Think you know History? [Archive]

Figmentum

11-20-2007, 02:42 PM

A little history lesson:
If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common
good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few,
by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared
responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means
something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to
give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common
ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the
most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being
watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers: scroll down

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Santana28

11-20-2007, 03:16 PM

I love this one :)

Yet another reason why we need to only Republican who can take Hitlery down to win the primary - RON PAUL!

Figmentum

11-20-2007, 03:56 PM

I've never been a fan of Hillary myself. She's always been too devious. Not to mention all of the "Natural" deaths that have happen to those who've opposed her over the years.

Henry

11-20-2007, 04:49 PM

I've never been a fan of Hillary myself. She's always been too devious. Not to mention all of the "Natural" deaths that have happen to those who've opposed her over the years.

Better make sure the doors are locked tightly.

Two statements:
1. I'd strongly prefer a competent paternalist of ANY political color to an incompetent.

2. Income and wealth inequalities, even once you back out immigrants, are near all-time highs. Technological changes and international trade have generated a lot of wealth for our country over the past 20 years, but virtually all of that wealth and income has gone to the top 20%, eg those with college degrees and where both spouses work.

I don't know about you, but I don't really think this is fair, particularly for a blue collar type that just never had enough intelligence to make it through school and work in a corporate job, etc, to completely miss out on the benefits of globalization and technological advancement.

I would also assume that she's referring to nationalized health care. Access to health care disparities are the most significant equality issue in the country today. And Europe covers everyone - EVERYONE - for 4-8% of (considerably smaller per capita) GDP. Our health care system is the most ineffecient and inequitable system in the world, and our friends in Europe are clearly on a much more rational, just, and effecient path than we are. So why don't we do what's obviously working better? "WTF, we can't be like Stalin"

She has a point.

Figmentum

11-20-2007, 05:00 PM

Henry

11-20-2007, 05:56 PM

Regardless of my own, or others beliefs about Hillary, If she is elected president and takes action in what she has stated... Civil War, or at the very least armed factions. Alot of the people in this country will not stand for her. I may sound a little extreme, but it is the religious nuts who will be the extreme ones. I'm just stating something that has a good chance of happening if she stands by her words.

So when she raises the top tax bracket from 35% to 40%, then people are going to revolt over that? If she puses for a more effecient and equitable health care system, people are going to revolt over that? The religious right is fucking crazy, and consistently bitch about how we're not as crazy as the islamofacists, but that doesn't mean that we should gear policy to make them happy any more than we shoudl to make the islamofacists happy.

They haven't revolted over the use of the constitution as toilet paper to wipe away the inevitable aftermath of our oil and machismo binge in the middle east, so I'm doubting they'll revolt over Hillary raising Paris Hilton's taxes from 35% to 40%. Just a hunch.

Desfrei

11-20-2007, 05:56 PM

In my oppinion, I agree with Figmentum. Hillary's actions could seriously pose a threat to the wellfare of this country and its people. Though she may beleive that what she does will help, she is far from being correct. No longer would a single person own a possesion with her ways, you no longer own something when it can be taken from you because another feels you dont require it. That fact alone will bring a torrent of chaos upon on the people as revolts will break out.

Figmentum

11-20-2007, 06:03 PM

C'mon, Henry. You can list some good things. But I know you can think of quite a few antagonistic ones. I don't care how much you want to defend her. There's going to be a mass of people breaking out in violence, should she become president and enforce what she's told. You know this, whether or not you want to admit it. Health care, econimical equality... GREAT! Now, convince the extremist over in the corner why she's not worth fighting against.

Aestheticbend

11-20-2007, 08:50 PM

So when she raises the top tax bracket from 35% to 40%, then people are going to revolt over that? If she puses for a more effecient and equitable health care system, people are going to revolt over that? The religious right is fucking crazy, and consistently bitch about how we're not as crazy as the islamofacists, but that doesn't mean that we should gear policy to make them happy any more than we shoudl to make the islamofacists happy.

They haven't revolted over the use of the constitution as toilet paper to wipe away the inevitable aftermath of our oil and machismo binge in the middle east, so I'm doubting they'll revolt over Hillary raising Paris Hilton's taxes from 35% to 40%. Just a hunch.

I fail to see how Hillarycare constitutes a more efficient healthcare system.

Either way Hillary represents the progressive movement quite well; her understanding of economics is remniscent of vulgar keynesianism and in some ways I hope for her to get in. Mostly because her spending might cause the collapse of the nation's economy which would make realize that interventionism is not the way to achieve prosperity. That, and given her voting record she is relatively close to a foreign policy positon that endorses a form of realistic wilsonianism, no matter what she says in the primary.

Henry

11-20-2007, 09:07 PM

I fail to see how Hillarycare constitutes a more efficient healthcare system.

Never stated she did. Stated she is likely to push for nationalized health care, which as practiced in Europe, is clearly preferable to the ineffecient, inequitable system we have here.

US spend about 13% of GDP on health care, and a significant portion of the population has no real access to health care. Countries in the EU cover every person in the country for generally 4-8% of GDP (which are also generally considerably lower on a per capita basis). Clearly we can learn something from Europe.

