almost day one. Security be d@mned, what they care about is power. No matter how many bribes they have to hide, no matter how many low attendance demonstrations, no matter how much they have to vandalize , no matter how many troops they have to slander and spit on.

The connection is clear, the Anti-American community and the left have merged completely. I see no reason to give quarter or tribute to those that have chosen to be our enemy, foreign or domestic.

So no, I do not blame Iraq on the left, I blame the left for subverting national security in an effort to gain political power, while offering comfort to the enemy by giving them hope and talking points. Though I doubt it is purposeful, it is occuring and they have no gumption to stop their behavior, America and Liberty be d@mned.

There current poll numbers(lower than the President) show that some of the American public was duped. They followed the bouncing ball. Luckly, their political advantage is minor and largely ineffective. Thier precieved "Mandate", from the weakest showing of a lame duck off cycle election in over 100 years, is largely falling on deaf ears as they are exposed for the corruption and subversion they are historically known for regarding national security, Liberty and American interests.

Continuing down this road will only further expose their inability to have a real agenda based on anything remotely substaintive. The buying of votes through "entitlements" will overreach, as this Immigration bill has.

Look for the candidates to offer more and more goodies in an effort to "one-up" their competitors, regardless of the obvious implications of our economy and security.

We have a Speaker who goes over to Syria and effectively "lies" about Israel and squelches the freedom movement in less than 48 hours. She goes to Greenland for less than 12 hours and comes back to declare Global warming the highest priority. Both actions under taken in an effort to discredit America in the eyes of the international community.

So yes, the left has some answering to do.

Baja, How do we focus resources on cultural diversity?

If it is true that the "fight is coming", then eliminating Ahmadinejad is not the answer. As has already been mentioned, Ahmadinejad doesn't have as much power as some may believe.

SC bravo, Joey bravo 39 and bravo 45.

Tom F - #40 - "The issues you see as secondary though, like disparities over health care, racism etc., are examples of domestic threats to freedom. Systemic poverty, the emergence of a permanent underclass with a markedly more criminal culture ... these things are much more potent threats to freedom than islamist terrorism."

This is a money quote. I'm interested to know whether you note that the present frontrunner for the Democratic Party's nomination for President is using these sort issues as a justification for massive increases in the power of the Federal govt, and therefore reductions in freedom? She says things like she things taking profits from corporation will improve life in our nation, and that putting the government in charge of organizing health care will make things better for Americans. Her position consistently is that increasing govt intervention and decreasing freedom will create a better outcome.

While I don’t agree that it will produce a better outcome, I’m also shocked that anyone would be willing to surrender that much freedom to a politician making more promises she cannot possibly keep. Do we need to see any thing more than the insolvency of the US’s social programs to realize the government literally cannot run huge programs like that? The unintended consequences are monstrous.

Aside from the predictable outcome of govt run healthcare - governments are predictably bad at running anything, health care included, e.g Canada, Europe and the US's medicare/medicaid - the philosophy of taking free citizens' money at gunpoint (taxation) to pay for what they wouldn't buy on their own is morally unjustifiable.

There are many options for the current situation in health care, for example, starting with removing present government imposed incentives that prevent market forces from acting to reduce costs and increase choices in the health care insurance market. Give freedom a chance.

I'm hungry for those on the left and right to consider the empirical proof that governments are inferior to freedom in organizing economies and human behavior. Govt’s role is to defend the rights of the individual – through property rights, rule of law, and national defense – so that individual freedom can lead the way.

Some elements within both parties recognize the power of and rightness in liberty - but put on blinders in some arenas in which they wish to use the coercive power of government to force others to submit to their will. Neither the left or the right's use of coercive govt power is acceptable.

We are capable of fighting battles on several fronts. The problem is, we no longer unleash our military to do what they were trained to do. There are too many constraints placed on our front line guys. If they were allowed to do their job we wouldn't have half as many threats coming our way. Also, if the people (within our own country) who spend time blaming America for everything, spent half that energy on defeating the enemy, we would defeat any threats that arise.

Are you really calling the left corrupt? I mean, of course the politicians are corrupt...they are politicians. But have you not been watching the Rapublicans, or the right, for the last 7 years? Corruptions and corruption after nepotism and incompetence, and then some bungling just for good measure. Karl Rove may be the shadiest, most corrupt, manipulative, politically-minded individual in the country...and he has the de facto steering wheel on this, the 21st century version of the Titanic. Again, people need to look in the mirror.

Support for this administration is more harmful to America than helpful...as a majority of this country currently acknowledges, and history will no doubt record.

I am not saying that I agree with what the left is doing, or has done. I mean, most of those idiots supported this war in the first place. And in that regard, the left deserves ridicule as much as the right. But, this war has been bungled from just after the very beginning, but also in the planning stages. And to blame that on the left, when it clearly was the president's gig, is shameful.

Now, if the goal had been getting rid of Saddam (instead of whatever nebulous and flip-floppity reason the adminstration is putting forth today) and then getting out...this would have been a success. But the goals were never actually clear, and they have morphed as the administration continues to be exposed as either wrong or lying. So, thats a problem.

Now, I don't see where the left has anything to do with this. Because they call the adminsitration out for lying/failing/being wrong/making mistakes (pick one)?

Not to mention, many people on the right think this war sucks. No blame to share for them?

Post with-held. and I didn't even call anyone a poo-poo head . . . what gives?

Me too Scotty....not sure what's up. I didn't even go bonkers liberal...?

Ricky

Bret,

Name for me one thing you can pin on Karl Rove. Just one. What corruption?

The difference is that we on the right generally throw our corrupt under the bus. The left does not. Generally they will ensure they are nominated for a Nobel Prize or given a medal. Since the rise of the Communism post WWII, the left has been thouroughly corrupted by collectivist nature and PC tactics meant to undermine everything that makes America great.

Some people on the right might think this war sucks, not because they are anti-American or even against the premis of why we are there. They are tired of half measures. They certainly don't want to pack up and quit. They are frustrated that the left has strangled the military and intelligence communities to the point that the desisive action is nuetered by the politics. They are further frustrated by those who represent the right, who enable this behavior for political expediency. They are frustrated that we haven't told the world's left to go jump in a lake and then do what needs to be done.

The conservative upheavel towards this administration is based on illegal immigration policies, not Iraq. A point missed by the left's tea leaf readers.

Regardless, the current Congress has been largely ineffective in pushing their agenda or any agenda at all. Which is fine by me. What they have managed to get through they have put more earmarks than ever before and completely shot themselves in the foot.

As a political movement, if the left would spend less time protesting, burning flags, burning Soldier's images, running around (and biking)nude, cozying up to dictators, cozying up to Islamic malcontents, bashing Israel and generally being malcontents and foolish themselves; then perhaps they might actually accomplish something positive. Instead they link themselves to every communist and socialist front group they can to find funds for their ever pressing media blitz of
"why America is so bad and every crap-hole is so much better, or at least they would be if it weren't for Karl Rove"

Paul,

Glad you are back. I too have just started busting out the kips. Normally do far more dead hangs, but about a month ago Skip Miller from Front Range CrossFit showed me how to do them correctly. Timing is everything. So now I just need my hands to toughen up. 215lbs swinging on the bar like that seems to generate some friction.

Hi All,
late to the party but just because it is writ down don't make it true.
The war in Iraq is about power and money vis a viz oil. Don't believe it,read the Grand Chessboard and the proposed oil law for Iraq. That ain't freedom Opie! Nuke Iran? Do you really blame them? If they had no oil we would not give a damn. Save Isreal? They are not our ally. Read the constitution and see what constitutes an ally.

Americans have forgotten the foundation of our nation is the Constitution. The weakening of Habeas Corpus and Possee Comatatus, admitted invasion of privacy and violation of FISA and corporate influence of our elected representitives IS FASCISM.

Do you recognize your country anymore? Does the Patriot Act 1 & 2& millitary comission act read like they are there to protect you? Look up the Reichstag Fire Decree and 1933 Enabling Act and you tell me if they have more in common with the Nazi's or the founding fathers.

Our government kidnaps, tortures, imprisons without charge, illegally searches and siezes homes and property and restricts travel. How much more freedom and democracy can you take.

Turn off the TV, educate yourself take the red pill and wake up!

God bless and bring our service people home now and alive

too bad it's a rest day, because I think the best piece of advice/wisdom that's been posted on this thread and on this whole situation and its presence on Crossfit has been "shut up and train".

IMPORTANT QUESTION!

I am competing in the 3oo CHALLENGE next week at a local gym and have done the challenge on my own twice. I think that I have a pretty competetive time but I am having trouble finding information of what an "ELITE" time would be.

I think this workout originated with CrossFit and if any of you guys know please respond and let me know. I like to have goals above and beyond.

Ryan

TomF #40:
First off, while Putin disturbs me, we will never end up fighting China for the simple reason that we are economically tied together at our masculine un-mentionables. I mentioned in the last rest day post that if you remember, China's market recently tanked, and ours dove noticeable as well. It thoroughly proved that our economies are joined at the hip.

That said can you imagine what we both have to lose from conflict? Fighting aside if we simply immediately ceased all trade, there would be chaos. For starters, significant amounts of China’s population would starve (the US is one of the world’s largest food exporting countries) and our retail economy would grind to a halt.

Additionally, I don’t know if you’re an engineering geek, but China recently completed a project called the Three-Gorges Dam. It’s the world’s largest hydro-electric facility and the world’s largest man-made water displacement…

…it’s also the world’s mast strategic military target. And by completing it, China has stopped themselves from ever going to war with any nation that has a modern navy or air force, because if it were bombed, in about 24 hours 2/5s of China would be under water. So no, I’m not worried in the least about us ever conceivably going to war with China.

While I find Putin’s Russian reforms, unlike our Persian friends, the Russian government has never publicly said, “We are one united nation and hate America,” or, “In the field of confrontation of nations against the arrogant system of the United States, the Islamic Republic of Iran has turned into a command center for the nations' front.” (the first being Iran’s minister of press and the second being Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

That said, I don’t see how any rationally thinking person can’t conclude that a nation that says they hate us, arms and trains militants that try to kill us, tries to develops nuclear weapons, and says we will pay for trying to stop them is not a threat.

When I graduated from DLI, all I heard is that we dont have enough linguists in all languages. I can tell you right now that war with Iran is yet another war the military will not be able to meet the language requirements and that will cost us. Maybe if the military could handle the wars it has now I might no be so opposed, but when I see everyone getting out of the military(commissioned and non commissioned) ASAP, I am very affraid of what will take place after our air strikes and naval battles... another occupation/stabilization of security and what would surely turn out to be a sad attempt at installing a new government. Lets keep the focus on the current wars and ending them while healing the divide in the US that war with the middle east has caused. I am ready to do violence for my country, but I just wish that when I hear the various reasons for it, I don't feel like I am getting lied to or rushed into something because one leader's talk and meddling gets escalated into yet another war that does nothing to make Americans safer.

all,
I've checked out this web site to get fitness info and am surprised to see the prevalence of political articles. Moreover, the political articles seem to all be opinion based and as such can be bent to support whatever argument you want. I've lived overseas before and try to read many different sources of news to attempt to level out bias. It seems like many posters here (although not all) are re-stating common cliches from CNN. Anyway, it's probably best to leave political discussions to politcal web sites.
cheers,
dave

Dave,

Think of it as a thought workout for your rest day. Read something controvertial, get your brain thinking and vent the byproducts via the comments. We keep our political ravings to the comments, whereas the message board is the sanctified holy ground for nothing but fitness.

Joey,

Will try to respond more substantively this evening. Work is a you know what today.

Quick question, though, as I have been working on my kips. What do you mean by timing? Any other advice anyone can give? I think my back swing is too short, and sometimes non-existent.

I am amazed at the shift in sentiment in the past few months. I remember the group chorus of nuking Iran because they held 15 British soldiers. I was clearly in the minority when I argued for reason/diplomacy over another rushed attack. Now I seem to be of an opinion held by the majority.

I am not sure if CF is moving to the center or the center is moving into CF.....very curious.

Ricky

Started about 70 different responses to Apolloswabbie's post (#47) - I'm a health policy professional in Canada, and could go on tediously about where our system - and yours - falls apart. Neiher of our countries is at the top of the world, in pretty much any measure of health care.

The ones that *are* (Australia, France, New Zealand, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark ...) have much better central planning than either your place or mine. In fact, it's the central planning that makes their systems work so well, at no discernable loss of freedom to these bastions of democracy.

I speculate that the only sector that might top Health for market-failures might be military acquisitions. And for essentially the same reason - analysis in decision making is coloured by emotion/fear, and the sense that a moral duty to protect life makes it OK to spend beyond our means. Pharmaceutical and military suppliers know this ... and direct their marketing accordingly.

Hence the absolutely obscene health spending in both our countries (you spend more per capita than we do on health ... and it's over 40% of our provincial budgets), and your military-induced national deficit.

Darren,
RE thinking of it as a "thought workout for the rest of the day" ... there is nothing wrong w/ that in principle, but the quality of that thought workout in this case would be very low. More of an emotional process than an analytical process. These articles and most of the responses are just either personal opinions or repetions of popular political pundits. If one really wants to have such disucssions, there are plenty of forums out there, and of course they all have an axe to grind. My personal opinion is that most political discussion in this country is based on packaged sound bites, whether from the left or right.
dave

Bret,

I think Joey is referring to the timing of the pull, starting from the shoulder blades, and the kipping motion or hip flexion. The kipping pull-up is very similar to the Butterfly stoke in that it is more about timing and technique than strength. I would check out Eva's kipping progression video, it is really good.

http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/eva-on-kipping.wmv

I made two posts last night. Why are they still held up?

Joey, it's good to be back, especially due to my wife and young ones who performed above and beyond while I was deployed. But I miss being there, in a sense, I'm sure you know what I mean.

Roger the hand impact with kips.

Bret, there was a gymnast at the Vancouver cert, named Jen I believe, she kicked my ass on the WOD. She showed me a drill that seemed to make the kipping click. In the back swing toward the point where you would kip, she showed me how you can time the swing to elevate so that you can momentarily lift your hands from the bar, then grab and swing forward again. In a way, it's like you are using momentum and your pecs to accelerate yourself up and back - after which you would bend your arms to complete the pull up. If you can make any sense of what I just wrote, let me know if it helps. After doing 50 or so of these Sunday, I have a whole new set of sore muscles - strangely, pecs as much as lats/biceps, from adding the new movements of kipping.

Tim - Darren; enjoyed your posts, thanks.

Paul

Nevermind, apparently I am blind.

#1 - I have one of the Xfit DVDs. I wouldn't get one unless you don't have good access to the vids they post on the site. If you are in a spot where you have lousy bandwidth, the DVDs would be a good reference to see what the workouts look like. Paul

if you don't want to read the posted articles on rest day, hold on for this one:

DON'T F'IN OPEN THE LINKS!

go work on your handstands if you don't like the material.

This has NOTHING to do with Iran:

I have a question about Kettlebells.

I have sifted through the message board equipment section where there's a bunch of discussion about which vendor to use but I'm still confused about what weight to get or whether to get one at all.

The Garage Gym article (from 2002) in Xfit journal says with the exception of two handed Kettlebell swings, most Kettlebell exercises are more of a novelty or better done with dumbbells.

Is this still the general consensus? If the two handed swing is the only worthwhile exercise should I get a big one instead of starting light?

Jeremy, #60, I've heard the same thing, and stopped doing the upright rows due to other shoulder issues. However, if you are concerned about sumo deadlift high pulls, the feeling is totally different. Most of the movement comes from the power of the legs through the trunk and the shoulder shrug at relatively high speed. The mechanics are the same as the '2nd pull' in the clean progression. Very little of the motion's power comes from the deltoids and bicepts, the top of the motion is the 'follow through.' I think that means the movement is sound, but as with most of these things, the only thing to do is try it and stop doing it if you think it's injuring you. Paul

Another world war? Ridiculous.

Standing by our values and helping isolate Islamic Radicalism are the two main thrusts of this war.

We will never win this war by killing. For every innocent muslim we accidentally kill, five moderates become extremists.

Repression always results in extremism. We need to start fighting smart.

Willie, They generally recommend the 1 pood and 1.5 pood from what I've read. These will get you through 90% of the WODs that I've seen. Martone recommends kettlebells for a variety of things (such as the 'Turkish get up')as illustrated in the Crossfit Journals, but in the WODs, I haven't seen much but the KB swing, 1 or 1.5 pood.

DB make an acceptable substitute. Good luck with your training, Paul

TomF,

It's a good discussion to have and there's a lot I've still to learn but military spending is going to be rapidly outstripped going forward by medicare spending. In fact, the promises we've made in that program will bankrupt us and make our military spending look like pennies. Note that in order to finance the systems you named, those countries gave up on supporting their own defense years ago, and have been living off of US protection.

Apparently, we in the US also wish to be militarily as helpless as the aforementioned countries, as some Americans wish to follow their path. I don't know that it's necessarily by accident. If you wanted to cripple the US military, the easy way would be additional committments to the social programs that are bankrupting us at the rate of a over a trillion dollars a year in increased unfunded obligations. The day is coming when we're going to have to pay much more in interest to get people to take the risk of borrowing from us. After that comes the death spiral of increasing costs to borrow as confidence in ability to pay increases.

Central organization has been tried - very expensive, only solvent because care is rationed by bureaucrats. I've lived under a system like that - two years to get attention on my blown out ACL.

What hasn’t been tried here or elsewhere in the modern era is freedom and free markets. Why divert to a method proven to unsatisfactory to consumers and too expensive to support before trying the option of removing govt impediments to free market solutions? The only reason is if you don't trust freedom and do trust a powerful central govt. Not a good bet from my perspective.

Best regards, Paul

Colin, # 14

Your criticism that CrossFit posts only one sided, unbalanced pro war arguments is misplaced. On the previous rest day, Fri. June 8, there was posted for comment on this site an article which argued, among other things, that we should not bomb or attack Iran, because their economy and society is about to implode from all the inanity inherent in socialist/theocratic management, and because their leaders' world view is such that they would welcome war with the west as the final Armageddon that would herald the coming of the 12th Iman and guarantee them all places in paradise with either 72 virgins or 72 young boys as per their predilections

Chris, #17, 19

We did not need a crystal ball with Hitler because he revealed in Mein Kampf his plans, but no one in the west took him seriously until it was too late. We do not need a crystal ball with Iran either because they have publicly proclaimed on numerous occasions, (many of which are detailed in the article--so you’ve proved that you did not read it), that they will use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel as soon as they have them, and just last year Amendejehad sent Bush a letter which ended with the traditional Muslim prelude to war, a call for the USA to embrace Islam.

The United Nations is a sick, corrupt joke. Like it or not, the USA is the world’s SWAT team.

Will G. #34
If the main villain all along has been Iran, and I don’t disagree, then what better place in the world is there to stage men and material than on their borders in Iraq and Afghanistan? So Iraq is most definitely relevant to Iran. Iran certainly understands the mortal threat that a free Iraq presents to them even if you don’t, which is why they are the primary source of resistance to the new Iraqi government. And thus, according to your theory about who is the true villain, the threat of Iran is precisely why we need to stay the course in Iraq.

Bret, #42
“Blaming Iraq on the leftists is such a predictable cop-out. …”
What in the world are you talking about? The existence of Iraq (post WWI British Mandate)? The Gulf War 1991? The 2003 invasion? The current Iranian sponsored terror campaign to prevent the emergence of a free Iraqi government? Please be a little more precise and tell us exactly what you think is being improperly blamed on the lefties.

BTW, I think CTJoey has answered you pretty well about how the left has systematically undermined our efforts in Iraq. The left has been defined by anti-americanism for more than 60 years, and now they define the Democratic party. It would be interesting to see what the left would do if Russia stepped in on our side in Iraq. I would bet that all criticism of the war from the left would cease. The same turn around occurred in the American left when Hitler attacked Uncle Joe Stalin—literally overnight the American left made an astounding mojo turn from from being anti war to being pro war.

Baja, #43
The USA is already the most culturally diverse nation in the history of the world.
War is often the answer. War was the answer to Hitler & Tojo. War was the answer to slavery in the USA. War created the USA.

Churchill said in a post WWII speech that he tried to warn the west to stop Hitler, but no one would listen. In his opinion the millions of deaths in WWII could have been avoided with very little loss of life if the west had stood up to Hitler even as late as 1938. And when Iran deploys their bomb, all the current critics of pre-emption will fill the air with cries for Congressional investigations of why we didn’t stop it.

On the merits of Podhoretz’s article, he makes a strong case for pre-emptive air strikes aimed to take out their nuclear capability, as Israel did to Iraq in 1981. I don’t think this nation has the political will for such action, mainly because very few even recognize the mortal threat to civilization that radical Islam presents. So once again, we will wait until we are attacked, at which time I hope the nation will unite as after Pearl Harbor. In the meantime, we should strike in Iran at their training bases for Iraqi terrorists, and do all in our power to subvert and topple the regime of the Ayatollahs.

