The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[turbo]

Well then the government should obviously take over all US companies if you really think "jobs and healthy competition" is the only outcome from government take overs.

That is a ridiculous extrapolation, and I think you know it. The "free trade" mania that allowed American companies to export US jobs oversees with no tax implications made a lot of millionaires into billionaires while keeping US workers' earnings flat in non-adjusted terms and declining in real terms.

 

[yungman]

Do you live in the US? Do you speak English fluently? I'm not trying to us an ad-hom argument, but your last post belies both of my questions.

Yes, why? I am not exactly trying to answer your question. More the opinion on Tea Party.

 

[mheslep]

That is a ridiculous extrapolation, and I think you know it.

Yes of course I do. I also think it just as ridiculous to assume that creating a massive government run auto company will automatically create net "American jobs" or "healthy competition".

 

[mheslep]

Ron Paul is a good example of politics gone wrong.

Generally I agree that Dad Paul is a little nutty, then a moment after that thought I see the 'main stream' politicians doing things I consider much nuttier ($1.4 trillion deficits, 2nd guessing Cambridge street cops, etc). So recently the elder Paul doesn't look so frothy in the mouth.

 

[Al68]

When have they explicitly said that they believe it is their role to control or even manage the economy?

I didn't say they said that explicitly. Saying it explicitly would imply that it needed to be said explicitly. So instead it's an obvious underlying assumption in everything else they say. The laws they advocate and enact do in fact exercise control of economic matters.

You can call it what you like. Don't mean it's an accurate description of his policies tho. I have suggested suitable alternatives, such as "Keynesian" or even "left wing".

Except neither of those is an accurate description.

Again, maybe if you could shed more light on which policies you think are socialist...

All of the economic policies contained in their platform: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html . Again, I'm using the word "socialist" to refer to the socialist aspects of a mixed economy, not as a reference to a completely socialist economic system.

but unfettered markets are inherently inefficient, which essentially means they deny individual liberty.

Complete baloney.

So is Obamacare. And Obamacare is obviously "greater government control of the economy". Why do you refer to me as extreme for being against the very things you try to deny Democrats are for?Are you joking? Which part:

Then you would obviously be able to substantiate this claim. It is demonstrably false though - mandating health insurance will provide the insurance industry with 50 million new customers - are you seriously saying Obama will controlling the insurance industry? (Again, I note the use of the comparative, "greater" ).

Huh? Do you not realize you just substantiated my claim? Mandating insurance isn't "control"? Deciding the contents of policies isn't "control"? Forcing people to buy a product sold by insurance companies isn't "control"? Outlawing "major medical insurance only" policies isn't control? Do you not know what the word "control" means? I'll give you a hint: it's the opposite of "unfettered" in the context you used it above.

It's obvious that you fully understand what I mean by "control", you know it is absolutely true, but try to deny it anyway, while advocating government economic control in the same post. Are you that afraid of honest debate?

You've had a comprehension issue. Note the difference between 'the' and 'their'.

I so happen to think people the people who came up with the ad are probably not racist, sexist, homophobic or bigoted in anyway. Having said that, they do clearly have an agenda against Obama, and the ad was probably designed to evoke a reaction from those in the Tea Party who are bigoted.

So the ad isn't racist and the people who came up with the ad aren't racist. And Hitler, the racist in the ad, is depicted as "bad". But other Tea Party members that might see the ad are racist. That's your claim? Seriously?

 

[Al68]

Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government.

I would have no problem using the word corporatist instead of socialist to describe that, except that the word corporatist/corporatism isn't well known to mean that. And if it were, the objection to the word socialist would just extend to the word corporatist.

The bottom line is that those who want to control people will object to any word that means "those who want to control people".

 

[yungman]

Generally I agree that Dad Paul is a little nutty, then a moment after that thought I see the 'main stream' politicians doing things I consider much nuttier ($1.4 trillion deficits, 2nd guessing Cambridge street cops, etc). So recently the elder Paul doesn't look so frothy in the mouth.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian that gone nowhere and now he change to republican party.