Either way Hillary represents the progressive movement quite well; her understanding of economics is remniscent of vulgar keynesianism and in some ways I hope for her to get in. Mostly because her spending might cause the collapse of the nation's economy which would make realize that interventionism is not the way to achieve prosperity. That, and given her voting record she is relatively close to a foreign policy positon that endorses a form of realistic wilsonianism, no matter what she says in the primary.

...

Any of you want a tissue to go with all this teary eyed "the world is going to end if we copy the Dutch health care system" bullshit?

Regarding foreign policy, I have no idea what she'd be like. I do know that its highly unlikely to get any worse, as even if she is a meddling autocrat, at least she is not a moronic meddling autocrat.

Figmentum

11-20-2007, 09:13 PM

Any of you want a tissue to go with all teary eyed "the world is going to end if we copy the Dutch health care system" bullshit?

You mistake me for saying that's bad. I'm saying people will fight... I didn't say I would personally. I love the general european healthcare system. Billy "goat" Graham would be the general (sarcasm).

Henry

11-20-2007, 09:16 PM

You mistake me for saying that's bad. I'm saying people will fight... I didn't say I would personally. I love the general european healthcare system. Billy "goat" Graham would be the general (sarcasm).

That comment was directed at our overly-emotional poster who seems to have an emotional tie to insurance bureaucrats and PI attorneys, not you.

Aestheticbend

11-20-2007, 10:21 PM

Never stated she did. Stated she is likely to push for nationalized health care, which as practiced in Europe, is clearly preferable to the ineffecient, inequitable system we have here.

US spend about 13% of GDP on health care, and a significant portion of the population has no real access to health care. Countries in the EU cover every person in the country for generally 4-8% of GDP (which are also generally considerably lower on a per capita basis). Clearly we can learn something from Europe.

...

Any of you want a tissue to go with all this teary eyed "the world is going to end if we copy the Dutch health care system" bullshit?

Regarding foreign policy, I have no idea what she'd be like. I do know that its highly unlikely to get any worse, as even if she is a meddling autocrat, at least she is not a moronic meddling autocrat.

Henry, firstly I would like to make it clear that I do not support state capitalism, so thus I do not support the highly regulated and controlled market for health insurance that currently exists in the states. So, your argument is a strawman.

One thing that could be changed is the AMA which essentially limits the supply of doctors greatly in the United States. Hence, why Americans pay more for doctors than most western countries per capita. I don't support either Hillarycare or the bloated corporatist system that exists currently now.

What I fear is that the US has a populous that is taxed almost as highly as where I am from, Canada. And you have nowhere near the amount of government services we have. Also, consider the current status of the US currency, in comparison with the rest of the world. The US's economy is weaker than ever, and Hillary proposes a New "New Deal" of sorts and if one understands that the New Deal as well as Hoover's rampant monetary policy actually deepened the depression until it came out as a result of the market. So my point is that the economy should be liberalized further, this has been shown to be, by many nobel prize winning economists, the best way to help the poor. What Hillary proposes is not the solution, but more to the problem.

Partially the reason that Europe can do what they do with healthcare is because they are importing economies whereas the US leans towards being more of an exporting economy. Also, most of them have far higher unemployment rates as a result of their policies of government involvement. Quasikeynesian policies like increasing regulation push foreign investment away from the US and thus growth will decrease.

I fail to see how my post was emotional. I just won't support Hillary for both moral and pragmatic reasons.

Bossy Mom

11-20-2007, 11:13 PM

Lucid

11-21-2007, 12:08 AM

Figmentum

11-21-2007, 01:57 PM

Bush is an idiot. But he has people backing him that are EXTREMELY God fearing. Most people who support Hillary (or the left for that matter) are generally not religious. When you cross a God fearing extremist too badly, he will fight. Hillary stands for everything they don't: change, socialism, abortion, gay marriage, becoming more like the world (christians generally hate that). The motivation for these extremists is profound. The Southern Baptists will be the first to react, first diplomatically, as soon as Hillary shuts them down... we have an armed faction on our hands. Another Jihad...

Lucid

11-21-2007, 01:59 PM

Figmentum

11-21-2007, 02:23 PM

I'm not paranoid about it, I just play it all out in my mind and that's how I see it turning out. Regardless, it only helps strengthen why I don't believe in a God.

Lucid

11-21-2007, 02:26 PM

I'm not paranoid about it, I just play it all out in my mind and that's how I see it turning out. Regardless, it only helps strengthen why I don't believe in a God.

I think your N is running away with you :)

Figmentum

11-21-2007, 02:46 PM

Lmao, so it seems.

Desfrei

11-21-2007, 02:49 PM

Quite frankly, I don't think people will fight or revolt or even protest heavily. We, as a society, have far too much to lose by engaging in armed revolt. Our nice comfortable houses, iPods, our cars, our plasma TVs, etc. That's why nobody has revolted over Bush.

I know an INTJ or two in real life who often vote to keep the current party in power (no matter who that party is) because they're afraid that anything else will lead to some kind of civil war and, in turn, society's downfall. Maybe it's common for our type?