Bombing Iran is at best a short term solution. You guys are only thinking in terms of the weapons that are currently available.

If we bomb Iran, we will most definitely be attacked by the next generation of Weapon when Iran gets their hand on it. Perhaps it'll be nano-tech or biological.

It's our willingness to throw big weapons at Iran that has fostered their hatred of the U.S. We backed Iraq in the '80's and in the '60's we staged a coup to install a U.S. fiendly Shah.

I don't think more violence is going to create the solution we need. If anything, we need a massive PR campaign to reveal to the Iranian citizens why the U.S. is aligned with their best interests. We also need to reinforce the Peaceful aspects of the Koran to the mostly illeterate masses in the Middle East. We are not fighting a "War against Terrorism", but rather a "War against Ignorance".

I guess when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Bryan, 84
I guess the hammer comment was some kind of insult to those of us willing to do violence on your behalf. I think your plan is pretty good though. I think psyops and the fomenting of rebellion will win the day in Iran. Gotta believe that SF already has a plan for that.

Crossfit rest days ya gotta love'em (or don't check the site on'em, your choice.)

In regard to Gen Pace, the JCS and even CENTCOM
I'm not sure it's reassuring that the Navy is taking over to deal with ground situations. To me it implies that the land warfare experts are either not being heard or not supporting the needs of the administration, which is scary.

apolloswabbie (12)
Sir, I'm not sure an Iran campaign would be successful as just an air campaign. It was tried with limited success with Kosovo and they still needed boots on the ground. Congress has already expressed concern about USN/AF IA deployments so I'm not sure where the boots would come from.

The peace dividend was apparently paid too soon, we are struggling to support our Iraq needs. I'm sure we could support an Iran ground campaign with limited objectives but what happens if N. Korea acts up. (they will when we're distracted, it's their pattern)

Your arguments assume that being anti-war is anti-American. Your assumption is untrue. Some of those on the left are definitely anti-American. A very, very, very small portion that the right uses to skew perception.

To me, being an American does not entail blind support for terrible leaders who make terrible and ill-thought out decisions. I love my country, and the people who fight wars on its behalf (including people close to me). But, in my opinion, the war was and has been a horrific mistake, for myriad reasons. I was never in favor of it, and lo and behold, time is proving my position to be valid.

As for the cop-out...what else would you call it? When the most die-hard supporters of the war begin making excuses -- and thats what it is, a cop-out excuse -- for the failures of said war, they lose credibility. Maybe take a look in the mirror: the public was told, at first, what an easy war this would be, how the Iraqis would greet us as liberators and embrace freedom, with their oil money (not my hard earned money) paying for a solid majority of the costs. Has any of that happened? Don't you think that the public, the right and the left, would feel at least somewhat put out by all those mistakes?

Now, a HUGE majority of the country does not support the war. For good reason. And those are people on THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT. So now your "leftist" theory must account for those on your side of the aisle who acknowledge what a mistake we have made. Your boogeyman theories hold water only in rooms where everyone shares the same hawkish opinions.

Now, with their own failure, the hawks seek external boogeymen to blame. Sorry, guys, but I see right through you. You seek the simplest scapegoat, and the most convenient, to assuage and nurture your political inclinations, where reality shows people on each side of the spectrum denouncing the war for what it has turned out to be: either a mistake or mistake-filled.

For the record, I blame both the left and the right. Politics in America have become rather sickening, and I think I will find it difficult to vote for a candidate from either major party in the near future.

Bret,

Let me see if I can explain Kips with words. I think I can.

I will use some symbols "(" and ")"

( is the body concaved with abdomin/hips forward, shoulders/hands and feet behind.

) is the body concave with back rounded/hips behind, shoulders/hands and feet forward.

You are facing this way <<<<.

I always thought of the movement (swing) like this ( ). With the hips moving across the horizontal plane 1 1/2 to 2 feet atleast. Hence the distance between the two symbols. It is actually () to )( in distance. I would say with in 1 foot of horizantal movement for the hips.

Obviously the hands can't move horizontally. However through rotation, which is why a thumb on top grip works, the hand allows the shoulders to move forward of the vertical plane running through the hands and bar with out stressing the shoulders too much.

The hips won't travel much, if any, more forward or backward of the shoulders. You can have a spotter keep your hips from moving to much horizontally by standing to your side and bracing your belly and low back with hands a few inches away from you. This way they can help you redirect the monetum.

The momentum needs to transfer down to the legs, which can travel several feet across the horizantal plane being whipped up and forward and up and back towards your butt.

I think of it as watching a cartoon character swing on a vine and how the legs drag back and up from the forward fall and swing.

Now that your swing is going well with hips staying relatively in the same place and feet swinging much more, it is timing.

As your shoulders/Chest are coming forward "(" , momentum is being generated. As you transition to feet whipping forward ")", the shoulders/chest will naturally transition behind the hands/bar.

Now pull down with your hands. Not like a dead-hang pull-up. Pull like you are going to keep your elbows straight. (Don't actually try to keep them straight) Pull in an arch. You will fling up to the bar.

The trick is the recovery.

Your feet are still forward of the bar. As the momentum pushes you down push away from the bar like a bench press and relax your arems. Do not try to ease the momnetum. relax. you will however need to use your abs to keep your feet forward of the bar until your shoulders/chest drive forward at the bottom of the swing which will sling you legs back. This sets you up to do it again.

If you can't keep your momentum, I will bet you dollars to donuts it is your hips traveling too much horizotally or you are not keeping your feet forward on the way down.

This is not a circular cycle. It is a pendulum cycle. You retrace your movement on the way back down as you did on the way up.

Clear as mud??

Now watch Rob in the video.

Apolloswabble,

I seem to remember having this discussion about healthcare a while ago....

The problem with the healthcare issue, and the way it is duscussed these days, lies in the poor manner of statistical slght-of-hand with which it is presented. The argumen against socialization of healthcare goes something like this: We have some of the finest healthcare standards in the world, and if we socialize it, standards will go down for everyone... IE we'll have to wait in line forever to get surgery.

There are a number of problems with this presentation:
1. A high standard of healthcare for a few does not justify a lower standard of healthcare for most... as a matter of fact, we in the US have an enormous disparity between the healthcare available to the rich and that available to the poor.

2. Just like public schooling, those with the means can still seek out a higher standard of service, either domestically or abroad.

Here's an easy comaprison:
Healthcare is to the US as wealth is to Saudi Arabia

Sure, there's an obscene amount of wealth in Saudi Arabia, but a ridiculously small portion of the population gets a piece of it.

Also, and I've said this before, asa small business owner... part of the biggest machinery driving our economy, I would kill to have healthcare like yours. Wait in line for 2 years to get ACL surgery? Hell yeah! It sure beats agonizing over whether or not I should go to Jiu Jitsu class tonight, because I may get hurt... and If I do get hurt, the medical costs could literally bankrupt me.

We, as Americans, pay more per person for healthcare than any other Western nation... and, on average, we have some of the lowest standards of healthcare received... This is totally different from healthcare offered. We also have a higher percentage of uninsured than any other Western nation.

The idea that we have something to loose by trying socialized healthcare is just silly.

Zach

Bret, I am asking you what failures in the War??

The elections? The deposing of Saddam? By all sane accounts we are winning. Use a little history to account for somethings:

More soldiers died in most months of full fledge Veitnam than 4+ years of Iraq and Afgahnastan.

Insurgencies HAVE been routed, however they do take 8-10 years to quell. (historically)

So unless you can offer HOW we are lossing, I don't buy your assumption.

No is this thing so going and dragging...yup.

As far as the left, I am not saying they are causing us to lose, since it is clear to me that we are not. I argue the left has been using its craving for political power and collectivism as the engine for its negative take on the military action. They have done everything they can to make this like Vietnam.

I am not saying they are Anti-American because they are Anti-war. I am saying they are Anti-War because they are Anti-American. They hate the way America is...its character. They want to change it...the war is just a rallying cry. Read the plaquards at the protests. Look into the groups that organize the protests. Look into the relationships with organizations on foriegn soil.

Where were they when we went into the former Chech Republics. Hmmmm.... Talk about an action that did not effect us.

So being against the war is one thing. The Anti-war crowd is HUGE and they are ALL left ists. Period. It is the "blame America first" crowd who wants to bring about silly collectivist ideal in the name of Enviromentalism, the War, Illegal Immigration, health Coverage..same bunch. The web has just made them louder.

Here is a video of SEN Gore saying President Bush ignored Iraq terror ties. If I remember, Gore voted against the invasion he is scolding President Bush about. Hypocrite! smarmy as well.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html

This is a complicated subject and sitting on our hands is not the way to handle it.

Joey - thanks. I will practice tonight. I think your explanation helped. And I sincerely appreciate the effort and thought that went into describing it. You too saulj, #73.

I have not really been swinging horizontally. What I have been doing is more like exploding my knees and hips directly upward. Although this does work my core severely, and makes pullups "easier," I know it 'ain't right.'

Hypocrasy never ceases.

Great video. Proves my point that the left is contrarian for the sake of it.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html

Zach, Socialized healthcare is a joke everyewhere it is tried. And yes as it has been proposed by SEN Clinton, you would not be able to ouside the system for help.

As a small business man I would think you would understand how government intervention makes things worse. You and CrossFit are only one vote away from being considered inappropriate and your clients ineleigable for Government healthcare.

I doubt you know much about military healthcare, but your should know that it is severely undermanned and over used. This with a very health and young portion of the population using it. You can look to the VA for guidance on ineffective care and that is with Oversight. Now imagine if those same politicians were responsible for it...they don't take responsibility for anything.

If all trainers had to be connected to the government by fees and services, would that be OK with you? You no longer could set your fee based on experience, effectiveness, and knowledge?? You no longer could program how you saw fit?

socialized healthcare is falling apart world over.

Our problems stem from another SEN kennedy failure, with the HMO legislation several decades ago.

Bret use the horizontal swing of the legs to drive you upward as you redirect the momentum. you way works, but with alot more energy expendature.

I just started Crossfit a couple weeks ago and I had a lot of trouble with kipping. This video here is what helped me the most of all kipping videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLPj_6pFE44

Today at CrossFit Morris County we did:

Warm Up-burpees 3x8, pull ups 3x5

Then for time:

Deadlift-10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1
HSPU-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

Handstand push ups are deceivingly difficult. Using 120kg, I finished in 18:55. At the halfway point I was on pace to finish under 15 min. Low and behold HSPUs started kicking my butt!

Scotty McC #51:
> Colin McNulty might be a point-of-the-spear operator, and I don't know it, but I doubt that.

I guess that must be an Americanism, as I really don't know what it means, though I'm guessing that's a derogatory statement.

> To those that are "appalled" at CF having a political agenda

That's quoting me, and doing a bad job of it. I wasn't appalled that CF has a political agenda, I was shocked that when taken as a single unexplained item, today's post appeared to be pushing a particular political view point.

I was however commenting on the poster who seemed to think that as Crossfitters, we should all be training hard to learn to cut the throats of the Vietnamese so we could steel oil (and yes I know that I'm amalgamating 3 separate statements there).

Dan MacDougald #83:
> Your criticism that CrossFit posts only one sided, unbalanced pro war arguments is misplaced.

Thanks Dan for correcting me. I did say I didn't come here often enough, and hadn't seen this previous post, I was simply commenting at the time on today's post, which taken in isolation appeared unbalanced.

WOD caught up with 400M run/65# thruster x 5 rounds.

As Rx'd, 34:30.

Apolloswabbie: I read "Crisis of Abundance". Magnificent. Gave me the vocabulary to discuss the issue, one I have been studying and discussing for more than two years. Thanks for the heads up.

Zach: I will look forward to Coach choosing to offer an article or link on healthcare financing in the U.S before I enter that particular fray. Suffice it to say that each of your declarations have been made before and when they are held up to the cold light of real economic analysis they are defrocked, platitudes without underlying pillars of factual support. Hopefully Coach will offer this up some day.

Did the 5k I missed earlier this week 35:02.As for the crossdfit "chat of the week'Thanks to all for making me glad I live in this country where we "can" voice our thoughts on war,politics,and the workout of the day!

30 parkour wall muscle ups (some pure, most jumping on t-barriers)

handstands on parallets

rowed 5miles

OK,

Maybe we should bomb Iran. I'll go along with first strike for a second...

So we go after anyone who levels threats against us. I guess that means expanding to Iran, and Syria has been looking at us funny so let's go there too for good measure. But I forgot about North Korea, they have nukes and have threatened us verbally many times, ok we must preemptive strike there too.

Where do we get the troops and money to do this? Has anyone thought about what happens when we become this stretched, and say I don't know, China decides to take back Taiwan?

Forget morality, forget precedent, when you apply first strike at every threat it just becomes bad strategy.

The US is holding it's ass on a silver platter in Iraq deservedly so because it's action there was illegal and immoral (based on cowardly deception)...with no regard for true geopolitical coalition...(and for good reason, faulty premises dissolve rapidly under rational scrutiny).
This article is alarming as intended but of course as dense in it's response reportoire as the cavemen that planned 9/11.
The harm that bombing Iran would bring on this contry'd far outstrip the Iraq fiasco.
We pray that far more pliable minds address these threats than the author.

The US is holding it's ass on a silver platter in Iraq deservedly so because it's action there was illegal and immoral (based on cowardly deception)...with no regard for true geopolitical coalition...(and for good reason, faulty premises dissolve rapidly under rational scrutiny).
This article is alarming as intended but of course as dense in it's response reportoire as the cavemen that planned 9/11.
The harm that bombing Iran would bring on this contry'd far outstrip the Iraq fiasco.
We pray that far more pliable minds address these threats than the author.

#87 (unless someone gets bumped) CCTJOEY
Thank-you for the detailed explanation of kipping.
There's a lot of good info out there, Eva's video and article in the CFJ especially, but I'm still struggling. I was at the point of asking, "but what does it FEEL like", when your post pretty much answered that.

#89 Brett
I'm glad you asked. I'd been trying to "kip" the same way you had because that's what it seemed to look like in the videos. I knew I was missing the point somehow, but couldn't click.

Willie--post number 78--I have no idea about the general consensus about kettlebells, but men are encouraged to begin with the 16kg (35lb) kettlebell. If you do go looking, I found that dragondoor kettlebells go for 60 dollars or so on ebay, and k2fitness has some nice ones as well.

bingo,

I'm not one to post facts without evidence to back them up, so I'll look forward to the attempt.

Zach

Jeremy #60
I am a physical therapist, I don't currently work with orthopedic patients, but have in the past; I have not seen upright rows as a direct cause of an injury, but I will say that with shoulder impingement syndromes, I won't let patients perform that activity. A personal theory of mine, which has not been supported with evidence as far as I know - so take this with a grain of salt, but I believe, because of my own lifting experiences and experiences as a tennis player, that upright rows may cause slight damage/impingement that over time makes the shoulder structures (specifically the supraspinatus muscle) more susceptible to injury; the end-product being a simple motion (such as a golf or tennis swing) that may have just resulted in a muscle strain, ends up resulting in a "rotator cuff tear" that may have been set up by years of improper lifting, etc. Again, just my theory, but I definately avoid that exercise.

I suggest that CrossFit calm the filter down on Rest Day so the comments section has a chance to flurish. I know that I personally have had 4 posts withheld today that were not inflamitory or malicious.

An alternate course of action might be the addition of one or more moderators able to track through the posts for issues and scrutinizing on CrossFit's guidance and common sense.

I volunteer ;)

Willie post #78 in regards to kettlebells.

My opinion is that kettlebells can be productive tools for far more than the two hand swing. Some other basic excersises, such as the snatch, overhead squat, rotations and figure eights are good training. I don't know where you are located but Cezar at www.readyrescue.com, based in CT, would be glad to speak with you I'm sure. You can send him an email through that website. He is a kettlebell expert by any standard and a wealth of knowledge on the subject. He may even be able to beat the other prices you get, depending on shipping.

#15 Russ - well said. That's a keeper. Thanks. Paul

Mark B, thoughtful post but I disagree with most of it, for what that's worth. Land occupation and battle not required - just bomb the oil infrastructure which if vulnerable in many ways that have been pointed out in the open press and the house of cards comes down. Two days later, all cars stop moving. Didn't get every last bit of the nuclear infrastructure? Won't matter - country will collapse.

As for the sacrifice - much of it was unnecessary and it's not necessary now (no time for a real explanation). Sacrifice for symbolic purposes isn't sacrifice - it's subjugation. We in the military choose freely to take on this role and that's far better than being ordered by a government to serve when we wouldn't freely choose to do.

Chaos and anarchy? Not our problem on this one. No invasion required to defend ourselves or our allies in the region (only one of which is Israel) from the MAD mullahs.

I'm out for today but enjoyed it folks, thanks. Paul

To all of the crossfit users. I just wanted to add my 2 cents. 1) there are a lot of service members on here (I am a Marine officer) and I just wanted to say when people say things about the war on terrorism, it offends most of us. just think about that before you post your comments like that on what is becoming a comment section for almost everything except talking about working out on this great program.

Semper Fi

Weighted Chins
40 X 3
40 X 3
40 x 3
40 X 3

Five rounds for time of:
Run 400 meters
65 pound Thruster, 30 reps

22:30

Zach,

I sent an email to you earlier from my Navy account, not sure if you got it. Glad to see you can sneak in a post between clients.

"The problem with the healthcare issue, and the way it is duscussed these days, lies in the poor manner of statistical slight-of-hand with which it is presented."
-- Interesting beginning - why did you follow with all of the statistical slight of hand?

You presented, weakly, one of the arguments against socialized medicine. Your arguments – typed rapidly when you should be doing something else, like many of mine today – seem thin and not as well fleshed out as what I normally hear from you. I don't blame you - you have a business to run.

That said – the heart of the problem you describe is correct. Govt intervention will reduce the quality of the health care Americans receive not to mention continue to suppress the freedom to choose.

Comparing the cost of our system is not meaningful if compared to the costs of systems in which the govt controls costs through rationing. What is the value of being able to choose how much to spend and on which services? I think it's a significant value.

If you can read the 100 pages of "Crisis of Abundance" the discussion afterwards would be of much greater interest.

But I gather that you are completely comfortable with authorizing the Federal Govt to take as much money as it decides to, from whomever it decides to in order to pay for as much or as little health care as it decides to, to whatever standard it decides is right, and remain unaccountable you, me or any other consumer, and remain as difficult to modify as the present social security systems and medicare/medicaid systems are.

I'm not comfortable with yeilding that much liberty to the Fed, no matter which group of political bozos is running it. And loud whining about the disparities in the system (can you justify that anyone is entitled to the same health care as everyone? No matter how much transfat or nicotine or alcohol or crack they use? No matter how little they utilized their free education?). Even if they are, take a look at the efforts to enact such a system by government organization of the systems, it’s not desirable from my perspective.

And even if you convince me that I’m wrong on all the above, there is another predictable outcome that would outweigh the goods. That is, as soon as people see their skyrocketing taxes, they are going to start demanding that the govt step in to control more and more of the behavior that’s driving up health care costs. As frequently happens, one coercive govt action will be used to justify another. The unintended consequences of each will be deleterious. Health care will not improve – to be affordable, govt run health care has to be rationed by bureaucrats, leading to absurdities like the Canadian citizen who had to sue up through their supreme court to get the right to pay for his own knee replacement surgery.

Your issues as a small business owner could easily be addressed by the concepts in “Crisis of Abundance.” Govt interference is preventing the development of market solutions to problems like yours in finding affordable policy options.

Big picture - I think freedom, if tried, would lead to a better outcome for all in health care, while reducing the negative outcomes brought about by inefficient, excessive health care expenditures that currently take place.

Bingo – Glad it was good for you, too!

Adam - no thin skins allowed either in uniform or out.

#85/Bob, you may be right. My concept is that the US would only do enough to eliminate the nuclear threat, which could be achieved by just knocking out their ability to get refined oil products. If I were stuck making the decision, and I'm glad I won't be, I would not put Soldiers in the middle of the resulting mess. Kosovo was a peace and stability mission - an Iran thing would simply be an attack against their ability to attack other nations with nukes.

Paul

#109 The healthcare argument tends to get polarised into either a)the present system b)socialized healthcare. Rather than a combination of both where the market is allowed to work properly.