Well the democrats party completely hijacked by the progressives. Everything is race, whenever people disagree, they cry racist. The country is a lot more divided since obama and the democrats control both houses.

What is a few trillions?! Just keep printing and borrowing, devalue the dollar and you don't have as much debt!

 

[Galteeth]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian that gone nowhere and now he change to republican party.

Not exactly. This is a bit off topic, but he was a republican congressman from 1976 to 1984. He then ran for president in 1988 as a libertarian. He was re-elected to congress in 1996 as a republican, and in his last presidential run, sought the republican nomination.

 

[vertices]

I didn't say they said that explicitly. Saying it explicitly would imply that it needed to be said explicitly. So instead it's an obvious underlying assumption in everything else they say. The laws they advocate and enact do in fact exercise control of economic matters.

So Obama no longer wants to "control the economy", rather he wants to "exercise control of economic matters"? So when Bush bailed out the banks, this to you, must have been manic socialism, no?

Except neither of those is an accurate description.

So Obama's policies are not left wing?

All of the economic policies contained in their platform: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html . Again, I'm using the word "socialist" to refer to the socialist aspects of a mixed economy, not as a reference to a completely socialist economic system.

So can you pick out a couple of policies you believe to be socialist. You are constantly redefining what you mean by the word - I'm genuinely trying to understand what you mean by it, help me out here.

And again, I would put it to you, that "left wing" would be a more accurate phrase to use. Using socialism in the context you describe is equivalent to using the word "authoritarian" to describe governments that have socially conservative policies.

Complete baloney.

Free markets have been mathematically proved to be systematically inefficient; they therefore leads to outcomes that deny individual people their 'economic liberties'.

Huh? Do you not realize you just substantiated my claim? Mandating insurance isn't "control"? Deciding the contents of policies isn't "control"? Forcing people to buy a product sold by insurance companies isn't "control"? Outlawing "major medical insurance only" policies isn't control? Do you not know what the word "control" means? I'll give you a hint: it's the opposite of "unfettered" in the context you used it above.

It's obvious that you fully understand what I mean by "control", you know it is absolutely true, but try to deny it anyway, while advocating government economic control in the same post. Are you that afraid of honest debate?

So now you are redefining your of concept socialism again, first it was "controlling the economy", then it was "taking control over economic matters" and now it is simply taking "control", fullstop.

And you can't really even accuse Obama of that. In the healthcare debates, he never actually laid out a program of his own - he left to Congress to iron out all details.

The US spends an extortionate amount on healthcare per capita and the health outcomes are still pretty poor compared with countries which have "socialised medicine". Leaving things to the market has left 50 million people without health coverage, this isn't just chronically inefficient, it's unsustainable with an ageing population. Obama, was doing something that presidents are meant to do - fix systematic problems.

If you want to call him socialist for that, that's upto you, but an rational person can see that his actions in fact support the free market. The defining feature of a market economy is that it constantly adjusts itself to produce Pareto efficient outcomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency). When you can get more value for money, without harming anyone (ie. exactly what Obama wanted to do) - this is by definition not Pareto efficient.

So the ad isn't racist and the people who came up with the ad aren't racist. And Hitler, the racist in the ad, is depicted as "bad". But other Tea Party members that might see the ad are racist. That's your claim? Seriously?

Read what I wrote. Where did I say the TP members might see the ad as racist?

 

[Al68]

So Obama no longer wants to "control the economy", rather he wants to "exercise control of economic matters"?

Seriously? Who would be so pedantic as to consider those two different things in the context I used them?

So when Bush bailed out the banks, this to you, must have been manic socialism, no?

No. But it was fairly socialist. I never used the word "manic", or anything similar, in any of my posts.

So Obama's policies are not left wing?

Sure, but "left-wing" is far too vague and has too many different meanings to different people (other than "socialist") to be used for that purpose. Many call me a "left-winger" because my libertarian viewpoint applies equally to social issues.

So can you pick out a couple of policies you believe to be socialist. You are constantly redefining what you mean by the word - I'm genuinely trying to understand what you mean by it, help me out here.