As a nation (and as a species) we've survived worse (than Hillary OR Bush) without citizens taking to the streets with weapons or Bush playing the fiddle while Washington burns.

I fear that you are wrong in this matter, and I wish that you were not. As we have seen in history, whenever a force tries to take privileges that people have becime accustomed to, a revolt is inevitable. This has been seen from the Civil War that struck America. Though many beleive that war to come from slavery, they are wrong as that was only part of it because the slaves were property to those who were privledged enough to afford them. As I can see I am off topic now I will end this here. Should any thing try to take away rights and privledges, it will be revolted against no matter the cost.

Desfrei

11-21-2007, 02:52 PM

One last point, though Bush is quite unfavorable, he isnt stiring up a revolt because the only ones he wishes to take privileges from are gay's, the elderly, the poor, and minorities. As such he remains in favor of the rich, straight, and young white people who contain the others somewhat.

Henry

11-21-2007, 04:45 PM

Henry, firstly I would like to make it clear that I do not support state capitalism, so thus I do not support the highly regulated and controlled market for health insurance that currently exists in the states. So, your argument is a strawman.

My argument is only that the system as practiced in the EU is clearly preferable to the US system. Its more effecient, its more equitable.

I don't give a damn whether the money goes to a corporation or government, I want cheap

One thing that could be changed is the AMA which essentially limits the supply of doctors greatly in the United States. Hence, why Americans pay more for doctors than most western countries per capita. I don't support either Hillarycare or the bloated corporatist system that exists currently now.

A tiny part of the problem. The AMA is very stringent on who gets an MD in the continental US, but a huge number of docs were educated overseas and its really up to the state to decide which way to go on that issue.

Insurance company v PI attorney red tape is where a TON of the cost comes in, and then we have a lot more middlemen taking their cut in the US system than an EU system.

What I fear is that the US has a populous that is taxed almost as highly as where I am from, Canada. And you have nowhere near the amount of government services we have. Also, consider the current status of the US currency, in comparison with the rest of the world. The US's economy is weaker than ever, and Hillary proposes a New "New Deal" of sorts and if one understands that the New Deal as well as Hoover's rampant monetary policy actually deepened the depression until it came out as a result of the market. So my point is that the economy should be liberalized further, this has been shown to be, by many nobel prize winning economists, the best way to help the poor. What Hillary proposes is not the solution, but more to the problem.

Please show me one credible economist who thinks that the depression in the 1930s had anything to do with "rampant monetary policy". The biggest single causal factor in the depression was the fed's unwillingness to provide liquidity when there was 30% unemployment and a massive deflation.

The New Deal had both good and bad elements to it. Price controls are almost always a negative, government spending clearly a positive in an economy running at 50-60% of capacity.

Your reference to the weakness of the economy hinges largely on the currency correction that is ongoing, and that's to correct the massive CA deficit that is the result of Asian countries consistent propping up the dollar and low US savings. CA deficits are caused by dearths in saving relative to investment. Low US savings are partly explained by the very high real exchange rate, and also partly by the fact that we spend 5-9% (strictly as a raw percentage of GDP) on health care than other developed countries.

Partially the reason that Europe can do what they do with healthcare is because they are importing economies whereas the US leans towards being more of an exporting economy. Also, most of them have far higher unemployment rates as a result of their policies of government involvement. Quasikeynesian policies like increasing regulation push foreign investment away from the US and thus growth will decrease.

I can assure you that lowering health care costs would *not* push employers away from the US. Many corporations are run rationally (eg "Whatever will maximize profits"), and rationals don't care whether the money goes to government or corporations.

Higher unemployment in europe is caused by a number of factors, most significantly a minimum wage that is much higher in european countries. It has very little to do with their flatly better health care system.

Henry

11-21-2007, 04:47 PM

The nurses were complaining about the illegals overloading our system and causing hospitals to close their emergency rooms due to bankrupting the system. My daughter and I had to wait for care for HOURS! Do you now know why our health care costs are so high? When I lived in Minnesota, our hospitals were full of Canadian patients who couldn't get the care they needed in Canada, so they chose to come to the U.S. and pay in cash for the care they need. The hospitals in the U.K. are overloaded and filthy. Their system is so stretched that people CANNOT get the care they need. When people think they get something for "free," they can't get enough of it, so they lead their country into bankruptcy.

A yes, the "my brief anecdotal evidence trumps solid data and rationale" argument. My favorite.

Aestheticbend

11-21-2007, 07:02 PM

My argument is only that the system as practiced in the EU is clearly preferable to the US system. Its more effecient, its more equitable..

I would agree, I actually think that the model that the German's originally endorsed was sound. There is a difference between my opposition to Hillary and endorsing the current system. My thinking is not that dichotomous.

I don't give a damn whether the money goes to a corporation or government, I want cheap .

I have principles and I don't like being stolen from. Business do not take my money without asking, while the state does.

A tiny part of the problem. The AMA is very stringent on who gets an MD in the continental US, but a huge number of docs were educated overseas and its really up to the state to decide which way to go on that issue. ..

Is there not a possibility of collusion between state and business in order to maximize given the power of regulations.

Insurance company v PI attorney red tape is where a TON of the cost comes in, and then we have a lot more middlemen taking their cut in the US system than an EU system...