Rather than look at Canada we should be looking at the Singapore model to follow. Here's an interesting (and short) link:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=7923

Hey all,
That was a different article...I am an ideological pacifist, vegitarian, buddhist (really, I am!). I would not advocate bombing a country full of mostly inocent people back to the stone age. A lot of nations have had issue with Isreal, that is not recognizing it as a nation (country). Isreal has been at war with it's neighbours for half a century, and for such a small country, defends itself better that any other could try. Many Christians are also anti-semitic, however, that is 'not talked about'. The problem becomes this: you are dealing with a Nation, Iran, and a religious state. Should you 'go to war' or otherwise wrong said state, there is also religious fallout that has measurable effect in other US/Coalition operations (Iraq, Afganistan) and elsewhere ('random' terror acts against non-muslims).
I really don't know what to say...you need to take care of the problem without making a new one (*cough* iraq *cough*)
I support those non-financially motivated gov't paid soldiers, struggling to get paid when they get injured, and are/were fighting 'the good fight'. Unfourtunatly, there are those that wish to continue said Oil Conflicts because of the financial gains, without due regard to the social and humanitarian costs. Those PMCs, and other 'contactors' are making a killing killing. There was and alway will be those that will kill for no other reason than 'gain'.
Very much a shame that the entire administration is in a conflict of interest...if that is in dispute then consider if ANY Bush stands to make enormous (billions) amounts of money securing (or just fighting) oil rich lands.
Well, I haven't really come to a conclusion, except to say that these (Iraq, Afganistan) conflicts, that is the REAL conflict with the ideo-religious right will be nearly impossible to win...how do you punish/stop someone who welcomes death and sees it as a clensing that guarantees heaven?! Without adding anything religious...God bless you...may you come to a peaceful resolution...

CCTJOEY and Apolloswabbie?

All the countries that the World Bank, the OECD, and the World Health Organization name as having better population health outcomes than your country or mine also pay less per capita for health care than you do now.

Less.

Adopting some modification of a public/private mixed healthcare system a la Denmark, or New Zealand, or the UK would not siphon money away from US' military expenditures ... it would actually free up resources.

What's more, ALL of the countries I named, in addition to having lower costs/capita, also have produced healthier populations. People whose conditions come into crisis less, who take fewer sick days etc.

If you transpose that population health status onto a country with the entrepreneurial focus that the US has, that would translate into a real jump in GDP and personal productivity.

I frankly don't see the "lose" here, especially when the facts contradict people's assumptions of public health care being more expensive.

Hey... guilty as charged... the past 3 or 4 weeks have seen a pretty dramatic increase in the amount of hours I am training in a given day.

I think TomF does a pretty good job of stating a portion of my position... results speek louder than speculation, and the evidence overwhelmingly points to some government intervention in healthcare as being more effective than what we in the US have... a system in which the insurance and pharma companies can strong-arm our political process so severely that we stay in a constant state of crisis.

BTW - I appreciate your comment to Adam.... it's an odd issue for me, not being in the service. The image of a marine, trained to be a bad-to-the-bone killer, defender of our country, emotionally affected to the point of offense or demoralization by somoene else's political viewpoint just doesn't work for me.

A good friend of mine, and occasional climbing partner, was one of the first 20 female pilots in the Air Force. We have very animated discussions about politics... she pulled the; "that really offends me" line once, and I laughed at her.... she laughed back and admitted it was BS.

I personally find it disrespectful to our soldiers that so many pundits argue against dissension, using their emotional status as a tool... they are essentially telling our soldiers that they are weak-minded, emotionaly-immature weenies.

I like to think of our soldiers as impervious, hardened, self-confident, etc... and all the ones that I've met are.

I'd be curious to hear the other side of this, from the horse's mouth.

Zach

#86 Bob Taylor
The hammer comment wasn't meant to be an insult. I have great respect for our military. My father was an Captain in the Army. My grandfather earned a Bronze Star in WW2 at the Battle of the Bulge.

I just think that the Military complex does one thing really well, that's use force to get what they want.

That's a perfect solution when your enemies dress in matching uniforms. Modern combat is quit different. We are at a new era of Combat, the asymetrical fight. 3 or 4 bad guys can create a lot of trouble.

To compound this, even when the military "wins" by killing a suspected terrorist, there are 2 different stories going on.
The military see it as defending themselves.
The locals that know the "suspected terrorist" don't see the situation the same way. They see that their friend, Mohammad, was gunned down by the U.S. military. He was a "good kid". They don't know anything about what he was doing in private.

Can you see how this "justified resentment" sows the seeds of future terrorism?

What is scary is that our leaders are willing to bring the fight to Iran and the only thing I hear is that We must bomb Iran. No one talks about what happens after we bomb them.

You make the assumption that someone else in the military is working on these issues. If there is a plan, everyone in the military( and the U.S. citizens ) should be aware of it.

Doesn't that make sense?

TomF,

This is a great topic, I think I could learn a lot from further discussion with you. I will point out thought that the points you raised are not addressing the concerns I raised.

For example - when you say "they pay less than you do" it's a meaningless statement (many of which are forced by discussion board formats which put a premium on paucity). Who's paying? Me? You? Because we choose to? Or is everyone paying due to the coercive power of govt taxation? What's the difference in the meaning of a transaction if a free man who can earn more spends much more, compared to a man who has submitted his care to the state, and the state spends less on his care?

As for outcomes - I question the comparison in two populations as varied as say the UK and the US. Equal health care systems will still produce difference outcomes when the populations (both in terms of genetics and behaviors) are so different.

Are "they" spending less because the govt limits how much is spent on end of life care, which eats up 25% of the money people choose to spend on health care in the US? Do you wish you cede not only the taxation power but the ability to dictate 'how much a life is worth' to the govt? I don't.

Finally, none are catching on to the simple possibility inherent in removing the many and substantial limits that the US govt imposes on market developments which would better organize health care transactions - neither the present US system or existing public systems do that well.

It's an important debate. I don't really expect to convince anyone who's already made up their mind that they have to submit their freedom to the state to get the outcome they desire that there are alternatives. Bottom line for me - the present social programs are projected by the Comptroller General to reach the point in 2042 that there will only be enough money to pay for social programs and payments on Federal debt; nothing for national defense, salaries for Congress, nothing for 'no child left behind,' nothing. Hell, there won't even be any money for the national art endowment people! Long before that point, the food fight over which groups will win the battle for federal hand outs will be at full tilt. Even if I thought switching to full on universal health care would result in perfect health care for every living human, I don't see how we can possibly dream of paying for it and it's disingenuous as hell for politicians to offer up more of other people's money in order to be elected when they should be the ones pointing out the present system is not sustainable now, much less after adding future obligations.

The Fed has proven conclusively, that just like other govt efforts to organize economic transactions, it is a failure.

Zach - "a system in which the insurance and pharma companies can strong-arm our political process so severely that we stay in a constant state of crisis" - this would be a point I would fully agree with. GM/Ford are two of the biggest advocates for government taking over their health care burden; better if it's my problem and yours, not GM/Ford's, right?

In my view, the more power the fed holds, the more power that outside power brokers can buy by manipulation of the politicians. "power corrupts ..." This will be worsened by giving the govt control over 16% of the economy, not improved.

In terms of outcomes, pls comment (TomF) on how Canada's govt is doing running their system and what the economic impact is. How amenable to common sense modifications is the health care system once politicized?

Until the next time, Paul

military healthcare as a comparison to "socialized" health care>>

First, people need to understand that military healthcare is not all it is worked up to be. Actually it is very limited. It is often confined to the place you are located and the cost of sending you somewhere else. Treatment is limited as well to if the Medic/PA/Nurse/DOC thinks you NEED a treatment. Often weeks to months will go by with Motrine being the primary relief and therapy.

If you are truely sick or very injured obviously you are going to move forward in the cue. That however does not mean the care will necessarily be more focused. There are bean counters watching to make sure services match need. That being said, need drives the services. This seems natural, accept when only say 80 hours of physical therapy are allocated in an area but 120 hours worth of patients it will be a while before you get in and long between visits.

Second, you have to understand that the military as a whole is far healthier than the normal population, due to age and lifestyle.

If you want a glimps of socialized healthcare, look at the VA system. With the amount of scrutany by veterans groups and politicians it still struggles at best and often fail. This with lots of funding. It is just plain inefficient.

Now imagine a system actually run by the politicians. Who will have to be in denial about the whows of the system to stay elected or fire adminsrators constantly.

In the military those docs are military or work for the military. They do not have any say in their pay once they submit to the system. Hence, why their is also a shortage and always is.

Hillary-care as it was proposed in the early 90's was not voluntary opt-out. It was an all-in system. Period. It would have been illegal to seek services outside the system or to render services outside the system. So essentially you have a just flushed out any incentive for young people to be doctors.

This also turns healthcare over to a third party...the professional beuarocrat. Not a doctor nor a patient.

Now let me ask you a question. Since the Capitol building is the only federal building that still allows smoking and tobacco use, do honestly think that Congress will constrain itself to subjegation to this model? Or will they allow provisions for themselves to recieve private healthcare or cherry pick "Congressional" doctors/surgeons? Do you think they will have the same number of doctors available to them as a a population of that size elsewhere?

Currently this is the job of the Insurance companies. The current mess with Insurance companies are all driven by CYA. CYA of lawsuits. CYA of government intervention. CYA of government regulation.

This got this way with the help of the current government HMO regulations fathered by none other than SEN Kennedy. Now he rails against HMOs. Much the same way he has designed failing policies in education, immigration, and poverty. All have failed to meet even remotely the intention, and his answer is further government intervention of behalf of the little guy pushing towards a socialist agenda each time. You could not "try" to ruin a system and be more successfully than his ideas are at making these situations worse. Each step of the way personal responsibility is replaced with government oversight.

Phamrsuitcals. Again FDA regulation make it so 10's of millions are spent to get drugs through trials and regulation. The amount of "orphaned" drugs are staggering. Those left behind becuase they are not worth the cost of fighting through the regulations in order to produce so few in number to ever generate a profit. I say that if a drug makes it through testing, the company that develops it gets a refund of all money incurred to get it through the process.

Why do drugs cost more in US than Canada?

The US does not subsidize. Canada does. When you venture into Canada to get cheap drugs, make sure you thank some Canadians for paying part of your bill. They also coerce the companies into prices to do business in Canada. R+D money for drug companies comes from our citizens essentially. If we did the same thing, you could watch the industry slow dramatically. Fair? Nope. The problem still lies at the feet of government regulations and intervention.

How does this happen?

Convincing people of the boogyman. That their situation is systemic. That only the rich get the healthcare.

I ask you, Zach as a Gym owner and trainer, when the government claims that participants in your protocal are not eligable for healthcare based on their "research" will your business suffer?

If the government decides that Trainers are actually healthcare providers and starts dictating the rates you charge, the customers you can take, and the protocals you can use, will you be so keen on the idea?

I doubt doctors feel much better about the idea.

And yes, socialized medicine is falling apart all over the world. As doctors quit, they are not being replaced at the same rate, let alone growing with the population. The cues for services are growing longer and longer. Governments are "selecting" who gets services based on subjective criteria. The systems are growing more corupt and fostering a medical underground. Great, more organized crime to meet a need that the government in it's infinite wisdom decided to regulate.

Does Socialize Healthcare work?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/02/14/do_we_want_socialized_medicine

If you guy's think you're "free" in America then you seriously are idiots and this country DESERVES to be destroyed. I wonder how many of you even know that America (was) a Republic and NOT a Democracy (mob rule)?

Enough about politics...shut up and train. As Coach stated, "Write down whatever ails you or your complaint on the board next to the WOD and then we'll all laugh at you. 3-2-1...GO!

Bret K - tried to send you a learning point from the cert this weekend on kipping - system never posted it, I may have left out my name/email so it was filtered or something. Just tried to email it to you but your email link's not working.

This weekend a Crossfit Vancouver trainer, Jen, former gymnast, who was whipping my a$$ on the WOD Sunday, demo’ed an additional point in the kipping progression that helped it all click.

Starting at the bottom, push your face and hips forward of hands and feet, then swing body back while hands/feet stay in line more or less with the bar. At a point in the back swing you start to swing up as well as back. As Joey mentioned, you even accentuate this by pushing down and forward with your strait arms (like a pullover). At the apogee of the swing, you are in fact moving up, and can let go of the bar, and you sort of hang, then as you reverse and start the reverse swing, it's fairly natural to grab the bar and drop/swing forward to start the cycle again. She recommended practicing this 'hands off the bar trick' to get the feeling of that moment of 'weightlessness.'

The timing part - when you are at the top of the back swing, and weightless, that's when you can complete the 'pullup' with the least energy expenditure, therefore faster, and get more reps, leading to the crossfit results.

After you pull up to the bar, don't forget to push away from the bar to make a circular descent into the front swing, vice dropping directly down.

Let me know if the ‘look mom no hands’ trick is as useful to you as it was to me. Paul

Bryan (117)
I'm sure someone in the military is working on "it". You don't need to know about "it" because it isn't what you're talking about. I'm talking about collapsing the Iranian government using internal forces developed by us. I believe that the extremist Islamofascists will want us dead despite any "hearts and Minds" activities we do, however I favor doing them anyway to decrease the number of new ones we have to kill. I believe it is a matter of national survival to destroy Radical Muslimism/ terrorism. My only caveat is to minimize US casualties and to a lesser extent innocent bystanders

There are numerous studies comparing health system performance – take a look at this recent chart from the Commonwealth Fund (a US based think tank), using data collected by the OECD for years between 2004-2006. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/chartcartcharts/chartcartcharts_show.htm?doc_id=482361 It shows that the US spends just over $6k/person, compared with Canada and France (the next highest) at just over $3k/person.

Now look at the text behind the chart, a May 2007 study which compares health system performance, looking at various performance measures for access, quality of care, efficiency, equity, and “healthy lives “ (i.e. what’s the mortality/morbidity in the population). – again, using OECD data. In every sector of performance measurement, and in all but 1 sub-sector, the US trails the pack in performance. Lest you think I’m grandstanding, Canada’s a wondrous fine (!) 5th out of 6 in the country-by-country comparison. Last, but for you guys. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678

The primary drivers pushing up health costs everywhere, in both high and low performing countries, are pharmaceuticals and health technology costs. Overall health costs rise about 7% annually, but drugs go up an average of 14% - and cancer drugs 35%. In private systems, the consumption of cutting-edge tests is also right up there – MRIs, PET scans, you name it. Driven largely by consumer demand (among those who can pay, or whose insurance can), rather than by health outcomes as a result of the spending.

Please note that these are the MOST market-driven sectors of the health system. Pharma companies provide admirable service to their shareholders. Where direct consumer marketing is allowed, sales are up to 6X higher than where this is not … and typically for “branded” drugs (where the profit margins are much higher) rather than generics, and new introductions.

This is wonderful entrepreneurialism … but when the newly-introduced drugs frequently have NO ADDED CLINICAL BENEFIT over existing (cheaper) drugs, it’s a triumph of marketing over analysis. Regulation to require clinical proof before drug costs are covered and to insist on generics where available – as practiced in Denmark, Sweden, the UK, and by a raft of HMOs like Kaiser – dramatically contains those costs, with NO DROP in patient health. In fact, patient health tends to improve, because the most clinically effective treatment is required - so you get $ savings, and health improvments in one whack.

In Denmark’s case, the profits from such initiatives go to taxpayers … in Kaiser’s case, to Kaiser shareholders.

I’m well aware of great savings in private sector management – and have promoted outsourcing of any number of aspects of the health system (from IT to purchasing to payroll) because doing so keeps costs down. But where market failures exist, I’m all for public management – because my bottom line is promoting widespread population health. Systems that include a strong public component have time and again proven to be best at that.

Cheers!

t.

Regarding those who claim that killing terrorists only produce more terrorists:

This is true in the sense that offensive action against terrorism is always spun as War on Islam in the Muslim world. In that sense it certainly is damaging. However, the alternative of letting terrorist groups run free, with no fear of consequences and free to run terrorist training camps in their sanctuaries is just asking for more large scale terrorist attacks. And there is little more damaging to Muslim-Western relations than large scale terrorist attacks, for those of you who are so worried about that.

The best strategy is to convince who you can, and kill who you can't convince. Bin Laden et al are never going to wake up one morning and say, hey, you know what, the US has been a little bit fairer towards the Palestinians lately, maybe this Jihad thing is overrated. The extremists' demands are so stringent that no amount of changed policy could convince them. There remains however the hundreds of millions who have not yet made the decision to commit themselves to fighting to the death against the U.S. It is important to minimize the factors that increase the likelihood that they become radicalized, i.e. oppressive governments, stagnant economies, lack of assimilation into the West for those that live there, lack of free speech except in the mosque, proliferation of Anti-American propaganda, etc. In addition, it is very important, from both a moral and strategic perspective, to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible in every military operation. Collateral damage breeds retaliation.

I think a useful analogy is Israel taking out the Osirak reactor, in Iraq, in roughly 1981. I get the impression that some people think Saddam's desire for nuclear weapons was somehow a fabrication of the administration. He wanted them in the early 1980's, and the Israeli's bombed the place where he was working on them. No war resulted, and the program was set back 15 years. The strike worked, in every meaningful aspect. That same thing is possible, I believe, with Iran. The logistics--which of course are critical, and I know some of the material is well underground--are of course unknown to me, but I think generally speaking the logic of bombing Iraq is sound.

This may be a news flash to some of you, but Iran considers itself effectively at war with us now. They are at war with secularism, and all non-Islamic nations, and consider the global triumph of Islam to be the only worldly goal worth pursuing. I see some folks differentiating Ahmadinejad from the Supreme Council--which of course is a valid distinction--but ultimately what reason do we have for believing the current crop of imams--of men who have dedicated their lives to the protection of and furtherance of their version of Islam--are somehow less radical than the original Ayatollah? If they objected strongly to the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad--which is nothing more or less than the rhetoric of the radical Islam upon which the original Revolution was based (a revolution he personally participated in)--and they can remove him, why is he still in his position?

Why did what amounted to Iranians drivers blow up our Marine Barracks in Beirut back in the 80's, killing 100's? Why did those same Iranian proxies start a war with Israel last year? Why are they providing weapons, training, and financial support to our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan now? Why are they claiming they want to destroy a sovereign nation created under UN auspices, if they don't mean it? And if they don't mean it, why can't we apply the "big boy" criterion of personal responsibility to them, and ask them why they would say something they don't mean? Surely some standard of common courtesy must apply between nations as between individuals, and if they want to play the fools, they can't complain if they get called on the carpet for it. Words have consequences.

It was Einstein, I believe, who said that everything changed when the nuclear bomb was invented, except our thinking. I see people on here implicitly arguing that there will be a visible lead up to a nuclear detonation. Something comparable to massing on the borders prior to an attack. Something that says, OK, now we have to ramp up our response. We have to change our strategy.

Yet, once the first one goes off--and we seem to have very little intel to tell us when this might be--we have to assume there is a second. That is not the time to bomb Iran. They will then use the nuke on us, and blame us, and with as much moral confusion there is out there, many members of our "allied" countries will support them.

Why would Iran collapse internally, when Cuba, after 40 years of sanctions, shows no signs of collapsing? When mass starvation in China and the Soviet Union did not lead to the collapse of either? When North Korea keeps hanging on, despite having, as far as I can tell, something close to zero economic activity? The Iranians have high unemployment, but they aren't starving yet, and the Revolutionary Guard seems to be pretty close to the SS in their ability to monitor and control dissent.

We are in the process of damaging relations with the Russians over a missile shield we are building in effect to protect us from Iran--or at least as far as I can tell, that's the basic goal. That wouldn't be necessary for some time, if they had no nukes.

What happened to Hussein is Osirak was taken out while he was fighting a long and bloody war. He never really got as close to building weapons again, although he would have, if given the chance. There is no reason to doubt that.

I see this basic "Bush Lied, People Died" thing, in muted form, on this thread. To the extent of my knowledge, no falsehood has been shown. Certainly, it has not even remotely been shown that Bush acted in bad faith in claiming Hussein was trying to get yellowcake from Niger. Wilson was out of that loop, 100%, completely, unconnected fully. And he had nothing to do with it, either. Only a leftist press eager to believe absolutely anything negative about Bush could have accepted his version of events uncritically, then failed almost entirely to publish what in effect should amount to a retraction.

I will add as well my basic feeling that when I see this idea that we need to sacrifice more, or we shouldn't fight wars, I don't understand. What does this mean? What should we be doing? It's abundantly clear that the tax cuts helped the economy, and that they led to absolute increases in tax revenues, which have been squandered by politicians of both parties.

TomF,

Well articulated, but again not to the point. If you read "Crisis of Abundance" it would allow you to take the points you made in your post and trace them back to why non-market forces, incentivized by US Govt intervention, are driving the consumption of premium medicine higher while not providing equivalent bang for the buck. What is happening now in the US (in the examples you cite in particular) is not an example of market forces at work, rather what is happening is markets with skewed incentives due to govt intervention.

Naturally, universally, the unintended consequences of previous govt interventions are now being used to justify additional govt interventions ... and so on and so on, it never ends.

The fact that you cite these as examples shows the limit of the depth of your understanding on this issue.