You know exactly what I mean. Using different words that mean the same thing isn't "redefining" anything. You can pick any two of their economic policies you want, but it won't matter. Your objection to the use of the word "socialist" is as semantical as regarding "control the economy" and "exercise control of economic matters" as substantively different. How about making a real point if you have one?

Using socialism in the context you describe is equivalent to using the word "authoritarian" to describe governments that have socially conservative policies.

No, it's the equivalent of using the word "authoritarian" to refer to the authoritarian aspect of a policy that is both authoritarian and "socially conservative" to make it clear that you oppose it because it's authoritarian instead of because its socially conservative. A good example might be using the word "authoritarian" instead of "socially conservative" to describe drug laws, to more precisely describe the reason for opposition.

Would you prefer "economic authoritarianism" to "socialism"? Perhaps that would better describe why I, and other libertarians, oppose Democrat's economic agenda.

Free markets have been mathematically proved to be systematically inefficient; they therefore leads to outcomes that deny individual people their 'economic liberties'.

Still nonsense. Still logically incoherent. You advocate denying people economic liberty because economic liberty denies people economic liberty? And you haven't provided any substantiation for the absurd argument that free markets are "systematically inefficient", and you won't.

So now you are redefining your of concept socialism again, first it was "controlling the economy", then it was "taking control over economic matters" and now it is simply taking "control", fullstop.

Yes, I used three different phrases that mean the exact same thing in the context I used them. That's hardly "redefining a concept"?

Anyway, it's now perfectly clear that you understand exactly what I mean by "socialist", and are merely objecting to the word being used. Feel free to substitute "economic authoritarianism" in all my posts.

Do you not have any substantive argument against my position? There are far more logically consistent and compelling (even if invalid) arguments against my position than you have presented in this thread.

Read what I wrote. Where did I say the TP members might see the ad as racist?

Then who are you claiming is racist?

 

[yungman]

Seems like there is a lot of debates about the theory of things, splitting hair on definitions. I don't think you can treat politics like physics and math where definition and condition are very important. People has to look at this in more of a macro sense and look at result of other countries that use the system.

First of all, it is the corruptions that is affecting the country more than anything else at this point. obama has very very strong ties with the unions. Andy stern had personal visit to WH over 20 times in 09. Unions are big donors of obama. Then the cap and trade, there are links
between Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs — and President Obama, who helped launch CCX with funding from the Joyce Foundation, where he and presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett once sat on the board of directors.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/good-news-layoffs-100618479.html#ixzz0xLzHdhxk

These are just two examples people need to watch out. One cannot just proof all these, these are not science. If one just demand proof and reject everything that is not proof beyond doubt, then one might miss the moon! Have to follow the money! This is real life, this is not like in college, in acadamic world.

You have to read commentary and article from both sides and draw your own conclusion of what's in play. Everything is about politics, everything is about power and money. Both parties have enough of this. That is part of the reason the Tea Party rise so fast, demanding accountability, ask the bold questions. You need to watch the news, listen to the analysis, read articles to make your own judgements. That is the reason the major network news are going down, only the cable news give you all the arguments and discussions on both sides.

There is nothing really new about obama. Everything about him was very obvious by 2008 if you just follow his speeches, his churches, his associations. If people would have just digged deeper, it was all there. Instead people are just hynotized by the "change"! How is the change do for you now??

 

[Galteeth]

"1.Free markets have been mathematically proved to be systematically inefficient; 2. they therefore leads to outcomes that deny individual people their 'economic liberties"

on 1. Come again?

Even if I accept that 1 is true, 2 does not logically follow from 1.

 

[mheslep]

Not directed at me but ...

The US spends an extortionate amount on healthcare per capita

True.

and the health outcomes are still pretty poor compared with countries which have "socialised medicine".

False.