Yes, I am not arguing for the US system.....

Please show me one credible economist who thinks that the depression in the 1930s had anything to do with "rampant monetary policy". The biggest single causal factor in the depression was the fed's unwillingness to provide liquidity when there was 30% unemployment and a massive deflation.

Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek.... Two of those are nobel prize winners by the way.

Henry

11-22-2007, 04:02 AM

I would agree, I actually think that the model that the German's originally endorsed was sound. There is a difference between my opposition to Hillary and endorsing the current system. My thinking is not that dichotomous.

I have principles and I don't like being stolen from. Business do not take my money without asking, while the state does.

Unless you are able to self-insure the several million in expense that could come from some types of illnesses, you need to contribute to your portion of the risk. Otherwise, everyone else gets to pick up the tab for you when you get ill. That's hardly fair. Or we make you sign a waiver stating "I understand that if I run out of money I will no longer have access to treatment" which is unconscionable.

Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek.... Two of those are nobel prize winners by the way.

Hardly. Friedman and Schwartz both took the position that the contraction of the money supply is what turned a fairly common bottom of a business cycle into a full blown disaster.

As for Mises and Hayek, I couldn't care less, particularly with Hayek, as his work is, at bottom, about politics and not about economics.

Friedman wrote extensively on the Great Depression, which he called the Great Contraction, arguing that it had been caused by an ordinary financial shock whose duration and seriousness were greatly increased by the subsequent contraction of the money supply caused by the misguided policies of the directors of the Federal Reserve

Financial excess, whether in the form of minting money or incurring great loads of debt, does not lead to depression. It leads to inflation, which is almost as bad. The critical keynesian insight, that in the true-by-definition economic equation MoneySupply*Velocity=Price*RealOutput prices, not real income, are sticky, is accepted by basically every economist I know of. Even Keynes' staunchest critics agree on this point.

Bossy Mom

11-23-2007, 11:41 AM

I don't think there will be an armed rebellion if Hillary wins. People here are overestimating the mindset of the so-called "religious right." After all, we lived through four years of Jimmy Carter (and that was very tough) and eight years of Bill Clinton. None of the people I have known who are "religious right" are violent - they just think they will live through it (the administration of Hillary Clinton), and hope for better times in the future. I also see that many people in this country have forgotten we have a Constitution, and believe that the federal government has the right to take whatever they want from anyone they want.

Riverratt

11-23-2007, 01:34 PM

I am a woman, and I will NEVER vote for Hillary. I am from Southern California, where we have to take care of illegal aliens in hospital emergency rooms. I took my daughter to the emergency room last month and we had to wait behind several people who couldn't speak English. The nurses were complaining about the illegals overloading our system and causing hospitals to close their emergency rooms due to bankrupting the system. My daughter and I had to wait for care for HOURS! Do you now know why our health care costs are so high? When I lived in Minnesota, our hospitals were full of Canadian patients who couldn't get the care they needed in Canada, so they chose to come to the U.S. and pay in cash for the care they need. The hospitals in the U.K. are overloaded and filthy. Their system is so stretched that people CANNOT get the care they need. When people think they get something for "free," they can't get enough of it, so they lead their country into bankruptcy.

I am already taxed enough. I don't want to supplement the incomes of people who don't want to work, and I fear the mindset that those who do not have are more deserving than those who do.

I have always been suspicious of Hillary Clinton. I think she is devious and power hungry and I have a healthy fear of people like her.

A yes, the "my brief anecdotal evidence trumps solid data and rationale" argument. My favorite.

Okay, how about this, My wife, is the SUPERVISOR of a ICU unit, and Emergency Room of a medium sized hospital.....

She says the SAME THING Bossy Mom says... She also hates Hillery Clinton, with a passion, but she hates her for a very different reason than most. She says that Hillery is weak, because she did not deal with Bill and his "philandering".. Actually it goes beyond hate, and right into a total lack of respect for Hillery.

She says; The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and she let Bill walk all over her, she would let other nations do the same to us. She can't keep her own house in order, and now she wants to run the country??

Amazing point of view my ESFJ wife has. :lovestruck:

prometheus

11-23-2007, 05:24 PM

I don't know about you, but I don't really think this is fair, particularly for a blue collar type that just never had enough intelligence to make it through school and work in a corporate job, etc, to completely miss out on the benefits of globalization and technological advancement.

Love your avatar!

So is it fair that a doctor/engineer couple are forced (by gun if necessary) to support a laborer/housewife couple through taxes?

Bossy Mom

11-23-2007, 08:46 PM

Lights

11-23-2007, 08:54 PM

I have also seen parents on welfare whose children are in the hospital leeching on the system. They sit in their children's rooms eating junk food and watching Jerry Springer while people like me who work and pay taxes fund their "way of life."

That seems to be a bit of a generalization to me. There are plenty of hard working poor people who can't afford health insurance. Maybe the problem isn't the people, but the health care system.

Henry

11-23-2007, 08:59 PM

Love your avatar!

So is it fair that a doctor/engineer couple are forced (by gun if necessary) to support a laborer/housewife couple through taxes?