Like most people I know, your apparent belief that govt intervention is necessary to a better outcome seems to make it impossible for you to see the possibilities of true market reforms. It appears to me that if you were curious about such reforms (shouldn't someone be at least a little curious about how greater freedom could produce better health care?), you would likely ask what they are; since you are convinced already they don't exist, you are not asking.

That said, I appreciate your efforts to examine the issue as you have - far more productive than the typical responses. Would that we could take time to dig in deeper - perhaps that's coming.

Hi Barry,

They may get rid of Ahmadinejad - but for now, he's a useful idiot. Some reading I've found indicates they allowed him a long leash initially, then took it away when the results were, from their perspective, negative. I think one distinction between Ahmadinejad and the more senior leaders in Iran's theocracy is that he's a purist - he believes in what he's doing from his toes to his nose, and would gladly go down in flames to do it. Some of those more senior, perhaps more wise, are pragmatic by comparison and would not risk losing power in Iran to pursue their beautiful vision of Islam. They have the tyrant's dilemna - whatever I choose, it must sustain my tyranny.

If you are correct in thinking they will never collapse - as in the examples you site - it will get ugly.

With regard to timing - there is admittedly risk in waiting any longer when their intentions are clear, as you state quite well.

The issue isn't can we bomb them but rather, what's the cost? I think it will be a high cost, and kill many Americans and add to the global nastiness. If we can we should try to finesse them. Cost benefit analysis is difficult in either the classified or unclassified world. It's not going to be easy to tell one way or another what the right thing to do is. My own take is - I'm willing to risk more waiting to try to finesse the regime's downfall, not that anyone's asking me.

BTW - your advice on the cert was all right on the money, many thanks. I benefitted greatly from the mindset you suggested.

Paul

I'll bite - what would you see as a market based health system reform which would promote broad population health?

You're right - I see most of the cost problems in the health sector being the result of market failures - and those failures being inherent in the subject matter of the sector itself. But I'd love to see where I'm mistaken.

These Tony Blauer videos are amazing. Keep them coming as long as you can.

TimF,

The cost problems involve regulation and lawsuits.

The term "health system" is the problem. I don't want the government to use coercion to promote "broad population health".

My health belongs to me. Outside of my job as a service member, it is not the government's business. In the sense that it is the government's business, that is a matter of performance based outcomes.

"Broad population health" sounds like a strategy for China, not America. Your health is not my business. My health is not your business.

Let's change the term to "broad population wealth", what does that imply? How do we "reform" broad population wealth?

broad population housing? How do we reform broad population housing?

Perhaps they should reform "broad population spirituality".

Let me make this clear,

I don't want to be part of a "broad population" of anything that the politicians, bureaucrats, judges, any other government agents, or YOU think needs reforming.

That is the problem. Wake up. Why do you want others to have power over you in the most personal physical way?

Socialized health-care equals Government health-care.

How about "socialized fitness"? "Government fitness"?
That would be effective. (not)

What say you?

CCTJOEY,

Not all things "socialized" are bad... look at many elements of our public infrastructure: Roads, railways, communications networks.. all were in the inception or are still state subsidized.

"Broad population health" IS an effective way of couching the discussion. There is simply no escaping the fact that the healthy in a society will bear some burden of the cost of the unhealthy, and the wealthy willl bear some costs of the poor.

If 'x' amount of $$s are neede for a person to subsist in our economy, and a given portion of the population can only earn X-#, then the rest of the society will face the burden of the shortfall in one of a number of ways: crime, wellfare, etc...

The same is true for healthcare. It is a basic necessity for continued life. Therefore, our society is forced to reckon with it in one fashion or another. Treating it as if it is a luxury to be purchased at the whim of the consumer is to attempt an over-simplification of enormous proportions. I respect the desire to make things as simple as possible, but there is a level of complexity here that cannot be ignored.

"Broad population housing" falls into this category as well... and, for examples of societies which have over-privatized this infrastructure, take a look at Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, etc... these are nations with little or no public assistance for housing. What they have instead are MASSIVE slums that bread violence, disease, civil unrest, and ignorance on an inhumane scale.

Zach

Tom - "Crisis of Abundance" has a far more complete answer but here's my shot at the exec sum:
- It costs no more now in real dollars to pay for the 1975 gold standard in health care - what has increased is the amount of health care which can be consumed. This could be viewed as 'premium medicine.'
- Premium medicine could be characterized as various tests, procedures and/or treatment options which have non-linear cost/benefit; that is, the test/procedure may cost 10x more than a less precise version, but only improve the outcome by 2x or less. In other words, premium medicine is characterized by the tests and medications you reference above that provide non-linear improvements/$ spent.
- Present US system insulates the consumer from the costs. It's a long story, but most insurance comes through people's work, due to legal manipulations in the 1940s, and the incentive is to buy a pre-paid service plan vice what might be termed as 'insurance.' 'Insurance' is purchased to defend against improbable high costs; except in health care in which insurance has come to mean 'the system that pays when I see a doctor for anything.'
- Because consumers are insulated from costs, the mechanism that would encourage them to consume carefully is not working, so they choose premium medicine; there's no incentive not to stick it to the insurance company by getting all the 'care' you possibly can. Most folks don't even know what their insurance is costing them in terms of reduced payday compensation which instead goes to an insurance company to buy them the most expensive policy available.
- Because the market for insurance has been built around selling a coverage to an employer due to previous US Govt interventions, the market for personal insurance not purchased through an employer is not well developed at all. "What if" we could shop for health care coverage like we buy homeowners policies or auto insurance? What if we had the variety of choices a fully developed personal health insurance market would bring? What if the geniuses at insurance companies were all working to bring us the most desirable spectrum of personal policy options at a lower cost than their competitor? Costs would be lower, market signals for costs would be more effective, and one wouldn't be stuck in the miserable position of having to stay in a workplace to keep one's insurance. Insurance would belong to the person and would in no way inhibit moving from job to job to take advantage of opportunities. Small business owners would have the same options for cost effective policies as guys/gals working for Boeing.
- There are some issues that are too thorny to delve into today – uninsurable people, the predictably high costs of end of life care that are exclusive of the present insurance models, etc. These cases are covered nicely in “Crisis of Abundance.”
Other considerations:
- It’s not valid to equate US spending on health care with other, more publicly financed ‘spending’ on health care. Insurance companies take premiums based on what they expect the outlays to be; this is a radically simplified model, but if I think it’ll cost $100 over the next year to pay for your health care, I charge you $100 and invest the money, paying out as I go forward but in the mean time earning profits on the premiums I’ve invested. In this way, insurance is paying to keep the money supply up and grow the economy. You don’t get that from a government that takes the money and distributes with the inefficiency that govt is known for; you get what economists call ‘dead weight loss.’
- It’s not valid to compare higher US costs to other systems which simply do not offer the choices that Americans have. The fact that not all Americans have the same choices is not a virtue, but elimination of choices for some doesn’t make it any better for those that won’t have them anyway.
- If the US, which pays more for insurance because it can because with our relatively high property rights and rule of law we have the most productive economy in the world, no longer pays more into the health care system, what’s going to happen? Will investors still be able to invest with confidence in new medicines and technology? If the govt steps in to stop all that spending, it will tend to pull the plug on development of new treatment options, just as FDA intervention does already. There’s simply no question the FDA is killing people due to the prohibitive costs it introduces in treatment development. Preventing additional govt intervention, and removing existing govt interventions such as through the FDA will open the door to faster, better innovation. It will allow development of many treatment and insurance options that would not be cost effective today.
- One of the articles you referenced harped on the cost/benefit equation of the US model. In my view, it’s a lousy comparison. Governments have few tools for reducing costs, the main tool is by rationing care. Reference the article Joey posted by Dr. Williams on delays in cancer treatments. If they can save money by rationing care – is that really a good outcome? You get people who can’t get cancer treatment and die young from cancer, instead of living a full life and consuming fully 25% of their health care costs 25 years later; they saved the system a ton of money by dying young but is that what we really want?
- Look at the incentives – under socialized medicine, people who die young essentially do everyone else a favor by reducing the burden they place on the health care system. It’ll be the same with my military pension, by the way, which I’m not the least bit happy about. Far better if they would just buy me out so there would be no obligation or burden on those I’ve defended to spend their life energy keeping me going the next 50 years, it would all be on me as it should be. System that ingrain perverse incentives have negative unintended consequences.
- The socialized systems are essentially a wealth transfer program at gunpoint (think I’m being over dramatic? Try not paying your taxes) from the young to the old. Older people consume social security, health care and so forth at a vastly higher rate than the young. These systems can only work if there are more workers than old folks; they require an expanding population base. They literally pit the needs of the old against the needs of the young, and make government a tool of robbing from the young to give to the old. If you have socialized medicine, you need all your old folks to die off because they are too damned expensive. Buying into a system like this, in theory, seems foolish, and if you look, you can see the lousy outcomes in the countries that are living with the results, most particularly the French. This is a model which uses the coercive power of the govt to take money from one population and give it to another population, it’s generational warfare, it’s morally reprehensible.
- Lastly, the US already has a govt run health care system for the old and its is insolvent. How can we possibly pay for more? Spending on the US’s present govt run system is going to dwarf all other forms of federal spending combined. It’s not sustainable. By contrast, the option to remove current federal interventions that skew incentives, suppress free market solutions, and generally muck up the whole health care economy is largely unexplored, untried and waiting for folks who are smart and brave to go for it.

I can see some great opportunities offered by more freedom, less govt, and there are many who just beg for more govt oppression. It’s pretty disheartening.

I hope that’s enough to give you a taste of what I’m talking about. If you can read “Crisis of Abundance” I’d be interested in your analysis, you obviously have more specific expertise than I do as a health care professional. I’ll grant that much of it won’t be applicable to your country’s system as I don’t think there’s anyway to put the genie back in the bottle.

Best regards Tom, Paul

Zach,

These countries - "Brazil, South Africa, Mexico" have not even established property rights or rule of law, which are the "price of entry" for a nation to thrive. Find a nation of wealth, yoou find property rights and rule of law. Find a place without same, you find relatively little wealth and predictably bad living conditions. Using these contries for comparsison is pretty weak.

Joey's right - if you grow a country's wealth, you give people a chance to fish vice a giving them a fish; that's why virtually everyone in our country is in the top 1% of wealth when compared to the rest of the world.

The subjugation to govt intervention you seem to crave is proven to slow the economy, and slow growth. That punishes the poor, but hurts the wealthy little. Seems like a non-desirable outcome to me.

The infrastructures you name - it's probable they would all be better were they privatized. Examples abound if you take the time to look.

It doesn't seem to me like you answered Joey's questions or countered his points as yet.

Paul

Zach, this comment makes no sense to me:

"If 'x' amount of $$s are needed for a person to subsist in our economy, and a given portion of the population can only earn X-#, then the rest of the society will face the burden of the shortfall in one of a number of ways: crime, wellfare, etc..."

How can a given portion of the population "ONLY" earn? They have free will.

That is the issue, getting them to EARN more, not GET more.

Roads, railways, communications networks.. are all meant to promote trade. Outside of toll-roads they are not methods of coercion by the government. The taxes might be, but not the roads, railways and networks.

With socialized health-care both the TAXES and the HEALTH-CARE will be used to coerce us. Frankly my life is more important than that to me, than to turn it over to politicians and bureaucrats.

how long before the government dictates c-sections vs natural child birth based on cost? Certain types of illnesses determined in the womb that will be dictated to abortion or services not rendered?

How long before BJJ, skateboarding, and othe risky sports are demed illegal do to possible injuries unless approved by the government?

This isn't about health-care. It is about Liberty. They will take it because they "know" better. Sounds to me like you would take mine as well, based on what you "know".

Public housing is slums...every time it is tried. Bad example.

Mexico, Brazil, South Africa have a Liberty deficit, not a public assistance deficit. The governments in those countries thive on coercion.

Again Zach, how would you feel if the government took control of your profession (rates, methods, protocols, clients)? Not much of a stretch if you ask me.

No thanks, I will opt out. Oops, that isn't an option is it?

When is someone going to start making the case for peace?

In my view, I am making the case for peace. Chamberlain, of course, is famous for making the case for war.

CCTJOEY,

By virtue of a number of factors; physical limitations, mental limitations, unforseeable actions on the free-market, etc... society will ALWAYS have a certain segment of the population that will not be able to subsist without assistance. Good luck trying to prove that there is a way around this. History simply does not agree with you... and, I sincerely wish you luck... seriously. If someone can figure out a humane method for insuring that everyone can "pull their own weight," then that person will have solved what is in my mind the most critical problem facing humanity.

The government can only dictate to you that which you allow it to. pursuing your argument about government intervention to its' logical outcome, I can easily state that the government dictates how, when, where, and how much you can trade, based on the distribution of infrastructure... for a very real example of this, research the economies of Alaska and Nevada.... there are other good examples, but both of these states offer stark examples of how infrastructure dictates the direction of the market.

As for this statement: "How long before BJJ, skateboarding, and othe risky sports are demed illegal do to possible injuries unless approved by the government?"
..how 'bout you show me an example of a country with socalized healthcare in which these things are illegal..

Interesting how you clamour for more liberties, yet you seem to have such a low opinion of our ability to manage ourselves... After all, we do possess a represntative government, which in general practice implies that the will of the people is what directs the actions of the government... minus of course our constitutional protections of minority and inaliable rights.

The government is not likely to "take control" of my profession or that of healthcare providers in the sense that you imply. Just like roads, communications, fire fighting, police, etc...the healthcare professions can still have plenty of motivation to improve services and the delivery thereof in a situation where the government has some intervention.

Zach

Paul,

Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico all share a particular common trait, for which I chose them carefully as examples. They all have well-established property rights and legal systems. Feel free to try to prove me wrong on this.

As for infrastructure likely being better'ed via privatization... Show me an example of a country with privatized infrastructure that does a better job than we do. The only example I can think of off the top of my head is Belize, and their infrastructure is highly unpredictable.

I CAN offer 12 years worth of insight from the telecom industry: State subsidization = better infrastructure for all, including the wealthy. In that industry, telcos and other communbications providers could never come up with enough capital to invest in infrastructure in countries that did not subsidize. As a result, those countries suffer a MASSIVE disadvantage in global trade, simply because their internal economies cannot react to information as quickly as others can.

Take the example of India: Their telecomm infrastructure was almost as rudimentary as strings and cans, until a few Western nations recognized the value of their increasingly educated population. So, the US and others helped to subsidize the buildout of their telecom infrastructure through trade agreements, tax incentives to American telcos, etc... now, Inda is a legitimate trading partner, and they are exporting technologies and services to us.

You state infatically that " if you grow a country's wealth, you give people a chance to fish vice a giving them a fish; that's why virtually everyone in our country is in the top 1% of wealth when compared to the rest of the world."

... this is not necesssarily the casem, and there are plenty of example with which to argue the first point. Saudi Arabia, Dubai, China, Communist Russia, etc... all examples of extremely (at one time or another) wealthy countries.

As for the second point, I could easily argue that government regulation of fair trading practices helps to mantain a higher standard of living for most, rather than just an extremely high standard of living for a few.

I'm a HUGE fan of capitalism. However, that doesn't make me so blind as to let capitalism run its' natural course. History is rife with examples of unfettered capitalism ending in consolidation fo wealth and fascism.

Zach

Zach,

I did not mention those that cannot survive without help. The slums are not filled with people who cannot, they are filled with people who do not and people who cannot related to them.

England, smoking and diet... look into it. Just started.

I don't have a low opinion of how we manage ourselves. I have a low opinion of how others elected and appointed manage manage us. Especially since that is not their job.
The point of inalienable rights is responsibility. To give up responsibility is to forfeit the rights you have.

I don't care what the government is likely to do. Historically it does encroach, however. I am concerned in what it can do.

Police, fire agencies, roads etc. are all government entities and the employees are not private professionals, thus there is no motivation to improve services through financial incentive. This reality is 180 degrees out from your statement. However, I agree these are necessary to provide order and commerce. Though they are not part of my very existance, nor do they hold the power of life legally.

My point is hypothetical with regards to your career. Yet, you seem to think it is all right for others' private practice to be controlled by the government.

I am just not ready to give up on the human spirit and subjegate it to the whims of a few who think they know best about something so personal. Especially, when I doubt they will subjegate themselves to the same lifestyle. just like Castro who imported Sopanish doctors for his rotten colon. The average Cuban does not have that right. The average Cuban would have died a slow painful death because of lack of liberty.

CCTJOEY,

We have a representative government; not a dictatorship. I have a lot of faith in our citizenships' ability to keep the goverment from running amuck.

Zach

Agreed, but every small step towards socialism we lose that ability.

Far left presidential candidate John Edwards does an interview. He is asked about different topics and whether they are rights or a privileges. Here is his response:

1-Health-care= A RIGHT

2-Living Wage = A RIGHT

3-Illegal Immigrant earning citizenship after 1 year of working in the US (illegally) = A tough one for Edwards ..he is UNSURE if this a RIGHT or PRIVILEDGE

4-Illegal Immigrant earning citizenship after 5 years of working in the US (illegally) = definitely a RIGHT

5-Owning a handgun = definitely a PRIVILEDGE

Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/v/aea8e3OzddM

love these guys

You know, generalized social welfare benefits were first rolled out under Bismarck, in order to make the relative lack of political freedom more palatable. Germans under Hitler who behaved got subsidized vacations, and did quite well economically during almost his entire reign.

We all want something for nothing--or at least a part of us does--and the more that part gets fed, the less the self respecting, responsible part wants to hear about personal probity and dignity.

From what I understand, when the Great Society first got underway, they had very few takers for the handouts, since nobody wanted to be considered a beggar. Now being a beggar is called being a victim, and is a socially privileged class.

It is no doubt the case that some things, like highways, won't get built without the government spearheading the way. At the same time, if you want to argue for the benefit of monopolized telecommunications, you have to remember your grandmother telling you she couldn't talk long because it was "long distance", and of course the price was banded geographically, so you could pay a dollar or more per minute. Now, it's free on many plans. That happened because of competition, not government largesse.

Even if the case can be made for centralized planning in some areas--and I think it can, with highways and warfighting being the paradigmatic examples--the fact of the matter is healthcare is categorically local. My cancer may differ from that of someone across town. The capabilities of one doctor vary relative to another. This all means that the only way to optimize the system is to allow local decisions based on local information, which is the principle benefit of the Hayekian Extended Order, itself the principle benefit of the relatively unrestricted free commerce in all spheres arising from clear legal protections.

The fact is, individual insurance is already available. For a time, I had to pick up enough of my own insurance bill that I just got my own insurance, with Humana. It had a $5,000 deductible, with 80% covered up to, I believe, $10,000, and 100% after that. That was fine for me. It was $150 month for a family of four. That's pretty affordable. I will add, that the way our medical system works, in my understanding, you can take as long as you want to pay a bill, provided you pay something every month. It's bad for the doctors, but very lenient towards those who can't pay.

I think Paul makes an obvious, and to my mind irrefutable point that, logically, if we can't afford our current obligations under our Medicare and Medicaid systems--the socialized medicine already in place--how can we possibly add to it? Why not, for example, create tax incentives for private enterprise solutions? Why not help insurance companies make more money, and pay more taxes at a lower rate?

The reason why, of course, is that most Democrats, even though the ones who make it to the Senate normally were born with silver spoons in their mouths, are fundamentally anti-capititalist. They are uncomfortable with private enterprise, and overly comfortable with government solutions, which, I think we can all agree, should work--do work in theory, if the theory omits empirical data--but don't actually work in practice without the sorts of massive expenditures--redistributions of wealth--that would radically change the nature of our government, society, and our capacity to defend ourselves.

I think in a nutshell the conservative answer to poverty is jobs, and jobs are the answer to healthcare. The question then becomes what most effectively creates jobs, and that obviously is the free market, relatively--but not entirely--unfettered by regulations.

"Why not, for example, create tax incentives for private enterprise solutions? Why not help insurance companies make more money, and pay more taxes at a lower rate?"

That's pretty funny... Barry just suggested a clear redistribution of wealth.

Tax incentives = more money in the bank = market advantage = state-supported commerce = socialism

Anyway, your reference to telecom is miguided in that the recent, relative lowering of rates has to do with a number of factors besides just competition... diversification of offerings (technology driven) is big factor.

Even more important is the fact that 99% (at least) of the network assets being used by carriers who are the products of deregulation are the result of subsuduzation... telecom deregulation simply allowed for more companies to take advantage of the existing assets... again, products of our taxes.

To rule out any hint of socialism or for that matter any hint of capitalism is just not intelligent. Just like good things come out of the powerlifting, gymnastic, endurance comunitues that we draw from for CrossFit programming; so do good ideas come from all points of the political compass.

Paul, I wanted to address one point of yours from a number of posts ago... the idea that the young are shouldering the burden of the elderly. While the argument makes a lot of sense, it is shortsighted in its' scope. The logical extension of that premise is that the young are not only shouldering the burden of the old but are also reaping the benefits of the work of the older generation.