 

[Galteeth]

I think this is a decent (slanted slightly favorably( article on the tea party and its complexity as a social phenomenon, with references to specific organizations that are trying to influence it, take credit for it, discredit it:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/296440

 

[turbo]

The GOP leadership gutted the conservative movement in Maine decades ago. The tea party is currently stomping on the shreds of what was left. If the Democratic party had any guts and cohesion, they would be harping on this day and night. They don't. Our 2-party system is badly flawed and thoroughly bought and paid for.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

More lies that feed this stuff.

This morning Dick Armey was on Meet the Press. The following statement from Greenspan was used to stage the discussion:

MR. ALAN GREENSPAN: Look, I'm very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money. And the problem that we've gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money. And, at the end of the day, that proves disastrous. And my view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here.

MR. GREGORY: You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?

MR. GREENSPAN: They do not.

Here with me now, former House majority leader and author of the new book, "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto," Republican Dick Armey, and the Democratic governor from the state of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm...

Enter, Dick Armey

Armey: Reagan cut taxes, revenue doubled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38791058/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts

So, if we could only go back to the days of Reagan, right?

Everyone talks about the Reagan tax cuts, yet there is more to President Reagan’s legacy than tax cuts. There is also his courageous and largely unappreciated willingness to fight for reductions in domestic spending.

Ronald Reagan sought--and won--more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last forty years to cut inflation-adjusted nondefense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his first term (see table 1). Sadly, during his second term, President Reagan did not manage to cut nondefense discretionary spending, and it grew by 0.2 percent...

http://www.aei.org/paper/20675

Now, the result: a little over a 20% increase in the debt as a percentage of GDP. The so-called great success of the Reagan era is what started our spiral into the great abyss.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3747/nationaldebtgdp.gif

 

[Galteeth]

The GOP leadership gutted the conservative movement in Maine decades ago. The tea party is currently stomping on the shreds of what was left. If the Democratic party had any guts and cohesion, they would be harping on this day and night. They don't. Our 2-party system is badly flawed and thoroughly bought and paid for.

I agree with this.

 

[Galteeth]

More lies that feed this stuff.

This morning Dick Armey was on Meet the Press. The following statement from Greenspan was used to stage the discussion:Enter, Dick Armey

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38791058/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts

So, if we could only go back to the days of Reagan, right?http://www.aei.org/paper/20675

Now, the result: a little over a 20% increase in the debt as a percentage of GDP. The so-called great success of the Reagan era is what started our spiral into the great abyss.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3747/nationaldebtgdp.gif

I find it very amusing that Dick Armey (that name still makes me laugh) has written a book call tea party manifesto.

Personally, I think Reagan was worse then Dubya or Obama. You know who was a decent president? Grover Cleveland

Edit: Mind you i said decent, not great.

 

[yungman]

The GOP leadership gutted the conservative movement in Maine decades ago. The tea party is currently stomping on the shreds of what was left. If the Democratic party had any guts and cohesion, they would be harping on this day and night. They don't. Our 2-party system is badly flawed and thoroughly bought and paid for.

If we could have term limit and get all the lifers out. Everything is about corruption. They have their network of corruption, you scratch my back and I'll scratch your. Payback of the special interest group...on and on. Both parties are the same.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If we could have term limit and get all the lifers out. Everything is about corruption. They have their network of corruption, you scratch my back and I'll scratch your. Payback of the special interest group...on and on. Both parties are the same.

See law[/url] and Black's theorem.

 

[Galteeth]

If we could have term limit and get all the lifers out. Everything is about corruption. They have their network of corruption, you scratch my back and I'll scratch your. Payback of the special interest group...on and on. Both parties are the same.

Ironically, this was somewhat the *original* message of the tea party, prior to it being somewhat co-opted by republicans.

 

[Galteeth]

See law[/url] and Black's theorem.

Interesting. A question:

From the article on Duverger's Law:"The second unique problem is both statistical and tactical. Duverger suggested an election in which 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters are voting for a single official. If two moderate candidates and one radical candidate were to run, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered fewer than 20,000 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal of defeating the radical candidate. Either the two parties must merge, or one moderate party must fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties, a trend Duverger called polarization.[2]"

I can't think of many examples of this. It seems the opposite tends to happen in a plurality system, which as duverger points out results in a two party system.