Yes, because policies of free international trade, labor market flexibility, and the basically open border situation have generated a lot of wealth, but it hasn't really helped many outside of the top 20%. I don't really think its fair to those who just aren't smart to have to live a lifetime of hard manual labor that will barely pay the bills because they don't have the IQ to go to college.

Additionally, this line of reasoning is could be applied as an argument against any taxation policy.

"So is it fair that a non-driver is forced (by gun if necessary) to support the drivers."

"Is it far that non readers are forced (by gun if necessary) to support libraries">

Or even the inverse argument could be made from this perspective. "Is it fair that the laborer is forced (by gun if necessary) to miss on the benefits of globalization?" "Is it fair that the laborer is forced to accept, by gun if necessary, policies that consistently cheapen the value of his labor and enhance the value of the doctor/engineer".

prometheus

11-24-2007, 12:31 AM

Yes, because policies of free international trade, labor market flexibility, and the basically open border situation have generated a lot of wealth, but it hasn't really helped many outside of the top 20%. I don't really think its fair to those who just aren't smart to have to live a lifetime of hard manual labor that will barely pay the bills because they don't have the IQ to go to college.

Additionally, this line of reasoning is could be applied as an argument against any taxation policy.

"So is it fair that a non-driver is forced (by gun if necessary) to support the drivers."

"Is it far that non readers are forced (by gun if necessary) to support libraries">

Or even the inverse argument could be made from this perspective. "Is it fair that the laborer is forced (by gun if necessary) to miss on the benefits of globalization?" "Is it fair that the laborer is forced to accept, by gun if necessary, policies that consistently cheapen the value of his labor and enhance the value of the doctor/engineer".

Well argued, but taxation is nothing but pure theft. I have chosen to stop producing to supporting a system I loathe, and therefore can guarantee I earn less than you. I choose to not take any government handouts, but if I followed your reasoning I would be entitled to part of your earnings because you earn more than me. Or are you saying only the uber rich should be mercilessly taxed to the point they are driven to other countries with their capitol and employment? Like is now happening.

Henry

11-24-2007, 02:40 AM

So Henry thinks I have "brief anecdotal evidence" of the overloading of our health care system by illegals. It isn't good to go through life only seeing what you want to see. The illegals are one reason our health care costs are so high, but not the only reason. What about malpractice suits? Ambulance chasing lawyers advertise on television to try to get more suits started. They make millions while the people who suffered or think they did get pennies and the doctors are forced out of medicine with extravagantly high malpractice insurance (especially neurosurgeons).

Except europe has illegal immigrants, Europe has malpractice attorneys, and Europe provides care for every man woman and child, has longer life expectancy and infant mortality, and does so for about 5% of a smaller per capita GDP. We treat perhaps 80% of the population for 13% of a larger per capita GDP.

Seems we can learn something from the Swedes, or even from Great Britain, no?

Also, I am not "speaking from the sidelines" of the health care debate. I have seen my daughter through two liver transplants and so many other surgeries I can't count them all. I have also seen parents on welfare whose children are in the hospital leeching on the system. They sit in their children's rooms eating junk food and watching Jerry Springer while people like me who work and pay taxes fund their "way of life."

Never said that you were speaking from the sidelines, said your argument hinged on anecdotal evidence.

My goal is the best care - care as in "treatment of illness", not "customer service" like getting a ton of attention for frivilous maladies - for the dollar. Europe has shown that there's a better way to do this. We would be wise to follow when there's a system that's both more equitable and less costly.

I don't know what to make of this whole "leeching on the system" argument about kids getting health care. Yeah, the parents should be working. Yeah there's a cap on the amount of time that they can receive welfare benefits and it should probably be tied to some form of public works participation. But are you somehow implying that there's injustice in the child receiving care? Even if the parents are lazy, does that really mean that a child should go without needed care?

Well argued, but taxation is nothing but pure theft. I have chosen to stop producing to supporting a system I loathe, and therefore can guarantee I earn less than you. I choose to not take any government handouts, but if I followed your reasoning I would be entitled to part of your earnings because you earn more than me.

The position that taxation is theft is a strong philosophical position, and one that from a purely abstract perspective I largely agree with. But concretely, I think everyone is better off with reasonable taxes. Nearly everyone is better off because of mandatory public schooling, nearly everyone is better of because of roads, the police department, and the fire department, and the sums of money required to support these services are clearly outweighed by the costs.

Or are you saying only the uber rich should be mercilessly taxed to the point they are driven to other countries with their capitol and employment? Like is now happening.

My position is something along the lines of federal taxation at 40-45% for income over 250k per year, 30% flat tax for anything up to that and a very large standard deduction. Which is basically consistent with the rest of the developed world except Japan, who, as we all have seen over the past 17 years, has not exactly led the way in the area of developed economy growth.

When you tax an additional 5% at 800k per year, you're taxing the 3rd home, the Ferrari, the absurd vacations. When you tax an additional 5% at 40 or even 50k per year, you're taking money out of retirement plans, kids out of college, health insurance, etc.

prometheus

11-24-2007, 02:50 AM

But concretely, I think everyone is better off with reasonable taxes. Nearly everyone is better off because of mandatory public schooling, nearly everyone is better of because of roads, the police department, and the fire department, and the sums of money required to support these services are clearly outweighed by the costs.