Our infrastructure, economy, technology, hell our very freedom; all would not exist without the work of the previous generation.

There are a number of things I want to go over in that rather meaty post, but my 1-year-old is only awake for a few more minutes... tomorrow, then.

Zach

Zach,

Better said but still your rush to abondon your liberty, your trust of an observably poor system (how badly will our leaders have to run the current medicare/social security until you notice?) and your urge to turnover your liberty to the govt - amazing for a guy who's staked his claim on 'eating what you kill' as a small business owner. Are you also happy with the patriot act?

You think Mexico has property rights and rule of law? Wow. Perhaps that bears further examination of what the terms mean to you and/or me.

You missed Barry's point completely about the tax incentives vice socialism.

While your point about the gift of the last generation to the next is valid, it doesn't mean it's good for either generation for the last one to use the govt to take what it needs from the next one; defeats the purpose. The generosity of man varies conversely with the interference of the govt - that's why the US is the most generous nation on earth and was even more generous still before FDR's imposition of social security.

Take the last word if you like but better yet, enjoy the moments with the one year old, far far more important as I'm sure you know.

Paul

on travel

Zach,

It's funny how you view taxation as a given, and alterations in tax policy as "redistribution of wealth". How is taking less money so as to encourage institutional investement by private enterprise, which in turn generates jobs (Republican welfare) socialist? You betray your own biasses in that misunderstanding clearly.

With respect to telecom, what you say is very simply not factually accurate. I too did my time in telecom, as a data networking specialist at AT&T, and the simple fact is that all of the telecom players were building their own networks, and negotiating arrangements to buy and sell access with one another. The most problematic players were the LEC's, who retained relative local monopolies for a long time, since the "last mile" was very expensive.

Tax incentives are a reward for productivity and helping your fellow man and/or society. Not a gift. Giving back money earned in order for that entity to produce more and better is investment.

Wellfare is a gift. Normally a bad investment.

Telecoms. Regardless, it is private enterprise, largely freed of government regulation, that solved the problem of technology and access.

Man! I step away from the computer for half a day, and look what happens!

Briefly, CCTJOEY, I can see how the term "population health" can set a person's teeth on edge. It's jargon. It sets my teeth on edge when our IT people insist on talking about buying a "solution," when really they just mean a software program.

Essentially, "population health" measures really are stats about longevity, about how many years of disability free life people will have, about the incidence of various diseases, and the rates at which they go into crisis, about death rates etc. By applying a bunch of consistent benchmarks to a population, you get an idea of how healthy that population is.

And while my health is my business, it doesn't stop there. Large social trends, while on the one hand simply aggregates of individual people's choices, also have huge social impacts. In some regions of North America, upwards of 60% of adults are overweight or obese. The results of individual choices, every one.

The impact is spiralling rates of diabetes, of respiratory and circulatory disease, of heart disease. Spiralling rates of hip and knee replacement, of gastro-intestinal disease. And when people with such conditions then choose not to change their lifestyles, these diseases frequently spike into acute phases - stuffing our hospitals with people who are only there by their individual choice. And then they die years earlier than they might otherwise.

Yes, that's the business of each of those individuals, and I wouldn't want to live where governments force people to make different choices. But the impact of such abysmal population health?

Let's leave aside the human impact. Billions of dollars in direct costs from absenteeism, and lost industrial capacity. Billions more in direct costs from the lost industrial capacity from early deaths - removing people from the workforce very effectively.

And God only knows how many Billions in opportunity costs, as people with acute illnesses respond to medical stress by underperforming, by focusing on their diverticulitis rather than research and innovation, or growing their small businesses. We have no idea how many Bill Gates' or Warren Buffets' there might be, whose chronic disease overwhelmed their physical capacity to get a business underway.

Statistically, population health is a huge predictor of GNP increases, of education rates, and thus of a nation's international competitiveness.

So yeah, I'm big on maximising population health - not because I'm a closet Maoist, but because I think it's among the most efficient investments in strengthening our position in an increasingly competitive world.

Apolloswabbie ... I'll look up the book you reference. I agree with much of what you'd noted earlier as a quick and dirty summary. Where one goes with it ... may be a different question.

Thanks guys - this is good.

t.

Barry,

I was the Director of Global Accounts for a carrier who's only product (at the time) was a network in NYC that interconnected carriers... Our network, on any given day, caried between 65% and 70% of the world's long-distance traffic. Before that I worked for one of the original product of deregulation, a Compettitive Local Exchange Carrier, negotiating the same interconnect agreements. I can comfortably say that I have a pretty good handle on the overall network topology in the US.

The "Last Mile" that you speak of accounts for well over 90% of the physical and service-usable network in the US. Without it, there is no overall communications infrastructure. Sure, there were some pretty massive fiber, long-haul networks being built around the US in the 90's, but they dwarf in comparrison to the more than half a century's worth of local network build-outs that were undertaken by state-subsidized entities.

I, honestly, don't mean to brow-beat you on this point, but I really do have a good understanding of the "carrier" market in the US and in a number of other countries. I am definitely open to a well-informed, logical explanation of how I am wrong on this...

For an example of how tax incentives are akin to redistribution of wealth, go take a look at the history of New Jersey, specifically the Jersey Shore and towns across the river from NYC. Business-friendly zones with lower taxes have been established and removed, over the years, by the state government in various attempts to revamp the business environment there.... look at Newark and compare it to the shore areas of Jersey City or Hoboken... Newark was devastated, partly by the removal of tax incentives. All along the Jersey Shore, there are beautiful townships bordering what are essentially slums.... tax incentives in one town undermining the economy of the town next to it.

Tax incentives ARE rewards. I won't argue with you on that. However, that undeniably create an un-level playing field. Taking less money from all... on a completely unbiased and even basis would constitute a tax policy that does not involve redistribution of wealth. Taking less from a few is the exact opposite.

Perhaps we should discuss the definition of wealth. My definition of wealth includes a person or entity's ability to influence and compete in the market... their levarage on the market. If you wish, we could break it down into its' elements in order to clarify this discussion.

Riches: Quantity of currency

Leverage: Quantity of influence in the market

Competitveness: Ability to respond to the market

Freedom: Scope of a market entity's choices in responding to other market forces.

Tax incentives ARE a redistribution of leverage, competitivenes, and freedom.. all critical components of wealth that ultimately influence riches.

Of course, if your defiinition of wealth only includes "riches" then you are looking at economics through a pin-hole... frankly not seeing the whole picture.

Zach

If you want to argue how tax incintives are given out, that is a different story. Your point leads to corruption of distrobution, tied to politicians and businessmen. Greasy palms.

That is my fear exactly for the health-care system. I don't trust the government (politicians and beaurocrats) to do the right thing. There simply is no track record on which to justify.

However, I do trust money. Money between me and those I do business. If the government gets out of the way it costs less. That is why major projects are bid out to contractors. It is far cheaper. Then all I have to do is ask the government to be a good steward by inspecting the work and writing the check. The project is completed and we can judge the results.

However, if I needed a new driveway, I would not go down to the local government and get them to oversee the project.

With health-care, if you wanted to design a network that linked medical records or "beamed" body parts from one facility to the next or some other infrastructior then I can see my way into thinking that might be a good idea. The government influencing price controls of services and products, or dictating heirarchy of care is where I draw the line. The government should have no on going role where politicians have an ability to influence there own reelection or increased power directly tied to my living or dying.

How many doctors need several people on staff just to file the forms and track the government paperwork? All of them.

Hospitials that need teams of lawyers? All of them.

TomF, prosperity is directly linked to Liberty and the responsibility it demands. It is not our governments job to make us more productive. It is our governments job to let us be productive or not and reap what we sew.

How many people are unproductive in democratic socialist countries because they can be? France now has a 30 hour work week and staggeringly low productivity. High unemployment to boot. Yet many of the titty babies want more. They like the government milk. So the politicians fight over who is going to give the most. Disgusting.

Like the Soviet Engine failing under its own inefficiency, the current socialized health-care systems are collapsing world-wide as we speak. They just take a couple of decades for people to come to terms with the results and wake up.

The government is not there to provide for the people. It is there to ensure liberty for the people. Charity from the people is there as a backup.

"That is my fear exactly for the health-care system. I don't trust the government (politicians and beaurocrats) to do the right thing. There simply is no track record on which to justify.

However, I do trust money. Money between me and those I do business. If the government gets out of the way it costs less. That is why major projects are bid out to contractors. It is far cheaper. Then all I have to do is ask the government to be a good steward by inspecting the work and writing the check. The project is completed and we can judge the results."

Care to reconcile the two contradictory statements above? You don't trust politicions and beaurocrats to do the right thing, but you do trust them to oversee a project and write a check???

I'm also not sure that I opened a discussion on the distribution of tax incnetives.... perhaps before we move on to that, you could adress my definition of wealth and how I perceive tax incentives to be a redistribution of it.

Zach

Public or mixed public/private health care is not collapsing under the weight of bureaucracy - that's simply mistaken. Health care collapses - in public, in private, and in mixed systems - are occuring because of excess demand pressures - which outstrip supply.

The form those collapses take varies, but whether in public or private or mixed systems, it ends up meaning that somebody sick doesn't get ready access to the care they need, in the time they need it. Happens in your country, and in mine, through different mechanisms.

Focusing on population health shifts the debate from "supply side economics" to "demand side economics." It's less about increasing the number of hospital beds, and more about promoting better health so fewer people need to lie down in them.

The incremental benefits of initiatives that keep populations healthier are far reaching, in personal terms, in economic terms, and ultimately in terms of national global competitiveness.

How many sick days have *you* taken recently? How has that affected your productivity, your quality of life, your capacity to perform in your job, or at home? How does that compare with the 60% of North Americans who are obese or overweight? What would happen to North American productivity levels if even half of those folks were significantly healthier?

How is it not an issue of national concern to promote more of the one, and less of the other?

CCTJOEY,

"How many doctors need several people on staff just to file the forms and track the government paperwork? All of them."

No. In my province, NONE of them. We've a $2.1B health care system in New Brunswick, and the doctors' offices have SMALLER administrative staff than in the US system. Because they do not deal with billing etc. for multiple private insurers, accounts receivable, etc. etc. The receptionist simply sends an electronic code to the Health department after an office visit, and a payment goes into the Doctor's bank account.

End of story.

Well, not *quite* end of story. We don't have a national drug plan in Canada, and drug subsidies in the Provinces vary. Here in New Brunswick, only 14% of people get government subsidized drugs ... most of the population is covered by private drug insurers.

Doctors' office staff spend an inordinate amount of time doing paperwork for these private drug insurance firms, justifying this or that prescription. Ordering additional tests to support the treatment protocol they prescribed. This adds much more time, and much more cost to the system ... as happens in spades in the US' private insurance environment.

Zach, yup.

The above is an example of one project started and completed under public eyes normally through bond elections executed at the lowest possible level.

Not an on-going program that will gain a life of its own that will enlarge to feed itself. The limits of a project are defined. The limits of a program are only defined in the minimums, not the maximums. The maximums will be redefined by the beaurocracy. The goal of beauracracies becomes to protect the beaurcracy and keep it funded.

Look at localities that advertise for food stamps. Why? If less people are in need is that not a good thing? Not to the beaurocracy. It needs to protect itself and its funding. This happens to every government program and they fight off reducing or merging with the Federal and State Employees' Unions.

How do you get promoted in a beauracracy? Either wait for someone to die/retire or create more layers of beauracracy. Create a need for you to need 2 assistants and you just bought yourself a promotion. All at tax payer expense.

Care to reconcile how health-care will not suffer the same fate as all other goverment beaurcracies? Especially, with deluded cheerleaders who think that more government will help?

This whole issue is a power grab and the hapless are falling for it.

TomF, because it is not in our national charter to do so.

Yes, health-care systems are falling apart and it is due to increased demands and the inability for the governments to pay for them.

That is my point. Governments are inefficient. Thank you for helping my point.

"Focusing on population health shifts the debate from "supply side economics" to "demand side economics." It's less about increasing the number of hospital beds, and more about promoting better health so fewer people need to lie down in them."

Really? Where so, because all I hear is money as a limiting factor. In education, poverty, etc. That is a nice dream, but I have never seen it in practice. So that is where I will keep the debate. To do otherwise is to follow the bouncing ball which is what the power grab types want.

Zach, I replied..lets see if it makes it out of cyber-space.

TomF/Zach,
Great posts. Thank you.
I wonder how much health care solutions are hindered by industries, medical/pharma?, that stand to lose if the population becomes wiser and incorporates good lifestyle choices? It makes solving the problem a lot more complex, if not impossible. If this is happening, I would like the help of government to step in and prosecute the guilty, monitior the process, etc. Remember, sick people are big business.

CCTJOEY,

Health service demand's far outstripping supply throughout the industrialized world, including in the US. If only public delivery was under a crunch, I might agree that the cause is government inefficiency. As study after study by both partial and impartial sources agree on that, you have to conclude that whatever you feel about government inefficiency ... EVERYONE's having to cope with vastly inflated demand.

Obesity, heart disease, smoking, alcoholism - there are not health issues created by government mismanagement. The questions are what costs will look like both individually and in sum, and how to best cope with them.

Me? The sole "silver bullet" out there is diet and exercize. That's part of why I came to this website, eh?

Just a quick response to the Louisville question way back on the 12th: my cousin (Marine aviator just back from tour2 in iraq and moving in July to louisville) and I just finished the San Diego marathon. He's acquainted with Crossfit and I've been doing stew smith's stuff. We might be interested in pooling resources or setting up a crossfit gym here in louisville.
Peace,
H

Zach,

Leaving aside your attempt at an argument from authority, surely it is clear to you are arguing for government subsidization of private enterprise, just as I am, but for which you are castigating me?

None of the LEC's belong to the government. What you are saying is it is a good thing to either take money from taxpayers--in addition to their monthly telco fees--and give them to corporations outright, or, in what is smarter, leave the taxpayers alone, and take less money from the telco's, freeing them up to invest in the profit making venture of building infrastructure. And in point of fact, as an expert you are no doubt aware that many CLEC's did in many cases build their own local fiber loops, and that when they needed to use the incumbent LEC wiring, they were only permitted to do so as a result of the competition created by forced demonopolization, and that that created cheaper local as well as long distance.

I will add as well that you have failed entirely to address the obvious gap between controlled monopolies in telecom and socialized medicine. They are different fields, and you need to show how and where the analogy holds.

You have also avoided the obvious point that Paul makes that we can't afford what we have now, and can doubly not afford further entitlements. This is not a small, but a large issue. A central issue. The sort of thing responsible people focus on as pivotal. It's not what we want, it's what we can have sustainably.

Tax money does not belong to the government. It belongs to us, to be used responsibly, and to as little an extent as possible, by our appointed representatives. In socialized medicine, I earn an income, I give it to the government in taxes, and they give some of it back, when they want, how they want, in the form of medical care whose quality suffers as a result of disincenting excellence in any form. Surely it is obvious this represents a decrease, not an increase in freedom?

And with respect to the uninsured, surely it is obvious that the goal ought to be to eliminate poverty, and that the only systemically sustainable way of doing this is through job creation, and that our policies ought to focus on that for that reason? And that, for that reason, tax incentives given to businesses amount to sustainable systemic investment?

If your goal is a uniform standard of wealth, Cuba has achieved it. Denmark has, too, but also without spending really anything on winning the Cold War--or defense in any meaningful sense--and in a condition of cultural uniformity which masks the actual restraints placed on its' citizens, given that they accept them voluntarily. We are, in my view, a much more diverse nation, deserving of, and requiring much more freedom. For that reason as well, aside from obvious demographic differences, we will always be much more powerful than countries with less freedom. Our system works.

With respect to wealth, I know many entrepreneurs. Many of them have become wealthy. Why did they endure what it takes to become successful? The reward. Take the reward away, you take the incentive away. It's because the Soviets pretended to pay them that the workers pretended to work.

Wealth redistribution, in any form, is socialism. Taking less money from a corporation to free it to invest in targetted areas is not wealth redistribution. It is intelligent investment. States use tax incentives to attract job creating factory and other projects all the time. The jobs created decrease poverty, and increase the tax base, which raises all ships.

If you take money from someone who earned it, and give it to someone who didn't earn it, you have generated a systemically unsustainable process, which is why France has systemic unemployment. It's that simple. The economics, to me, are irrefutable.

hcavra,

I am setting up in gym just south of Louisville (5 miles) in Brooks, KY just off I-65.

900sqft (30x300 with two large overhead doors) first floor about 600sqft second floor.
Sits on an 1 1/4+ acres

It is for me, my family, and friends/co-workers but we are looking for others like minded to come and use it. We are also looking for a few trainers who would like to lead classes.

Open gym times for those who have shown they get the protocals.

I know Barry Cooper showed some interest as well.

If that works out we will apply for affiliation.

Pricing and legal stuff to be determined later, though as I have no overhead and am frequently TDY or deployed we are not looking to run as a full fledge business at this point.

We will to be running in mid August.

We are slated to have:
20ft rope
Squat stand or power cage
bands and chains
Incline/decline/flat bench
30 ft of pull-bar made with 1 1/4' pipe and bands
med balls
3 CF bars
bumper plates
power bar
squat box
large tire
dragging sled
kettlebells
rings
olympic lifting platform
reverse hyper machine (Louis Simmons)
GHD
steel plates up to 100lbs
jump ropes
400 meter running course
Again Faster Bar
plyo boxes
Concept 2 rower
rubber matting
agility patterns
treadmill
small Bose stereo
camcorder with small media station
white boards
wall ball targets
We will be installing a restroom and shower if there is interest.

IF you are interested give me a hollar.
I figure 6-12 open gym types with 1-3 trainers who would like to lead classes for money.

Again, I am building this for me, but what is the point of having things if you can't share with people you like.

If you are down with the Mil/LEO/Fire/Rescue scene, we maybe something you are interested in indefinately until you decide to do your own thing.

We are going to look at being more of a club than a business early on, with the money the gym brings in to upgrade/add equipment and pay bills.

Barry,

“in the form of medical care whose quality suffers as a result of disincenting excellence in any form. Surely it is obvious this represents a decrease, not an increase in freedom?”

Are you suggesting the current system fosters excellence? I hope not. The current system is driven by profit. Money. The American population has endured generations of advertising/advice from several different “health related fields” that has proven to be a health/fitness disaster. In the mean time, health practitioners have made trillions on the sick. Do you really think creating jobs will turn this all around and fix health care? Will the multi trillion dollar corporations that rely on disease simply fold up their tents and go away? We, as a people, need protection from morally challenged corporations that have very little interest in good health. These are extremely powerful entities that form and change policies/laws. Currently, there are Pharma groups introducing legislation that would make many common vitamins and minerals only available with a prescription. These same groups have purchased many large supplement companies. Do they stand to make a large profit? Is this excellence? Sorry, Barry. The world is not simple. Economics has a hard time factoring in ethics.

Barry,

"it is clear to you are arguing for government subsidization of private enterprise, just as I am, but for which you are castigating me?"

- Not castigating you, just finding it humorous that you are advocating redistribution of wealth out of one side of your mouth then railing against it out of the other.

"as an expert you are no doubt aware that many CLEC's did in many cases build their own local fiber loops, and that when they needed to use the incumbent LEC wiring, they were only permitted to do so as a result of the competition created by forced demonopolization, and that that created cheaper local as well as long distance."

- You're right; I am both an expert on the topic and aware of that. Local fiber loops, though, are not the same thing as facility wiring to and from houses, offices, etc.. CLEC penetration past centralized colocation or interconnect facilities falls somewhere below .000001%

Which, of course, further proves my point. Without the initial, state subsidization, the network that we currently have would never have gotten off the ground. The world is full of example of nations that came to the table late in the game and are paying the price.... nations ranging in wealth from France to Bolivia...

The point: Our marvelous communications network that gives us a massive leg up in the global economy, is the direct result of state redistribution of wealth...

Tax incentives and government ownership of businesses are merely two points along the same side of the spectrum... "differing in degree not kind," to quote someone we both respect.

I know you really enjoy claiming that any opinion other than yours is indiscernable, so I'll make the connection between the telecom industry and healthcare, again. Here goes; hold on to your seat:

A. Telecom = example of state subsidization gone right (until 1/2 as*ed deregulation)
B. Healthcare = another industry that I believe could be served well by state subsidization

And, here again for your benefit is my explanation of how tax incentives are redistribution of wealth:

Tax incentives = more money in the bank = market advantage = state-supported commerce = redistribution of wealth

Simple and concise. I hope you like it.

Zach

Other than for sex change operations, where exactly is it the wealthy go for critical surgeries? I've been thinking it was here. Please help me understand where excellence is in fact to be found.

And what drives other systems? Is it exclusively public interest?

Why is it most new drugs are developed here?