This is because if the two parties represents theoretical opposites on an axis, only the center is being contested, so there is an incentive for both parties to try to move towards that center to capture as many as those votes as they can.

The fringes don't defect, since a vote for a third party choice is effectively seen as a vote for the opposite party, since the third party is assumed to have no chance of winning, and voting for it is one less vote that the slightly favorable party gets.

Edit: Ok I hadn't read the black's theorem link before posting, but the two do seem to contradict each other.

 

[mheslep]

More lies that feed this stuff.
[...]

MR. ALAN GREENSPAN: Look, I'm very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money. And the problem that we've gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money. And, at the end of the day, that proves disastrous. And my view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here.

MR. GREGORY: You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?

MR. GREENSPAN: They do not.

[...]

Armey: Reagan cut taxes, revenue doubled.

No doubt Greenspan is correct, but where exactly is the lie from Armey?

 

[ibnsos]

More lies that feed this stuff.




Enter, Dick Armey

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38791058/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts

So, if we could only go back to the days of Reagan, right?


http://www.aei.org/paper/20675

Now, the result: a little over a 20% increase in the debt as a percentage of GDP. The so-called great success of the Reagan era is what started our spiral into the great abyss.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3747/nationaldebtgdp.gif

I'm confused, Armey is talking about revenue growth and tax cuts, but you're posting a graph of debt to GDP. Kinda leaves the impression of deception.

 

[vertices]

Seriously? Who would be so pedantic as to consider those two different things in the context I used them?

Then please explain how Obama, through mandating insurance, is taking control of the economy. How is this owning, or as you say, controlling the means of production?

But it was fairly socialist.

Okay, atleast you are being consistent here. Does it not then follow that Bush, by bailing out the banks to a tune of however many billions, was much more of a socialist than Obama has thus far been, in terms of the most concrete measurable, ie. money?

Sure, but "left-wing" is far too vague and has too many different meanings to different people (other than "socialist") to be used for that purpose.

And your definition of the word isn't vague? And incase you didn't know, socialism, like most other political idealogies, is complex with many different facets to it - indeed, there is an idealogy within Socialism known as Libertarian Socialism, where people (rather than the state) control the means of production.

You haven't been specific in explaining your concept of it, at all. The only clue you've given us is this:

I'm using it in a general sense to refer to policies similar to the agendas of historical self-described socialists.

Nevermind that "historical self-described socialists" would dismantle financial markets altogether and transform the economy into one that is agrarian. Do you seriously think Obama is lurching closer to this version of socialism, honestly?

You can pick any two of their economic policies you want, but it won't matter.

Fine: how about the policy of "cracking down on fradulent lenders and brokers and investing in financial literacy" or the policy of "demanding transparency and fair competition in the marketplace". Even you, must admit these policies, which only serve to help the market remain free, cannot be possibly be described as socialist?

AA good example might be using the word "authoritarian" instead of "socially conservative" to describe drug laws, to more precisely describe the reason for opposition.

"Socially conservative" policies are by definition in the "authoritarian" half of the political spectrum. What you are saying is that any moderate political position, which is minutely to the right or left of the centre gets immediately pulled to the extreme, and labelled either authoritarian or socialist. So a policy that is against stemcell research is "authoritarian", the policy of social security is "socialist" (nevermind that SS has been part and parcel of the American fabric since Roosevelt's presidency). Langauge is meant to convey meaning - by crassly labelling all leftwing economic policies as 'socialist', you'd be epically failing at this.

It's also interesting that, to you, the Bush administration was both socialist and authoritarian...

Still nonsense. Still logically incoherent. You advocate denying people economic liberty because economic liberty denies people economic liberty? And you haven't provided any substantiation for the absurd argument that free markets are "systematically inefficient", and you won't

Far be for me deny anyone anything. I am simply making the point that unfettered markets can't be free; the concept is a paradox. This is totally uncontroversial - infact, mainstream economics has coined a term for it - Market Failure. Google the "the problem of imperfect information, public goods, externalities". These are all systematic inefficiencies in a market economy.