Any of these "services" could be more efficiently ran privately with use fees. Also, todays public schools are mostly just propaganda camps, the knowledge of one of todays HS graduates is pathetic compared to 50 years ago.

Lights

11-24-2007, 03:00 AM

Any of these "services" could be more efficiently ran privately with use fees. Also, todays public schools are mostly just propaganda camps, the knowledge of one of todays HS graduates is pathetic compared to 50 years ago.

Any school is susceptible to indoctrination. It's just a matter of choice with private schools. And I don't think it's very logical to compare schools from 50 years ago to today. After all, they didn't have the emphasis on technology we have today. Finally, our post secondary schooling system is still the best in the world and it's the public funding through pell grants and financial aid that makes it possible for many middle class to impoverished people to attend those schools.

Bossy Mom

11-24-2007, 11:13 AM

We have nothing to learn from Europe but how to create inefficient health care systems with overtaxed health care workers and poor quality of care. Europe also has illegal immigrants who are having a detrimental effect on their health care systems.

The argument that so many poor people don't have health care...why do they have so many children? I don't expect others to raise my children, any more than I feel obligated to raise the children of others. I don't care if others think I am cold and unfeeling...with freedom come responsibilites. Those who use the strong arm of government to enforce their "compassion" aren't compassionate at all -- they just want power over others. Why should I have to pay for someone else's code of "compassion" or their type of "morality"? Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat.

prometheus

11-24-2007, 01:25 PM

Any school is susceptible to indoctrination. It's just a matter of choice with private schools. And I don't think it's very logical to compare schools from 50 years ago to today. After all, they didn't have the emphasis on technology we have today.

Maybe todays HS grads can surf the net. But 50 years ago they could F'in read and do "sums". Most could even read Latin, and knew calculus.

Henry

11-24-2007, 03:43 PM

We have nothing to learn from Europe but how to create inefficient health care systems with overtaxed health care workers and poor quality of care. Europe also has illegal immigrants who are having a detrimental effect on their health care systems.

Poor quality of care? What are you basing that on? Longer life expectancy is bad? That higher infant mortality constitutes "quality care"? That the exact same medications that cost hundreds here cost about ten euros there? Ah yes, living longer at a far lower price is clearly "low quality care".

The fact that Europe also has illegal immigrants is something that supports my thesis, eg that Europe is doing this much better than we are, as they have all the same problems but do the work for 1/3rd to 6/10ths of the cost.

"overtaxed health care workers" boo-hoo-hoo. Everyone's an overtaxed worker, and there are not a shortage of people wanting to become doctors in even the worst systems in Europe. Clearly this is a complete non point.

The argument that so many poor people don't have health care...why do they have so many children? I don't expect others to raise my children, any more than I feel obligated to raise the children of others. I don't care if others think I am cold and unfeeling...with freedom come responsibilites. Those who use the strong arm of government to enforce their "compassion" aren't compassionate at all -- they just want power over others. Why should I have to pay for someone else's code of "compassion" or their type of "morality"? Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat.

A child's health care should be dependent on whether or not their parents work? So the sick kid dies because mom is a crack addict? Ah yes, that's truly the land of equal opportunity, and also a land of great freedom for the child.

By this line of "any more than I feel obligated to raise the children of others", we should not be removing children from abusive homes? After all, its not your responsibility that they aren't raising their kids right. We should, after all, let the parents sodomize the children if they like, as how is that your responsibility? You are out to get yours, and forget the rest, right?

Your arguments hinge on totally unverifiable anecdote, they lack integrative complexity or nuance, any sense of even acknowledging the existence of others, and in response to hard data and strong corresponding rationale, you throw up unsupported conjecture. Forgive me if I'm not inspired to let you dictate my reading list.

Lucid

11-24-2007, 04:19 PM

The argument that so many poor people don't have health care...why do they have so many children?

It's not just poor people who don't have health care, it's also a huge number of the middle class. And it has nothing to do with how many children a family has.
It seems like you've had many opportunities and a certain amount of financial stability. That's a really good thing and I'm glad you've been so fortunate.
I'm not trying to say that you haven't had hardships or that you haven't worked hard for what you have. But many many people work very hard and are still poor and still without health care. I'm sorry, but I just don't think you've had enough experience with the welfare or medicaid systems to understand how difficult it is to get any kind of help.

Anecdotal evidence:
I have a friend who is a single mother. She has a job that pays about $12.00 an hour, which, in my city (where minimum wage is still about $5.50 an hour) is still hard to live and support a child on. Child care for babies (her child is about 6 months old) is very expensive and she can't afford to pay for child care and pay her energy bill (which is very expensive here and gets worse as the weather gets colder). Also, her employer does not offer her health insurance. She works 40 hours a week. She is 25 and has one child. She does not qualify for government aid to help pay for child care. She's still going down there and filling out paperwork to see if there's anything she qualifies for. This makes it very difficult for her to get to work. If she has to call in too many times because there's no one to watch her child, she will lose her job.
While this example may not be representative of all of the people who seek government aid, it does represent the majority of them.