Do you really think most people don't know what they need to be doing to optimize their health? The basics are on here--and many other places--in such concision that I personally believe ignorance can only be willful.

Zach, it boils down to projects versus programs.

Projects are supposed to end. Programs don't and they only get larger, even when they don't have too.

Dave, Are you suggesting a government system would foster excellence?

Dave, Corporations don't introduce legislation or make laws that benefit them. Government does,through politicians, hence the need for less government intervention.

I don't legally have to buy a product I don't want, but due to coercion I do have to follow laws. It is best to keep government out of the industry and our pockets as much as possible theat way "Big PharaCorp" can't use the government to manipulate us. For that matter the bought and payed for politicians can't effect us either.

Neither can be trusted, both can be bought, but only one has police power.

It's been a while since I have had the time or facilities to check back into a Crossfit rest day discussion, but I'm glad to see it's business as usual...

Apollo, Barry & CCT - you are getting your butts handed to you on this healthcare thing by Zach and TomF.

If I get it right, for an 'average' person, one group of guys (the US system) offers me healthcare for $6000 a year; the other group (the cheese eating surrender monkeys, lets say) says they can do the same job (or better, actually in terms of outcomes) for $3000. In one case I pay to an insurance company, in the other I pay to the government. Me, I think I would rather pay the government for the better outcome and save my 'insurance' tariff for a new home gym every year.

Putting aside all the arguments about government inefficiency, individual liberty and whether Denmark have paid to end the Cold War, the only conclusion that can be reached (by me, anyway) is that the US system could do better; much better. Twice as well, in fact. That's quite a lot.

Having had exposure to health systems in 3 'socialist' models as well as in the US, my own experience (simplistic) is that the additional cost is going to 3 places: Doctors fees (lots of that to over servicing and liability insurance - great litigation system the US has going); drug costs; and admin ( I think the US system has a 25% overhead (on $6k per head) versus something like 15% (on $3k) for the 'socialists', how's that for government efficiency?).

It doesn't matter whether the bureaucracy running health is the government or the Pharma-Insurance complex - Healthcare is a huge industry that will always be subject to bureaucracy, whether private or public, and they are all 'inefficient'. You can't argue that government is by it's nature always the least efficient system - in health care the numbers seem to show it isn't, and that's what needs to be addressed.

Borat, the questions you have to ask is why does it cost less, what are the services, and what is the wait?

Regardless what you would like to believe, Canadians who can afford it come to America to get health care if they need it done anytime soon. Happens all the time. England just released a internal critique about how services are taking longer and longer to render, plus how some are being turned away based on behavior issues.

All of them are running up a higher percentage of budget than was planned. All of them are losing doctors.

Believe what you want, but the chickens have come home to roost on this one. The numbers you cite do not tell the story.

Wait times>>

London's Observer (3/3/02) carried a story saying that an "unpublished report shows some patients are now having to wait more than eight months for treatment, during which time many of their cancers become incurable." Another story said, "According to a World Health Organisation report to be published later this year, around 10,000 British people die unnecessarily from cancer each year -- three times as many as are killed on our roads."

The Observer (12/16/01) also reported, "A recent academic study showed National Health Service delays in bowel cancer treatment were so great that, in one in five cases, cancer which was curable at the time of diagnosis had become incurable by the time of treatment."

The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute has a yearly publication titled, "Waiting Your Turn." Its 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatments, from a person's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest waiting time was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).

Canadians face significant waiting times for various diagnostics such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound scans. The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.3 weeks, but in Prince Edward Island, it's 9 weeks. A Canadian's median wait for an MRI was 10.3 weeks, but in Newfoundland, patients waited 28 weeks. Finally, the median wait for an ultrasound was 3.8 weeks across Canada, but in Manitoba and Prince Edward Island it was 8 weeks.

Doctor shortage>>
According to a Canada News article, "Shortage of Doctors and Nurses Could Hurt Medicare Reforms" (3/5/03), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s.

Crime to seek or render non-government care>>
Despite the long waiting times Canadians suffer, sometimes resulting in death, under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this prohibition, a few black-market clinics service patients who are willing to break the law to get treatment. In British Columbia, for example, Bill 82 provides that a physician can be fined up to $20,000 for accepting fees for surgery.

all from the article I posted above

Paul:

Until the other side looks deeper into the WHY of the costs, no matter how they are measured, and the WHY of government's causative effect on those costs, you will continue to be beaten senseless by the billboard numbers. Until Zach, TomF., Borat, et al. read more deeply and look behind the numbers ("Crisis of Abundance", "Redefining Healthcare", "The Tort Tax" among others) the folly of simply comparing statistics such as $ per capita will not be evident.Why is the per capita expenditure in the US higher? What is it about the American healthcare market that is different form Canada, Great Britain, Singapore, France, Sweden? What are the health variables in the US underlying differences in measured health outcomes such as life expectancy (and what is the true magnitude of those differences if one controls for local anomalies like murder and automobile deaths in men under 30)?

Now, in truth, readers of this type of cold, hard, economic analysis may come up with different conclusions than you, CCT, et al. And yet I'd like to hear from them after...

So what say ye, Coach? This topic has legs. How about "The Tort Tax" from the WSJ or another more to your liking to engage the whole gang. I"m working hard on preparing. A lazy weekend would fit.

Barry,

Rich people coming here for some health services = working health care system for the majority of the country. I disagree. Many “rich” people flee this country for logical cancer treatment in a variety of countries. The slash and burn methods practiced here are viewed as primitive. That’s just one example.

"in such concision that I personally believe ignorance can only be willful."

So we are a country filled with suicidal individuals? Or, as a nation, we have been encouraged to trust and listen to the advice of “health professionals” and their products. This includes food and drugs. This campaign and it was/is a campaign, has gone on for generations. Individuals bought into this American lifestyle and they trusted the advice given them. It was/is a lifestyle of consumption. It drives our economy. Unfortunately, it also creates fat, sick citizens who miss work, die young or burden the health care system. Disease was seen as normal, part of the aging process or it was a mystery. I believe this is still the opinion of many. “willful” “ignorance” perhaps some fall into this category, not all, not the majority. I believe we are paying the price for promoting a system that encouraged excellence in the form of money. It is a corrupt system that sold out the health of its people. I do believe we are in a time of change. The internet and sites like this are making the truth easier to find and making it harder to promote bad lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, it’s a bit late for millions of people.

Bingo #173
Did you know there are an estimated 896,000 lawyers in the U.S.
That more that the sum total of all the lawyers in the rest of the world.

I think that has something to do with the skyrocketing costs.

Dave, I am still lost as to why you think socialized health-care would be better. Most of what you cight and complain about was government induced. The government is just people. People serve tend to serve there own self interest. This will not differ from free enterprise accept no one regulates the government and they have the power of police.

Food pyramid
FDA process
HMOs

All government ideas and policies.

CCTJoey,

I suppose in my perfect world, the health care system would primarily consist of “emergency” services. These services would be provided at a low cost. The emphasis on sustaining bad lifestyle choices would be separate and private. Pharma companies could not use our friendly, family, medical docs to sell their drugs. A new campaign or new lifestyle is actively promoted by the government. Alternative treatments like drug free chiropractic care, massage, etc are not controlled by the medical industry (not yet, but there are some organizations trying to). They are free to develop and help spread the wellness revolution. Pain meds would really take a hit. I think the government has the resources to help. Currently, the pharma giants spend billions on marketing. Marketing that is designed by professionals (psychologists, etc). They want people to use their drugs. Guess what? It works. Are the people that use the products stupid? Not in my opinion. They are products of a very sophisticated ad campaign that includes the use of trusted health professionals. So, I don’t believe the government should continue to help the drug agenda. I do believe the government should help neutralize the billions of dollars spent on promoting a bad lifestyle (drugs, symptom care, etc) by using it’s resources to promote good health choices. Is this even possible? Have the Pharma corps infiltrated our government so deeply this is but a dream? I don’t know

CCTJOEY,

You're absolutely right that in Canada, wait times for many procedures are longer than anyone would like, and that folks with money will sometimes go to the US (or less frequently, the UK or France) for diagnostics or procedures. And that wait times vary by province, reflecting our province-run rather than federally-run health systems.

Most countries deal with this by including both public and a private components to their systems. That's prohibited under the Canada Health Act, but a mixed public/private system been a real plus in France, Switzerland, New Zealand and Australia. All people get the services they need, the public system can contract with the private sector to pick up essential services when public capacity's overloaded, but the private sector is freed up to focus on what it most wants to do.

In most cases, what the private sector most wants to do is low complication and high volume surgeries (e.g. knee/hip, laser eye, hernia), with a notable but small niche doing ultra-high end tertiary and specialist care. That's where the most profit is.

Bingo, I'm happy to "read more deeply," and frankly have read more Fraser Institute stuff on health economics than you suspect. I just disagree with their analysis - they too have a bias, which they try to promote in their literature, eh?

This is my profession - I'm a health care analyst, and have just finished an environmental scan of the dominant international literature on health systems - what's working where, and why. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do have a pretty good grasp of the international field of practice.

"Me, I think I would rather pay the government for the better outcome and save my 'insurance' tariff for a new home gym every year."

In what respect does asserting a better outcome through government management--an assertion that flies in the weight of available evidence--constitute an argument? And if I'm reading you correctly, you seem to think either that the government can manage healthcare cheaper--which flies directly in the face of all available economic knowledge--or that somehow the money the government has comes from somewhere other than your pocket in the form of taxes.

I keep seeing this implicit understanding that the Government exists out there, and has its' own income sources. That when it offers tax breaks, it is somehow giving something, rather than taking less. This is a basic error of liberals.

Wealth is created by people who want wealth. You can't create wealth without circulating money and investment. That money and investment is the source of generalized economic well-being, and the precondition for the on-going creation of wealth by succeeding generations.

Doctors become doctors to help people, but they study too long and hard to not want to make a very healthy income when they get out, and they deserve it. Market forces have created the Physician's Assistant, who studies less, and makes less, but for full blown physicians, we need to understand that if we want to attract good people, they need to expect good incomes. And yes, you can regulate down their incomes "in the public interest", for a period of time. However, in a dynamic, reactive system, this will inevitably reduce the pool of qualified individuals willing to brave both that course of study, and the income and behavioral restraints awaiting them when they are done.

Borat, if you think we're getting our butts handed to us, you're reading a different debate. I will add, none of the wannabe socialists has yet told us how spending more money when we can't afford what we have now is going to sustainable. Paul has raised that point several times, as have I. You don't get to argue based upon what ought to be the case. This side of the ground you only get to work with what is.

Dave,

You state: "Many “rich” people flee this country for logical cancer treatment in a variety of countries. The slash and burn methods practiced here are viewed as primitive. That’s just one example."

This isn't an example. This is an assertion. As one example, it's common knowledge that the Mayo Clinic is one of the best cancer centers in the world. I just read Lance Armstrongs book. The world authority on testicular cancer is in Indianapolis, IN. Where, precisely, are these "logical" treatments being done? What does slash and burn mean, and who views them that way? This is cant, and doesn't rise to the level of coherence, much less accuracy.

If you don't know this, emergency care is already free. Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who comes to them, regardless of the ability to pay. So if you are bleeding, you will be treated, covered or not. This fact is quite often ignored.

I will add, that basic health information hasn't changed in 100, maybe a 1,000 years. Don't eat too much, don't work too much, get enough sleep, don't drink or smoke too much, get plenty of fresh air, drink water, eat your fruits and vegetables, get exercise, don't stress too much, go to church, take your cod liver oil.

Somehow people want to blame Big Pharma for obscuring these obvious facts. In my view, the actual fact is that people now assume that they can do whatever they want because some pill or treatment exists or will be invented that enables them to not have to make intelligent or difficult decisions. This is not the fault of Big Pharma. They are perhaps taking advantage of our nations' moral weakness, but not its' ignorance, and the treatments they create do in fact cure or alleviate real problems, even if those problems are themselves often created by long term patterns of poor decisions.

Barry,

"In what respect does asserting a better outcome through government management--an assertion that flies in the weight of available evidence--constitute an argument? And if I'm reading you correctly, you seem to think either that the government can manage healthcare cheaper--which flies directly in the face of all available economic knowledge--or that somehow the money the government has comes from somewhere other than your pocket in the form of taxes."

- enough with the platitudes.. show us the evidence. Here's some: Medicare has about 20% more efficient administrative costs than any insurance company in the US.

"I keep seeing this implicit understanding that the Government exists out there, and has its' own income sources. That when it offers tax breaks, it is somehow giving something, rather than taking less. This is a basic error of liberals."

- Again, enough with the platitudes. Explain to me how my equating of tax incentives with redistribution of wealth (in post #166) is incorrect. Just saying it is incorrect is not a legitimate argument.

"I will add, none of the wannabe socialists has yet told us how spending more money when we can't afford what we have now is going to sustainable. Paul has raised that point several times, as have I. You don't get to argue based upon what ought to be the case. This side of the ground you only get to work with what is."

- It's simple, Barry, moderate the cost structure of our insurance industry through tax-based subsidization and government management.... or, centralize the management of healthcare by expanding the Medicare agency (again, an agency with a tremendous track-record of efficiency). Either would moderate or eliminate the outrageously high amount of money that is spent with insurance agencies and re-direct a portion of it in the way of tax dollars.

The upside = everyone gets healthcare, and on average everyone pays considerably less.

"If you don't know this, emergency care is already free. Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who comes to them, regardless of the ability to pay. So if you are bleeding, you will be treated, covered or not. This fact is quite often ignored."

- Check your facts. You are 100% wrong in your first assertion. The second part is true, but the first is way off base. Call your local hospital, and ask them if emergency care is free.

Hospitals are required by law to triage emergency or critical care patients. However, that does not make the care free.

Do you know what the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy is in the US? Medical bills.

I have a successful small business, and I can't afford health care for myself and my family. Anecdotaly (through meetings with other small business owners) and statistically (physicians for a national healthcare plan) small business owners and employees are almost never able to afford health insurance.

Considering that small businesses account for over 80% of our economy and a similarly high portion of the workforce, I would call healthcare a crisis.

Clinging to the notion that our healthcare system is better than others just seems foolish to me. When you consider the dramatically higher cost that we pay per-capita, against the actual number of uninsured... then add the cost of bankruptcies associated with medical bills... it is a clearly broken system.

I'll post this challenge; a logic problem that is demonstrative of the skewed analysis process on this and other issues:

I will present a series of 3 numbers, and your job is to determine the mathmatical rule that generated the 3 numbers.

For instance: 3, 6, 9. The rule that generated these numbers is, "Add 3 to the last number"
In your efforts to solve the problem, you can present me with other sequences of numbers (as many as you wish), and I will give you a simple "yes" or "no" in relation to whether or not they were generated by the same rule.

Again, using the above example, here are some potential queries you could have made, and my response:
4, 7, 10 - Yes
1, 2, 3 - No
12, 15, 18 - Yes

You can present an unlimited amount of queries, then present me with what you believe the initial rule to be, when you are confident in your answer.

Please try to include multiple queries in a post, so that I dont' have to do a ton of digging... assuming anyone gives a crap.

So, here is the sequence:
2, 4, 6

BTW - If you've seen this before. Don't spoil it.

Zach

Zach,

I honestly don't know how to debate you, since you ignore half of what I say, and seemingly misunderstand the other half.

Here, look at this link: http://www.humana-one.com/default.asp?kc=1005019688&cm_mmc_o=ZAFzEzCjC1bELlCjCZAFzEzCjCZBFw5zTw

Humana is one of my customers, and their progressive thinking--progressive, in a business sense--has led to an explosion of business for them, coupled with an astounding rate of hiring, and job creation.

I note California is not listed. You and I can guess why, but my guess it that it's because California is only progressive in things that don't matter. Put in Kentucky, where as we all know there are only barefooted hicks. That have better healthcare options than Californians.

"Many “rich” people flee this country for logical cancer treatment in a variety of countries. The slash and burn methods practiced here are viewed as primitive. That’s just one example."

Sorry, Barry. I have experienced this, along with my mother. During her treatment we met many individuals who had given up on the American system/treatment. It sucks. Many of the alternative clinics in this country were shut down. Of course they were drug-free and focused on building up the immune system. I guess “they” considered them more dangerous then chemo or radiation. That’s a joke. I just have to laugh at all the big cancer research organizations that ask for millions of dollars year after year. God forbid they stop and blame generations of shitty food, bad advice and lies from morally bankrupt health professionals, napalm like chemo and radiation treatments, unclean water, environmental toxins and of course, drugs (the kind prescribed to us by a doctor), etc. They are going to find a cure. Sure. Not sure about Lance. I hope steroids didn’t play a role in his cancer. You never know.
I'll let Zach and Tomf take it from here. Great posts, guys.

Zach,
Medicare has 20% lower admin costs? Here is what you pay for.
From senatedotgov
It is estimated anywhere from 3 percent to 40 percent of Medicaid payments are lost to “fraud and abuse.” However, the actual amount is unknown because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has failed to properly track improper payments – a clear violation of federal law.

If we assume the best case scenario – that only 3 percent of Medicaid payments are fraudulent – then $10 billion is lost annually. That amount could have purchased 400 million flu shots, 100 million mammograms or 526 million hours of home health care for indigent patients. Instead, those dollars were lost to fraud because the government has failed to provide proper oversight. Agencies at the state and federal level have passed the blame back and forth for too long. It’s time clear lines of accountability were established to prevent Medicaid fraud.

Zach wrote, I have a successful small business, and I can't afford health care for myself and my family. Anecdotaly (through meetings with other small business owners) and statistically (physicians for a national healthcare plan) small business owners and employees are almost never able to afford health insurance.

I get it, you don't want to pay for it. You want a sweet deal, like $1000 a year gets you all you want. Will the wealthier people have to pay more, or does every citizen pay the same amount?

I get a sweet deal (not really), of course I have to get anthrax immunizations, fall out of airplanes, be away from my family 180+ a year (average), sleep on the ground a lot, occasionally enjoy the sounds of explosions, enjoy the taste of flys in my food, etc, but it is a way to ensure my family gets what it needs.

So clear now, you are not necessarily in favor of government health care, you just want to "pool" resources for your own self-interest. All this time I thought you were just an idealist. All these months, I believed you were in these discussions for ideological reasons.

No, you want others to pay your way. You want to live where you want, do what you want, and breed when you want, but you want others to cover down on the things that you don't want to think about. You have made choices and now don't want to undo those choices.

That is all you had to say brother. Pride is one of the seven sins. You could have just asked.

Is pan-handling beneath you? You don't think your neighbors would think anything less of you if you just knocked on their door with your hand out? You want to use government coercion to meet your responsibilities? Do you have your retirement thought of yet? I hear the government is working on doozy of a plan for that too.

Tell you what, do you have paypal at your site? I bet we can get some contributions for you.

BTW, you do have a nice website.

CCTJOEY,

Go scratch. There is no reason to stoop to such insults.

Zach

Bingo, thanks, well said, thanks for weighing in.

There's a certain amount of virtue in trying to learn how to communicate to 'the other side' but there's really no way to be authoritative about it, convincing anyone else when they are invested in what they believe rarely happens. I'm not easy to 're-convince' either, but “luckily for me, I'm right about everything.”

Occasionally, there's a window where the truth emerges for all to see. In the best of circumstances in an energetic exchange, a conversation will come to a point where one party can see their own assumptions, and where those assumption differ from the other party's assumptions, and both gain the benefit of the other party's knowledge. This happens rarely but is the most productive form of dialogue I know.

The excellent part of that type of conversation is when I think to myself, "Well, if I agreed with that person's underlying assumptions, I would see things that way also."

This type of conversation generally only happens between old friends, in the real world I've rarely seen dialogue (as in Senge et al's definition of dialogue, "the meaning passes through") emerge. Takes too much time and a willingness to be vulnerable and see the other side’s point of view.

Bingo, I 2nd your motion - Coach, how about a series of discussions on how to talk about health care issues, bring in some additional aspects of ground truth. This topic is huge - witness the above pages full of persons talking past each other - it will take a huge effort to reach common understandings of the issues.

To me, the extension of leftism/statism/socialism through the coercive power of government is a horror. The basic concept - that it is OK to use the coercive power of government to take money from ostensibly free people so politicians can spend that money to get elected - seems not to trouble others.

The purpose of govt is to defend the rights of individuals; socialization of health care goes directly against that goal. The justification is a "ends justify the means" argument. I could accept that if, first, I thought the ends were better, and two, the alternatives through freedom had been tried and failed. Few people are willing to look at the freedom based alternatives. Plato’s cave analogy is applicable.
It’s telling that of all the advocates, only one said “I’m curious about how we might solve all these problems without more govt intervention.” It’s puzzling that in the land of the free, curiosity about the power of freedom to solve more problems is limited. Perhaps it is related to the relative ignorance of how present govt interventions are limiting free market solutions right now – for example, folks leave the US to try cancer treatments not available in the US because the FDA prohibits use of these drugs in the US to ‘protect us.’ It’s a challenge not to be sarcastic about a federal agency that protects us from possible cures when we are months from death and have nothing to lose, literally.
There's virtue in trying to learn how to communicate a passion for freedom, and for the better outcomes it generates when tried. I want to get better at it, and this board is somewhat useful in that regard.
That said, I'm also still waiting for the very well informed, concise and articulate TomF, Zach or anyone to answer up to the foundational issues which they ignored regarding the patently unsustainable state of existing US (and Canadian, as I understand it) social programs, which makes the prospect of additional government commitments to 'health' seem farcical.