Do you not have any substantive argument against my position?

What "position"?

Then who are you claiming is racist?[/QUOTE]

Erm no one, you're the only one who is getting hot and bothered over this non-issue for no apparent reason.

 

[vertices]

False.

The best indicator is life expectancy. Germany, Greece, Sweden, UK all outrank the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_the_CIA_World_Factbook_.282009_estimates.29

 

[mheslep]

The best indicator is life expectancy.

Life expectancy is the best indicator of what? Not healthcare outcomes, i.e. that for which one goes to the doctor or hospital and receives care. If one actually gets sick and gets to a doctor, the medical treatment in the US is the best or close to the best in world.

 

[vertices]

Life expectancy is the best indicator of what? Not healthcare outcomes, i.e. that for which one goes to the doctor or hospital and receives care. If one actually gets sick and gets to a doctor, the medical treatment in the US is the best or close to the best in world.

For sure medical treatment in the US is by far the best in the world. However, only a tiny minority of people have access to such treatment...

 

[mheslep]

For sure medical treatment in the US is by far the best in the world.

Not 'by far' as in compared to the next best. The US is #1 (medical outcomes) for several diseases, not all. Germany for instance has the best outcomes in the world for Hodgkins Lymphoma, they 'own it' as an Oncologist told me; the US is the best for cancer overall, etc.

However, only a tiny minority of people have access to such treatment...

I believe a large majority of US citizens have access to, say, regular mamograms and the standard US treatment for breast cancer. Unfortunately not _all_ do.

 

[lisab]

For sure medical treatment in the US is by far the best in the world. However, only a tiny minority of people have access to such treatment...

Where did you get that information?

 

[vertices]

Where did you get that information?

Sorry, typo. Ofcourse I meant "Only a tiny minority of people have access to such world class treatment". In other words, those who can pay, have access to the best possible treatment money can buy.

Most insurance policies do not grant access to such world class facilities.

 

[turbo]

Disparities in access and quality are wide-spread in the US. Disparities fall along ethnic lines, economic lines, and geographic lines. For instance, in Maine, it can be hard to lure specialists to live in a rural place with typically low wages and high rates of uninsured clients. Here is a (dated) summary.

http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr03/nhdrsum03.htm#Inequality

 

[vertices]

I believe a large majority of US citizens have access to, say, regular mamograms and the standard US treatment for breast cancer. Unfortunately not _all_ do.

Yes, atleast a subset (perhaps half) of 32 million don't...

 

[Gokul43201]

Reagan cut taxes, revenue doubled.

No doubt Greenspan is correct, but where exactly is the lie from Armey?

Revenue doubled in terms of what measure? Unchained total dollars is a meaningful metric? No adjustment for population growth or inflation?

Here's unchained total revenue growth over 4 decades (showing nearly a doubling over 80-88, but also over the other decades):

Adjusted for inflation, it drops down to less than a 50% increase:

Now adjust for population growth and it drops further still, to below a 25% growth:

Also, "cut taxes, revenue doubled" implies a direct causation but in fact, there is nothing particularly striking about the revenue growth during the 80s, compared to revenue growth over any other decade this past century, and it has been pretty solidly debunked (as expressed by Greenspan above, and so many others¹) that tax cuts are revenue generating (at least for the position we currently occupy on the Laffer curve).

If you ignore the implication buried in Armey's statement (that tax cuts caused revenue growth), then there's really not much point to constructing the statement in that way.

So where exactly is the lie from Armey? How about everywhere?

Ref:
1. See, for instance, http://economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/files/dynamicscoring_05-1212.pdf

 

[lisab]

Sorry, typo. Ofcourse I meant "Only a tiny minority of people have access to such world class treatment". In other words, those who can pay, have access to the best possible treatment money can buy.

Most insurance policies do not grant access to such world class facilities.

But today's "world class" treatment is tomorrow's standard treatment. I'm no fan of the system the way it is, but I don't want to change things to the point where cutting edge procedures are simply not available to anyone.