While there would certainly be problems with any health care system or welfare system, I simply don't think you've had the experience or the information to actually understand the systems or how they work. I would like to see you try to live the way most people on welfare or medicaid live. I think that if you had to do it for just a few months your opinion would change by about 180 degrees.
I don't think you're evil, just uninformed or misinformed.

*Edit - I was making a sandwich and still thinking about this thread. I think that there are some people who abuse the system. However, everything I've read and experienced with regards to this subject leads me to believe that they are by far the minority.
Also, there will always be people who find ways to abuse any system. I guess for me, I'm happy to pay to fund a system that some people abuse if it means giving other people (especially children, who can't vote, work or care for themselves and who are basically at the mercy of the society into which they are born) what they need to survive.

Lights

11-24-2007, 04:39 PM

prometheus

11-25-2007, 05:13 AM

And today they have advanced placement courses for college credit in maths and science, teach more than one foreign language, and hold their educators accountable for achieving success in the fundamentals. It's easy to look back and say the good ol' days were so much better, but it's comparing apples to oranges. Schools back then educated people as best they could for those times, and our schools educate people as best they can for these times.

..........and if you are seriously arguing todays grad is more intelligent, close you eyes and open your mouth

Bossy Mom

11-25-2007, 05:26 AM

The reason we have poverty in this country is a behavior problem. The illegitimate birth rate has skyrocketed in the last fifty years. Who is responsible for this? With the many forms of birth control!

As for me being the lucky recipient of a wealthy family, you are totally incorrect. I was born the eldest of nine children of a poor rural couple. I worked my way through college and have worked hard to make sure my children had clothes, food, a roof over their heads and good health care.

Liberals always use their "compassion" to attack others who think more logically. Lenin was right - liberals are useful idiots.

prometheus

11-25-2007, 06:24 AM

The reason we have poverty in this country is a behavior problem. The illegitimate birth rate has skyrocketed in the last fifty years.

So.... a bastard child can't make any money, or...he spends it all on crack for his nig, nig, negro kids?

apex.predator

11-25-2007, 10:59 AM

I can assure you that lowering health care costs would *not* push employers away from the US. Many corporations are run rationally (eg "Whatever will maximize profits"), and rationals don't care whether the money goes to government or corporations.

Government can't lower costs; they can lower only the immediate price paid.

rocksteady

11-25-2007, 12:19 PM

The reason we have poverty in this country is a behavior problem. The illegitimate birth rate has skyrocketed in the last fifty years. Who is responsible for this? With the many forms of birth control!

As for me being the lucky recipient of a wealthy family, you are totally incorrect. I was born the eldest of nine children of a poor rural couple. I worked my way through college and have worked hard to make sure my children had clothes, food, a roof over their heads and good health care.

Liberals always use their "compassion" to attack others who think more logically. Lenin was right - liberals are useful idiots.

Hey you! more Thinking, less Judging! It's not working for you!

Lights

11-25-2007, 01:25 PM

..........and if you are seriously arguing todays grad is more intelligent, close you eyes and...

What does that have to do with anything? I hate how when INTJs can't make a decent argument they have to start fuzzing up the issue. As if a single case example is indicative of anything. Not exactly the kind of logic that I expect from an NT.

By the way, you might want to remove that. Posting pornographic links is forbidden as outlined in the FAQ.

The reason we have poverty in this country is a behavior problem. The illegitimate birth rate has skyrocketed in the last fifty years. Who is responsible for this? With the many forms of birth control!

As for me being the lucky recipient of a wealthy family, you are totally incorrect. I was born the eldest of nine children of a poor rural couple. I worked my way through college and have worked hard to make sure my children had clothes, food, a roof over their heads and good health care.

Liberals always use their "compassion" to attack others who think more logically. Lenin was right - liberals are useful idiots.

I proudly reside in Idaho, one of the most conservative states in the union, and Idaho does not teach sex ed in its public schools. Did I mention we are among the highest in teen pregnancy rates in the country? I wonder whose fault those illegitimate births are? The Conservative law makers? The Conservative parents? Here is a scary thought! Maybe it has nothing to do with political affiliation!

Statistically speaking, our country has significantly lower birth rates than ever before. But of course, it is so much easier to ignore that little fact and believe whole heartedly in some political affiliation. I'm really done listening to you spewing your political devotion without actually taking the time to learn the issues. If I wanted to hear preaching then I would go to church.

It's funny how no one wants to take personal responsibility for any of our country's problems. No matter which side anyone picks politically, it so much easier to blame the other side and pretend that your political views mean something rather than to make an effort toward finding a solution.

Lucid

11-25-2007, 02:05 PM

As for me being the lucky recipient of a wealthy family, you are totally incorrect. I was born the eldest of nine children of a poor rural couple. I worked my way through college and have worked hard to make sure my children had clothes, food, a roof over their heads and good health care.

I don't think anybody said you hadn't worked for what you have. Just that not everybody is as fortunate as you are. Even with being one of 9 children born to a poor rural couple.

Lenin was right - liberals are useful idiots.

There's no need to get nasty. I think this kind of response is doing your argument more harm than good.