Barry/#179 - yes.

Paul

CCT?

Like many, I'm grateful for the dedication of the folks in national armed forces - of your country, and mine.

Personally, I prefer the model where a nation's security relies primarily on a national military, paid by tax dollars, rather than relying primarily on private sector contractors. While there are legitimate roles for the private sector, national security is a very important function. I'm happier removing as much of the profit motive from it as possible, even knowing that crooked bureaucrats will occasionally buy $800 toilet seats.

There's a legitimate argument that the health of the population is as important as their military security. Thinking that is so doesn't make someone unpatriotic, or a creeping communist, or stupid.

Perhaps that is a low blow. Does it change the motivation? Do you see now how those that just barely get by, don't feel the urge to run out and pay for those that appear to be able to do it on their own?

Call it what it is. Charity. Unfortunatly it is charity that comes with the threat of imprisonment.

Dave, I appreatiate what I get from the tax-payers, but this is a two-way street. I give alot as well.

Zach, I am sorry that might have stung. It is a reality of the world we live in. I admire that you are a successful small businessman. I like your site. That is why I don't understand your mindset. I get it from a college student.

I too have a 1 year old. When I paid $750 dollars a few months ago because my son had temp of 103 degrees. I paid the bill. It stung and I was insulted. We got children's tylenol and motrine out of the deal. The reason I had to pay so much is because others didn't pay at all. I handed them the debit card and kissed my son.

May business be good to you, I would not count on the government to be.

Zach, I am sorry that might have stung. It is a reality of the world we live in. I admire that you are a successful small businessman. I like your site. That is why I don't understand your mindset. I get it from a college student.

I too have a 1 year old. When I paid $750 dollars a few months ago because my son had temp of 103 degrees. I paid the bill. It stung and I was insulted. We got children's tylenol and motrine out of the deal. The reason I had to pay so much is because others didn't pay at all. I handed them the debit card and kissed my son.

May business be good to you, I would not count on the government to be.

Dave/#182,

Don't forget that the reason that doctors have the strangle hold you describe on the health industry is that they obtained that monopoly status from the same govt to which you want to turn over more control of our health care.

Likewise, in your objections to the profit motive and 'corruption' in corporations - and this is not a point I will even try to defend in a board like this, accept it or reject, I don't care - corporations only have power if they provide a product consumers will pay for or if they can hijack the coercive power of govt to skew market forces. If you fear the power of corporations, all you need to do is limit govt power such that corporate power cannot extend to influence within the govt. conversely, the more power extant in the govt, the more of that power corporations can/will hijack.

Corporate power is only coercive when applied through govt influence. Govt power, on the other hand, is always coercive; if you don't pay your taxes (or comply with other aspects of govt directed behavior), guys with guns come to your house.

Of the two, by limiting govt power you can limit corporate power. Given rule of law, corporate power is never greater than a corporation's ability to bring a product to market that is more desirable than any competitor.

Are you willing to accept there is a foundational difference in power between these two institutions?

Paul

My 15 month old son had a fever of 103 degrees several months back. We were not under military health coverage at the time. We paid $750 for an emergency room visit. He got children's tylenol and motrine for my money. That stung too. It was insulting. I wish I could have told them to go scratch. I pulled out my debit card and kissed my son on the forehead. I paid that much becuase others' did not pony up when they needed to go to the emergency room. Big Pharma and Insurance were not at fault. My fellow citizens and non-citizens were.

TomF,

In reference to your comments regarding the economic impact, lost productivity, etc of a population's health care, obviously that's a significant concern.

What are your thoughts about why, if the US's health care system is ranked so poorly by the sources you cite, the US's productivity is the envy of the world? This may sound like a setup, not intended to be. Is there an explanation? For example, is your supposition that the US could be even more productive if its health care system weren't so 'poor?' Would you accept the counter-supposition that US productivity is prima facia evidence of errors in the present analyses which (wrongly) evaluate the US system?

Granted this topic is multi factorial, and likely not subject to this type of analysis.
I'll suggest another consideration when undertaking these sorts of relatively macro analyses, to wit, the impact of taxation on productivity and economic growth.

Hard to cover this concisely but - generally, when a dollar is removed from the economy through taxation, it is effectively parked. In some cases, these 'parked' dollars are a necessary function of govt, and in that sense they enable more growth. But in many cases, I think most, dollars taken out of the economy by the govt detract from economic activity (to clarify – I know this is not the Keynesian model, which I believe has been effectively refuted).

For comparison, when a dollar is paid to an insurance company, that company invests the money. The best insurance companies charge premiums equivalent to exactly what they calculate their payouts will be - then invest the 'float' and thereby earn profits. This is getting something from nothing, in a sense, as the insurance companies profit while enabling economic growth through their investment AND providing the benefits inherent in their products.

I'll take a moment to acknowledge that the US insurance system (for health care and other aspects) isn't perfect (take the current issues with home owners’ insurance for folks in FL, MS, and LA, for example, which seem to be beyond the capability of private insurance but are also costing taxpayers boatloads) and some govt intervention may be necessary, but obviously I'm pulling for removing present govt restrictions to allow the virtue of a more private system, with govt intervention in only the absolutely necessary cases, vice the massive govt intervention we in the US suffer from now.

In summary, I advocate for a system which would deal with the 'population health and productivity' issues you identified, with the economic benefits of private insurance vice a 'dead weight loss' govt insurance program, with all of its inherent political liabilities and financial ‘unsustainability’, as we discussed before.

Paul

I respectfully request that the moderator modify my above post that was in response to Zach.

After review, I see that I was out of line in being personal, then further took digs that were not necessary. Though, I am quite sure I would have said this in a face to face discussion, this board deserves better.

Zach, I apoplogize. I do not know you well enough to throw that sort of venom. I admire your dedication as a small bbusines man and you really have a nice outfit going on.

To the board, I apologize for letting my personal views on this topic allow me to fling that out there. It is unprofessional. I appreatiate the support this board gives the military. My hope is that you will not think less of those of us that choose to serve, due to my comments.

I feel strongly about Liberty, but I let my overzealousness take over. This was mean and inappropriate.

CCTJOEY,

Seriously... that's the coolest thing I've ever seen on this board.

You have my respect, big time.

Zach

Zach, unfortunately the damage is done.

Words never get to be taken back. I have acted rash and only given ammo to those who gripe about rest days. They would rather silence discussion than deal with hard words and serious discussion.

My hope is that my post can be edited by the moderator(s) so that no further damage is done.

Thank you for accepting my apology.

Joey

CCT: the anecdote game will get us nowhere - the plural of anecdote is not data: my 3 year old had to go to emergency for some stitches and we were left plenty more out of pocket than you for your son's fever - in Australia (in their socialised system) we would have waited less time and paid more than order of magnitude less, and so would you if you had been in a similar system; to me that's a more efficient system. You quote me wait times, I quote you mortality rates, and so we go on getting nowhere.

Apollo: In a socialised system the Government does not 'park' the money - it pays it to doctors for their time and to drug companies for drugs etc. the doctors buy consumables from companies that make investments from their profits and take investments from investors, the drug companies employ people who also spend into this cycle; the money circulates much as it does in a private system.

Barry: You state: "you seem to think either that the government can manage healthcare cheaper--which flies directly in the face of all available economic knowledge". I am looking forward to your available economic knowledge that will fly in my face - you have yet to produce more than verbiage; my hard economic knowledge is that most of the developed world runs a highly socialised health system at half the cost of the US system - that sounds like government + cheaper to me.

As for the statement "Wealth is created by people who want wealth", (on average) you are free to give your $6k to the Insurance company to spend on an infficient system and invest their profit on their own behalf, while I will happily hand my $3k to the government as tax and keep the $3k I thereby save for investing on my own account. We can argue in 20 years time about who has more personal wealth as a result of that deal, and I will have a better health outcome too (on average...). I guess I just want to create more wealth for me than you do for you.

Bingo: you may want to add "Who Killed HealthCare?" by Regina Herzlinger to your reccommended reading list. She advocates giving the power in healthcare to the consumer and increasing competition and transparecy in the sector.

In general: The health system, is a complex adaptive system - there's probably no best answer to how to fix it and all countries are struggling with costs and efficiency. No one has the final answer. The data shows that there are systems out there that are spending half as much as the US for better outcomes (despite the wait times, CCT). One conclusion one could draw would be to chant "Government is always bad", this is some sort of abberration we can cure by all reading Arnold Kling.

Another would be to say, "wow, what are these guys doing right, is it valid in the US and how can we adapt their better ideas to the US system?" Notice this does not in any way imply that Government is some sort of efficient machine; just maybe, maybe, some government participation could be slightly better than the alternatives on offer in the case of healthcare.

Neither Zach or TomF (who seems to be the only legitimate health expert in the discussion) appear to advocating handing all health care to government; nor do I. Zach wants costs down so he can afford insurance; TomF seems to favour some form of Social/private system as the more efficient health systems have. All I hear from Barry, Bingo, Apollo and CCT is 'Government is bad', over and over again. Please consider that there 'may' be (not necessarily 'are') some alternatives out there.

You know, Joey, for what it's worth, I believe I understand where you're coming from. I should say, though, that as mad as you likely got, that anger doesn't quite steam off the screen the way you think it does, after you calm down, and reread what you wrote. You reread that, and remember how mad you were, but even if you were yelling in your mind, it doesn't read that way.

It was no doubt unhelpful on several levels putting it the way you did, but I don't think you were wrong. Whenever someone says something's not "affordable" (I keep hearing moaning about gas prices--no doubt almost equally from those who complain about our "wars for oil", and just yesterday heard that milk prices are now objectionable), I wonder what price is fair, and who should decide. The bottom line, as you know, is that you can fix prices, but products then become scarce. You can guarantee incomes and job security, but jobs then become scarce. The extension of this pattern of thought relative to healthcare seems obvious enough. That's why people die of treatable cancer in countries with universal healthcare.

This issue is going to become a battleground, and at issue is not just health coverage, but in all likelihood the success of our current and future military endeavors, at least for the next four years.

Don't beat yourself up too much. Our problem with Zach is that he disagrees with us, and is a CrossFitter, which makes him just as stubborn as we are.

BTW, I should mention for the person who asked, I'll have an affiliate, based in a commercial gym, open soon. When you hit town, email me, and if you have five minutes I'll show you what I know.

CCT, I second Zach.

You say you can't take the words back, but you effectively did. I'm pretty sure most of the regulars on the board (and face it, it's pretty hard core at day 3 past rest day) get a wee bit overexcited from time to time (although yours was a classic) and there are not too many apologies. Good for you.

Borat

Borat,

To take your example of an Australian Emergency Room. You state it costs half as much. Is that for the visit, or does that include the tax burden imposed to cover that cost? Where are the statistics that wait times are half as much? Where are the statistics that $3,000 given to the government will yield $6,000 in current benefits? Please provide documentation. Everything I've seen said that as bad as we are supposed to be, if you're really sick, you want an American expert. Every scrap of data I've ever seen says that the government--in almost any arena--is less efficient than private enterprise. If you can show otherwise, I'll read whatever you provide.

I will agree that we have a couple of issues that need addressing.

1) illegal aliens use our Emergency Rooms for free medical care. This costs the system a lot of money, when we should just deport them.

2) Many of our costs relate to lawsuits, many of which are frivolous. Would all of you be fine with tort reform making it harder to sue your doctor, and thereby reducing their malpractive fees and perceived need to run otherwise unnecessary tests? This type of legislation is consistently opposed by liberals.

Since it is much easier to sue someone--a right which an logical outgrowth of our desire to avoid curbing personal freedoms--here than almost anywhere else, would all of you accept that as logically necessary, even if it leads in cases to injustice?

3) Would all of you be fine with pulling the plug on terminal illnesses in people older than, say 70? That's 25% of our total costs right there.

By the way, the plural of anecdote is in fact data. What do you think demographic analysis is? The opinion polls that our beloved Democrats love to quote? That's one of those seemingly clever phrases that actually isn't.

Good deal on the facility Barry. I assume it is the place we worked out at. That is a much better location for most Louisville residents than my place.

Mine is kinda rural, but it is home. I like the idea of being able to work on stuff when I want and turning the radio up. Also, not having to get up so early to drive to the gym, then work.

We will get some joint functions going. I have a nice little creek on the property that should make for a good "monster mash".

Anyone come up with a CrossFit Games with beer between each event yet? Kinda like a Hash Race.
I was thinking a Midnight Monster Mash with keg beer and glow sticks might be in order, though I doubt CrossFit HQ would support it officially.

SS Snatch test, rest 10min w/ 20oz beer, 5K run,rest 10 min w/ 20oz beer, Fran, rest 10 min w/ 20oz beer, CFT, 10 min rest w/20oz beer, max keg stand HSPU. All in the dark between midnight and 2AM.

Borat:

With respect, if you review my post today and on other days you will see that I have done little other than suggest a framework for the discussion. I have not made any comments that remotely resemble "government is bad", today or on other days. (In fact, I believe that there IS a role for government in healthcare, albeit one that is quite different from that which others propose.) One may infer, if you must, that my sympathies lie closer to Apolloswabbie than to other commenters, but that is all. I try very hard to "speak" within the lines, with no additional messages between the lines.

With regard to expertise and "health care experts" in the discussion, since you bring it up, I may qualify as something other than just a gym rat who happens to have a blogger's interest in healthcare economics. I am a practicing physician and have been such for 17 years and counting. I own 4 discrete healthcare companies, only one of which is my practice. I provide consulting services for large multinational pharmaceutical companies, other eye care professionals and practices, and information service companies in the areas of healthcare BUSINESS. I have no idea what an "environmental healthcare survey" is, but the majority of my (non-clinical) reading and research is in the field of healthcare economics, healthcare business, and business processes. As promised, I'll be prepared to contribute when Coach lobs this issue up. I'm likely to have lots to say...I love the sound of my own "voice".

I'm on my way to Borders on my way home to add "Who Killed Healthcare" to my reading material; if I'm going to ask you to read "Crisis of Abundance" it's the least I can do...

Joey: Huge.

You know, that might just be a competition where I could beat (outlast) most of the good CrossFitters. I looked into hashing a while back, and for some reason the closest is in Fort Campbell. I wonder why that would be?

Nice to be back, Barry.

1. It does not cost half as much in Australia; I said an order of magnitude, that's 10 times. Please read more carefully. I did not include all costs - nor did CCT in his story, because some of his tax goes to A&E too - but please read carefully, my comment was about the fact that anecdotes are not particularly useful in this discussion: they mangle data, even when they come from me and CCT. A collection of anecdotes - stories, first hand, or whatever, are not data. The vast collection of the 'stories' about global warming are just that - a collection of stories, not data.

2. I did not say half the wait time - I said 'waited less time'. This is based on that fact that in several visists to Australian A&E for various kids with various conditions I have never had to wait 6 hours to get 3 stitches done, which it did in the US - after having to see a doctor who refered me to The A&E; the similar kid stitch episode I had in Australia was fixed by the GP in half an hour. With refernce to the validity of my 'story' however, please refer to the above discussion about anecdotes - my story is an anecdote - so is CCT's together they are not data.

3. I never said that "$3,000 given to the government will yield $6,000 in current benefits". Please read more carefully. I said that I would rather give the government $3000 in tax than an insurance company $6000 if the result is a similar health outcome. The first option would leave me with $3000 cash in hand which I might use to invest in shares of productive US businesses, every year, to build my own wealth (good). The second option would see the insurance company investing on its own account. In the first case I would end up significantly more wealthy.

4. You are correct to say that "if you're really sick, you want an American expert", but should add "if you are rich. If you are not, out of luck.

5. You say "Every scrap of data I've ever seen says that the government--in almost any arena--is less efficient than private enterprise. If you can show otherwise, I'll read whatever you provide." I repeat, according to OECD figures, the government (almost everyone) appears to be able to run healthcare at half the cost of the private sector (US).

6. I agree that tort reform is a good idea - please note that I am neither a liberal nor a socialist, just keen to look at all the options rather than dismiss them out of hand.

7. Every country under private or government systems faces the issue of cost containment for an ageing population (although in the US since they die earlier on average, it's maybe less of a cost?). No one is solving it by pulling the plug on the 75+s. This is irrelevant to the argument about how to improve the US system.

8. Demographic analysis and opinion polls are aggregates of datum when they are correctly carried out, not not a collection of anecdotes ("do you think tax is a good thing" rather than "do you think your neighbor thinks tax is a good thing'). Please not the 'when correctly carried out'.

Bingo,

Since CCT started the trend - I apologize. I have now added you to my list of (now 2) legitimate healthcare experts in the discussion - any others feel free to speak up - I'm not one. I look forward to you in full 'voice' one of these days.

I did indeed infer your sympathies from your earlier post to ApolloS that opened with a comment about "the other side". I don't quite see it as a "side" issue: there is a tendency for people to see healthcare in manichaean terms as Government vs. private and I find myself with sympathy for both approaches. I'll take whatever works best at the lowest cost.

Crisis of Abundance is on my bookshelf - sadly only skimmed as we write.

Borat,

You're are missing the point about the 'parked' money and I don't know if you understand economics well enough to explain it. But if you want to know, ask and I'll try. If you don't want to know, there's no amount of explaining that will make it clear.

The reason we keep saying 'govt is bad' and citing examples of why we say that is because persons use the supposition that "govt can make things better" to attack the very institution of liberty and seem not to notice. If you were in our shoes, perceiving that liberty was under attack in that way, wouldn't you also keep yelling "govt is bad?"

Are you aware of the ways in which current govt interventions, designed to make things better, consistently make things worse, in both health care and many other efforts to cure what ails us?

I appreciate the book recommendation (Herzlinger) - also looking at Porter's examination of the topic.

Regarding alternatives - of course we realize there are others. My basis of objection is most of the alternatives that I am seeing proposed start with the use of the coercive power of govt. A simple way to see where I'm coming from is "We should try alternatives based on less govt/more liberty before we should try alternative based on more govt/less liberty."

You argue quite effectively in your belief that govt run programs provide a better outcome for less money - did you catch that Joey, Barry and I have articulated reasons why we believe those statistics are not compelling?

Are you aware that the single most significant lesson in economics of the last 100 years is that govts are an inferior way to organize economic transactions? If you are aware of that precept, do you accept it or reject it? This is the 'available economic knowledge' I think Barry was referring too.

I'm not saying that govt has no role in creating the best outcomes for all of us. Rather, I'm saying I believe the best outcomes for all will come if we undo the damage govt has caused in our present system, vice adding more govt fuel to the existing govt caused fire. Paul

Borat: Thanks. New book already in my hands. Read "Crisis" tonight in the hopes that Coach is on board tomorrow for Rest Day. 100 pages--easy read.

Apollo,

Please explain the parked money issue. I'm pretty sure I'm up to whatever you throw at me - alternatively if you could direct me to a paper or article that articulates it that would do.

I broadly agree that "the single most significant lesson in economics of the last 100 years is that govts are an inferior way to organize economic transactions?", but would tend to change the statement to read: "a significant lesson in economics of the last 100 years is that govts, in many cases, are an inferior way to organize economic transactions." I think that is more accurate (you may differ) and tends to stay away from taking an absolute position.

90% of the time I engage in a discussion like this (off Crossfit) I find myself taking a position closer to yours than to the one I am currently sympathising with; what I find intriguing about the current discussion is that I am seeing very few of the reasons that I would use to support your/my position in the discussion coming from CCT, Barry or you. Interesting.

Impressive, CCT and others. You do yourselves great service. Hope I do the same as generously when I lose my cool.

I've run out of time to talk more on this one - but once again, I'm impressed.

t.

Well, Coach isn't playng yet. More time to read and prepare. I'm in, next opportunity. I set aside some time this weekend to pre-compose some stuff. Even if it doesn't come up it's always useful to undergo the intellectual exercise of putting figurative pen to paper. I'm looking forward to both the research and thought as well as the discussion. Thanks in advance.

Borat - will do, but I regret I can't close the deal tonight. I'll send you the explanation directly at my earliest opportunity and would appreciate the courtesy of your "reasons that I would use to support your/my position." A great weekend to all, Paul

I’m not going to pretend to be a Health Care expert or economist. I do have some thoughts on the issue that need a little clarity. I made many comments about the Pharmactucal industry spending billions on marketing to help create a lifestyle that included their products. I think we can all agree, systematic, psychologically based advertising is very effective. McDonalds, Coke, Nabisco, etc have invested tons of money and many years to become part of the American lifestyle. The use of health professionals in the case of Pharma is especially powerful. They wanted to create customers for life. These lifetime customers pass on their products to the next generation and so on. I believe their campaigns were/are very successful. I also believe their success is reflected in the health of the majority of Americans. These ad campaigns continue. Most military folks are familiar with PSYOPS. It works. That’s why we continue to refine its techniques and use it on the battlefield and politics. You can manipulate individuals and make them do things they normally would not. I view the previously mentioned ad campaigns in the same light. If this is true, then why are we allowing this tactic to be used on our own population? Shouldn’t the first step to solving the Health Care crisis be an investigation on the effect these campaigns have on the health choices individuals make? Why do you think these industries continue to pour billions, if not trillions of dollars into ad campaigns that are continuously tweaked by social scientists, psychologists, etc? The result is consumption of their products. Individuals take a pill so they can “Eat the food you want”, never viewing their indigestion as a warning sign. Pepsi and Coke have gotten themselves into schools around the country. Their products have effectively replaced water for many children. The food being served at schools is processed and loaded with additives. Isn’t this the beginning of the Health Crisis? How is economics going to solve this problem?

"I said that I would rather give the government $3000 in tax than an insurance company $6000 if the result is a similar health outcome."

This is funny. I would rather own a Mercedes for $3,000 than for $50,000. Do you read your own posts?

You cite an anecdote from Australia, then condemn anecdotes. You quite obviously can't use that as evidence, by your own criteria.

More generally, if you hear a story 100 times, you can reasonably give it some credence.

Barry

Your Mercedes story/example should read "I (Barry) would rather give a car dealer $50k for a Mercedes than a different car dealer $3k for the same car (which Borat would do)" - you have it the wrong way round. Please read more carefully.

"You cite an anecdote from Australia, then condemn anecdotes. You quite obviously can't use that as evidence, by your own criteria." That's my point, congratulations, you finally have it!

"More generally, if you hear a story 100 times, you can reasonably give it some credence." I have heard basically the same story from you on rest days 100 times and I give it as much crededence as it requires.

Borat

Unfortunately the 3K vs 6K does not pan out. Taxes don't work that way.

Apolloswabbie,

Further to your request for my arguments supporting your position, here is my attempt. It's long, not thoroughly checked and rushed as weekends are not great for me; also, as of Tuesday I will be unable to properly enter the Crossfit rest day arena for some considerable time, so will no doubt miss the healthcare debate when and if it comes.

Some general points to start.

1. I am going to resile somewhat from my statement about the arguments 'your side' are using. I have re-read the entire thread carefully and between you and Bingo I think you hit many points I would make (you at #135, Bingo at #173 are examples)- somewhat differently, perhaps, but broadly the same. Having said that, in that particular argument on that particular rest day of Friday June 12, I do think TomF and Zach had the best of it (just my view on the day and on a reread) as opposed to you, Bingo, CCT and Barry (sorry to aggregate, but I'd say you were all coming from about the same direction) . They organised their points better, they produced more actual data and they came across as more reasonable and less ideologically motivated - on the day. If you re-read the thread I am sure you will disagree!

When I get into 'the argument' on your side, it's usually with a European who is arguing that their system needs further socialisation. As I go into below, in my view the argument on that particular rest day was actually different. On that basis my closing statement in my post #203 was ill-conceived.

2. I am going to assume that we can agree that data from bodies such as the OECD and various health authorities is accurate. Anecdotes are out - interesting, but not really useful here.

3. I'm trying to put aside any politics, prejudices, preconceived ideas and approach this from a pure economic, financial perspective looking at cost and efficiency outcomes. I must have failed because that is the human condition, but that is what I am trying to do.

As a preliminary, when you refer to 'parking' and tax, are you referring to the 'deadweight loss' effect of tax? I am inferring that from some statements you make, but if that's not correct, I still look forward to your explanation. However, if you are in fact referring to deadweight loss, then my understanding of it is that it arises when an economically beneficial transaction is stopped or not carried out due to the effect of an externality, tax or subsidy. For example, imposing additional labour taxes would cause some companies not to hire additional workers or to lay off some workers, and the economic value foregone or destroyed is the deadweight loss. The size of the loss depends on the elasticity of demand or supply of the economic transaction impacted (and intelligent and reasonable economists often can't agree what these elasticities are).

I can't see how deadweight loss really applies in the case of healthcare. In an economic sense and from a customer's point of view, it doesn't matter whether they are paying the government for healthcare or an insurer or paying directly - it's the amount that they have to pay that is important to them.

Another way to look at it would be to say that the cost of the medical care is a given once the structure of the health industry (regulation, hospitals, doctors, drugs, customers) is in place. How it is funded is a separate question. Like tax? Use the French or UK system. Don't like tax, go with the US system (mainly employers with tax breaks) or the Swiss, German or Dutch socialized systems (of competing regulated private insurers). There's probably some economic efficiency differences between the revenue systems, but not material, I would guess - they are all bureaucracies and all intrinsically inefficient.

I am happy to be proved wrong on this and perhaps Arnold Kling and Crisis of Abundance may help me on this, but that's still on my to-read list.

Originally I decided to enter the argument after reading comments stating that the socialised systems of healthcare were going bust - CCT's comment #122 has a good example: "And yes, socialized medicine is falling apart all over the world."

This strikes me as at best simplistic and at worst wrong. ALL health systems are currently going 'bust. They all suffer from the problems of ageing (expensive) populations, increasing technology costs and what an economist might call Baumol's Cost Disease (significant medical costs - doctors, nurses and other staff - tend to increase faster than inflation, whereas the cost of an established technology tends to go down over time, leading to labour intensive industries increasing costs very quickly). ALL medical systems are increasing their costs quickly and at about the same rate (OECD figures).

On the face of it, the facts suggest that: a). the current more socialised healthcare systems are cheaper to run than the current US system; and b). the current socialised healthcare systems have better outcomes than the current US system.

The problem that arises in that rest day argument is that both sides are actually arguing different things. Zach and TomF were arguing that the US system could improve if it were structured like a more socialised system, and that's probably right. You guys were arguing that the US system could improve if one introduced appropriate free market reforms to the US system, and that's also probably right. Since you are both right, you can carry on arguing past each other all day...

The reason why they have an easier deal of it is that they can point to working systems to prove their points. You guys can't because what you are talking about hasn't be tried and no real life examples exist. There are no major operating pure free market healthcare systems (that I know of - and probably nor can there be if you accept (I do) that there needs to be some sort of safety net at the bottom for legitimate claimants). You may well be right, and I agree you may well be right, but you just can't prove it and so win the argument, as I read it.

The US system is not working, and the US system is actually quite socialised (govt supports about 40% of costs, as opposed to around 70% for the more socialised systems). In addition the US system is badly structured with regard to pricing signals and incentives - as a result of history, but you have to live with what you have. You can't beat Zach and TomF by defending the US system; you can't beat them by using examples or data, because there are none. You can keep repeating that markets do things better, but without data in this area you can't really press that home too well. You need to reframe the argument.

Looking at the major points you need address, I see them as being health outcome, structure of the industry (which determines cost as well as outcomes) and paying for the health industry.

First, regarding the last point, how you pay for it. My view, as already indicated above, is that it's probably marginal. Tax vs. insurers vs. customers direct or some mix are broadly interchangeable. The issues you have regarding government coercion etc. are important, but I would say should be addressed through the basic structure of government - the Presidency, Constitution, Congress, courts, whatever (I'm sure we don't agree here), while I am inclined look at the healthcare system as a pure financial system - cost vs efficiency.

Second, the issue of outcomes. You guys can mitigate this by pointing out that outcomes depend on a lot more than healthcare quality (You or Bingo point to demography, lifestyle, and genetics), but note that the health outcomes the US lags on are broader than just life expectancy. You can also point to studies like the RAND cost sharing experiment (http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1114/ which gave a large population almost free healthcare and compared them to a similar population that had to pay significant costs - over 8 years the low cost group consumed up to 30-40% more in medical costs, but the actual health outcomes of the two groups (except for the already critically ill) were practically identical).

But after all the counter arguments, they have the better starting position and the advantage. I'm not sure how you reframe this.

[As an aside, on waiting times, I can make a stab at costing that wait. If you assume that the French system is, broadly, the UK system without the waiting times, then as of 2004 the cost of eliminating waiting from the UK system would have been US$651 per head by OECD figures (the difference in the per capita cost of the 2 systems - the French being higher, and please note this is not meant as a serious point).]

Third, on the subject of structure, while it's hard to argue that the US system should be put up as an effective system, all of the socialised systems, also struggling with costs, have recognised that they need to inject competition into their systems - they are not moving towards more socialisation, but away from it. That's the data you can use here: no one anywhere is trying to get better through more government participation; the Uk is one example, the Swiss redid heir system in the early 80's to move it towards a more competitive type system. Again, guys like RAND have done significant studies on the impact of things like better IT implementation. (I assume Crisis of Abundance is on top of this stuff, so no doubt you have an abundance of data.)

The best structure of the US system may be the argument to come one of these rest days. Briefly, since I won't be in it, I make no assumption that Government is always more inefficient compared to the private industry; it certainly has a tendency to be, but if you have ever analysed a large corporate financially & in detail you would be hard pressed to see a difference. Government has clear advantages when it comes to being able to put (appropriate) regulation in place, in acting as a referee and in generating certain major infrastructure. The private sector is better at maximising economic efficiency and at new technology, provided it is allowed to operate in an environment that is competitive with transparent and reliable price signals. Look at the parties to healthcare - government, hospitals, doctors, patients, drug & technology companies and see what each can best provide at the lowest cost and you have your answer - easy!

I don't know what the best system is and there is no perfect system, but thanks for the discussion.

Borat

Unfortunately, Borat, you did not address why we have so many sick individuals.

“The private sector is better at maximising economic efficiency and at new technology, provided it is allowed to operate in an environment that is competitive with transparent and reliable price signals.”

Our system is stuffed full of obese, diabetic, cancer, drug induced illness, etc. patients. I hope we can all agree here, this is not normal. The burden on our Health System is not only mismanagement; it’s too many sick people. Let’s start there. Why are many Americans making very poor health choices? Why? If we can solve this question, we have a chance of lowering the patient load and lessening the burden, considerably. I feel the answer to this question is more complex then simply identifying these folks as ignorant or willfully making poor choices. I would like to hear from Borat, Barry, etc. Please tell me why this issue is not present in your argument. How will economics address this problem? Does the private sector, that makes a profit from disease, have an interest in solving the Health Crisis?

Dave:

You ask very fair questions. Unfortunately, you are having a different conversation than the one that Apolloswabbie and borat are having. They are discussion Healthcare Economics, the structure of how we pay for the PROVISION of healthcare (doctors' visits, hospital stays, clinical tests such as MRI's, etc.). You are discussing population HEALTH, a worthy topic but one that is not being addressed. It is important and necessary to address the issues you bring up, and improving the health of the American population will, indeed, have a beneficial effect on the healthcare economic landscape, but some sort of reform in American Healthcare Economics is still necessary.

I'm willing to grant you the underlying premises in your argument (healthier Americans will utilize fewer services and expend less $$), and I'm willing to bet that Barry, Apollo, CCT, et al. are, too. Given that, can you offer some thoughts on reform for the system we use to pay for healthcare?

Borat: we will miss you. I hope your abscence is for pleasant reasons.

Bingo,
Thanks for the clarification. I needed it :) I’m not confident enough to suggest a specific health care payment reform. What I really want to know is, how can you come up with a reform without factoring in the influence some industries have on the health choices of the population? Should Pharma, Food, etc industries accept some of the responsibility, like tobacco, and contribute money to the Health Care system, if they continue to produce products that are harmful to public health? Again, they have spent enormous amounts of money, advertising and political contributions, in order to get their products consumed. Their success should not cost us money.

Borat,

You have repeatedly used $3,000 versus $6,000, without justifying it. If it's the case that in socialized medicine you are out of pocket, to the doctors, $3,000, versus $6,000 paid directly to insurers, that makes sense, but it ignores the higher tax rates paid around the world.

Obviously, medical care costs something, and the money has to come from somewhere. Doctors cost what they cost. Do they get paid less in more socialized systems? Yes, they likely do, and for that reason the rates of enrollment in medical school are likely lower, and the overall calibre lower as well. Is this more efficient? As I think Joey showed, there are many negatives that appear closely correllated with the sorts of predictions that one can make based on basic economic theory.

Are drugs less? Is this not because of price caps imposed by foreign governments, coupled with direct subsides--which of course are paid ultimately by taxpayers? Do the price caps not in effect force Americans to pay for new drugs?

Are administrative costs lower? Why would they be? In the private sector, you only make money if you are efficient, or a monopoly. Competition prevents market monopolization, so efficiency is a precondition of staying in business. What incentive do government agencies have to be efficient? History and common sense both show that they tend to grow as much as regulators will let them, not to improve efficiency, but to improve budgets.

You have documented nothing that I can see, and your arguments, even internally, make no sense. I have shown a company that allows a one-to-one relationship between insurer and insuree, that offers very low premiums, with a high deductible. The high deductible provides an incentive for the insured to remain healthy, and the flip side of this may be that the high caliber of the insurance most of us have enables poor health to be economically feasible.

Dave, you seem to keep wanting to blame someone or something other than simple human weakness and stupidity. I don't see it. Anybody that wants to be healthy can do it. However, if they don't want to, their insurers will underwrite the drugs Big Pharma makes, so that they can continue being weak and stupid.

Barry?

“You have repeatedly used $3,000 versus $6,000, without justifying it. If it's the case that in socialized medicine you are out of pocket, to the doctors, $3,000, versus $6,000 paid directly to insurers, that makes sense, but it ignores the higher tax rates paid around the world.”

No, we’re talking about *total actual per capita costs* paid for health care services. Common definition of health services, payments received through whatever mechanism (e.g. tax funded, or private insurance, or out-of-pocket). The argument is that you’re buying more services, typically paying a higher price for them also, and are still showing poorer health outcomes.

“Doctors cost what they cost. Do they get paid less in more socialized systems?"

Yes, they likely do, and for that reason the rates of enrollment in medical school are likely lower, and the overall calibre lower as well.”

Docs do get paid more in the US than Canada, but not more than some Docs elsewhere – e.g. Switzerland. Even in Canada, though, specialists routinely bill for $1M annually, and docs who’ve just completed their residencies can expect $200K in overall billings in their first year of practice. The quality of our docs is as high as anywhere in the world … which is why US HMOs recruit them … paying double the salary.

“Are drugs less? Is this not because of price caps imposed by foreign governments, coupled with direct subsides--which of course are paid ultimately by taxpayers?”

The most effective drug price controls harness market forces, allowing generics to enter the marketplace and compete. In addition, where drug subsidies do exist, the most effective are in places like Denmark, which mandates the use of generics where they exist, unless patients choose to pay the differential for a brand-name drug out of their own pocket.

“Are administrative costs lower? Why would they be?”

Administrative costs are lower in systems where there’s a single payer – public health insurance. Adding additional payers (private insurers, individuals) increases administrative costs, as the different requirements of each insurer must be addressed, and accounts receivable departments must be created.

“you seem to keep wanting to blame someone or something other than simple human weakness and stupidity.”

Does this apply with tobacco? No chemical addiction? Cigarettes were handed out to soldiers for years. The tobacco industry saturated the population with advertising and contributed heavily to politicians. Did they do that for fun, Barry? Or did they use that strategy because it worked. That industry has obviously impacted Health Care. How about introducing kids to soda, french fries, candy, drugs, etc? Are the kids that consume these products simply weak and stupid, Barry. I’ve been around a bit. Military, PSYOPS, I know what’s possible. I’ve seen very smart, very tough individuals, do very stupid things. Systematic advertising, for years, including the use of trusted health professionals, can cause very smart, very tough individuals, to make shitty health choices. Children don’t have a chance. Categorizing this complex situation into “simple human weakness and stupidity” is naïve.

Borat,

Insightful, many thanks for that long post.

BTW, just started Michael Porter's book "redefining health care" it would appear to be well worth the read. His thesis is no reforms will be effective unless they enable competition on the basis of value provided.

There are many threads out there, with great effort I will make myself focus on the one which you framed well - how will health care be paid for.

I believe private insurance has a structural advantage over public, in that public insurance money is "parked." You asked for a clarification of the difference.

As a private insurer, I take in premiums equal to my expected annual payouts, and in the mean time, invest the 'float.' (Anyone out there that's expert on these issues? Feel free to clarify if I'm missing the boat). With those investments, I make the money to pay salaries and other expenses and make profits for shareholders.

If you accept the above assertion, then it follows that private insurance will be less costly than public insurance - because they use the money to make returns to cover their internal expenses, which govt does not, and I think in most cases cannot by law.

In addition, private insurance takes in premiums that would in a govt system 'only' be paying for health care and the expenses associated with the process, and injects those funds into the economy in the form of 'investments.' By investing, some of that money will be lost and some will earn a return (the insurance company's fate hanging in the balance, so at every point in these transactions, they have to be expert or they will fall to a competitor), but on the margins, the amount of capital that may be generated by the total of all money paid as insurance premiums is conceptually quite large. This is a 'day off' rest day post - I won't do the calculating. I don't mean to win the argument - I mean to offer this as my understanding of why private insurers are a net gain to the economy.

Summary: Private insurers can charge a lower premium for the same amount of coverage, a benefit to consumers, and private insurers make a significant contribution to the economy overall, by virtue of their role as "investors."

No matter how efficiently govt administers their program, they're running a far less efficient program to start with, structurally speaking.

A final consideration: govt workers are far less effective than private sector workers. Promotions, hiring, firing, health care, pensions, etc, the govt system of manpower management is troubling, insulated from competition, and all management mistakes fall on the taxpayers heads. There's little room for negotiation and the long term cost for the consumer/taxpayer is substantial - lifetime of the employee. To the extent that private insurance insulates consumers from these costs, they again add a benefit that govt systems cannot approach.

Issues like this are totally obscurred when OECD or whomever states that public systems are 'cheaper' and public systems have 'lower administrative' costs. "Lies, damend lies, and statistics."

I will briefly mention one issue you avoided - I think you identify it as ideology - and that is the virtue of freedom. Freedom has a value. Giving politicians control over ~16% of the economy diminishes freedom significantly. I realize a large section of the population no longer fears the power of the federal govt per se, but strangely, then goes on to worry out loud about a "theocracy" etc. To wrap it up - how much better would the health care outcome have to be to justify, in your or anyone's mind, submission of that large a quantity of freedom to the state? And, therefore, why not explore market options, which no one speaks of publicly (WHY?!), that we could utilize while increasing freedom?

Borat, Dave, Tom, many thanks for your contributions, I found it quite helpful.

Zach, Tom, Bingo, Dave, Barry, Joey, and maybe Borat, until the next time, good luck in your training! Paul

7*3 back squat WOD - can't seem to get this to post on the right day?

Age: 35
BW: 183

CFWU x 2, 12 reps of everything
Last time: 245,265,245,235,225,215,215 total of 4935
This time: 245,265,265,255,255,245,245 total of 5325

7.9% improvement in 3 months.

Apolloswabbie,

Thanks for your post (and thanks to the other responses). I had promised myself I was not going to get drawn in, but can't help myself.

I understand what you are saying about private insurers, and agree with it - but! I am still not sure that the Govt is 'parking' the taxes. For example, pay a private insurer and they will invest it until they need to meet the medical costs - good outcome, agreed. Pay the same amount to a goverment as tax and they will use it to, say, pay down national debt until they need to meet the medical expenses - this is also an investment, good for the economy etc. There's no reason you can't structure the two systems pretty similarly - use copayments to try and reduce wastage, rebates, tax incentives etc., such that they are to all intents and purposes the same. The two systems are broadly substitutable.

We can't resolve this now, but I do feel that how the money is raised to pay for healthcare is a bit of a false trail. At the end of the day the money all has to come from the consumer, however you cut it. Tom F can argue that a single provider (govt) model is efficient because it cuts some overhead by avoiding duplication and he is right; you can argue that a competitive insurance market will reduce costs and you are right. Who is more right? I don't think it matters as the main problems (in my view) are on the other side of the balance sheet. The funding side may be a 5% issue either way.

I think you have to look at the cost side of actual healthcare to make major progress - doctors & nurses fees, medicines, hospital costs, technology, structuring incentives to reduce redundant care and so on. The challenge facing the US is how to reduce costs by, lets say, 33% which brings the US down to Swiss levels, the next most expensive system. That's why Crisis of Abundance homes in on 'Premium Medicine' as the major issue - and it's a cost issue.

Borat

Borat - also, thanks for the Rand link; thought of citing it, but didn't have the reference link. Paul