Henry

11-25-2007, 05:33 PM

Government can't lower costs; they can lower only the immediate price paid.

Government does health care does directly reduce costs, particularly with almost perfectly inelastic demand and short run supply curves.

Some ways can reduce costs considerably:
1. Reducing demand for unnecessary services performed by a doctor to shield him or herself from PI liability and by restricting vanity procedures. When there are legitimately ill people, it makes little sense to use resources to extend the wealthy man's penis by a quarter inch.
2. Eliminating most of the billing/insurance bureaucracy and profit cuts for each party
3. Massive reduction in liability exposure for doctors (as the government assumes all this liability) helping to increase the available supply of doctors.

Henry

11-25-2007, 05:45 PM

The reason we have poverty in this country is a behavior problem. The illegitimate birth rate has skyrocketed in the last fifty years. Who is responsible for this? With the many forms of birth control!

...

Teens having extramarital sex is not an argument against national health care. Furthermore, who are you to call a birth "illegitimate"?

There's poverty in the country for a variety of reasons, most notably that there are people who are too dumb, too naturally unhealthy, or who come from backgrounds that don't encourage the values that lead to wealth. None of which has anything to do with the right of the individual to get to see a doctor when they get sick.

As for me being the lucky recipient of a wealthy family, you are totally incorrect. I was born the eldest of nine children of a poor rural couple. I worked my way through college and have worked hard to make sure my children had clothes, food, a roof over their heads and good health care.

Congrats. You had the IQ to go to college. You are free from genetic defect. You were not so abused by your parents that you couldn't function.

And if society can provide health care to EVERYONE for less than it provides care for the upper middle class and above, why NOT do it? Because you want a lot of attention for maladies that you should take a tylenol for and then forget about? That's the only advantage of our system over the European model.

Liberals always use their "compassion" to attack others who think more logically. Lenin was right - liberals are useful idiots.

Lets do a brief summation of the arguments:
1. Mine - Europe has a cheaper, more efficient model that provides better bottom line care.
2. Yours - "Kids of welfare parents eating junk food while watching Jerry Springer don't deserve health care" "I've worked hard to give my kids things and other people don't deserve them unless they work hard too"

Tell me, who is the more emotional? Who is relying on data? Who has resorted to making personal comments?

apex.predator

11-25-2007, 06:32 PM

Government does health care does directly reduce costs, particularly with almost perfectly inelastic demand and short run supply curves.

You'll have to try again; your above statement makes no sense.

As for your other points, you have provided no explanation of how government can reduce the costs of medical procedures. When a government-paid physician performs an operation, do they use procedures any different from private physicians?

All you have done is asserted that anything government does is immune from questioning.

Henry

11-25-2007, 11:13 PM

You'll have to try again; your above statement makes no sense.

As for your other points, you have provided no explanation of how government can reduce the costs of medical procedures. When a government-paid physician performs an operation, do they use procedures any different from private physicians?

All you have done is asserted that anything government does is immune from questioning.

I'll spell it out STJ style so everyone can understand, as "all you have done is asserted that anything government does is immune from questioning" which is not what I said at all.

1. All other things being equal, removing costs faced by producers (eg billing department, malpractice insurance premiums, etc) will lead to a lower market price at higher production levels. Supply curve shifts right.
2. Removing a middleman that essentially acts as a sales tax (eg insurance companies) will lead to a lower market price, greater levels of consumer surplus, and greater levels of producer surplus.
3. The reduction of unnecessary services performed by doctors for frivilous maladies to shield themselves from liability. Demand curve shifts left.
4. Eliminating vanity treatments. Demand curve shifts left, supply curve expands out.

As its very easy to establish that demand curve is vertical for many medical treatments, and suppliers have not responded to the increases in price because most of that is going to attorneys and insurance company bureaucracy.

Do you need me to draw a graph?

apex.predator

11-26-2007, 12:06 AM

I'll spell it out...

You want the government telling you what is "necessary." I want the government out of the lives of citizens as much as possible. Draw all the graphs you want; you will have plenty of time when you're told to wait six months for your medical care.

Government researchers now note that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12% of that province's population) can't find family physicians. Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine who'd get a doctor's appointment.

These problems are not unique to Canada — they characterize all government-run health care systems.
...
Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall or a car accident. Such factors aren't academic — homicide rates in the U.S. are much higher than in other countries.
...
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50%; the European rate is just 35%. Esophageal carcinoma: 12% in the U.S., 6% in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2% here, yet 61.7% in France and down to 44.3% in England — a striking variation.

..government bureaucrats would be able to cut costs — but only by shrinking access to health care, as in Canada, and engendering a Canadian-style nightmare of overflowing emergency rooms and yearlong waits for treatment.

A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

HillaryCare in Tennessee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

More to the point of this thread - history - the primary reason health care is an issue currently is an consequence of wage caps during WWII by the US federal government. Employers seeking to attract workers at the time couldn't offer higher wages, so they competed on the basis of benefits with health care being one of the most important.

It is well documented that price caps - "cost reductions" for the more politically naive - invariably lead to shortages and quality deterioration.

As is often the case, the political system frets and the market is already in the process of solving the problem. If you live in the US, chances are there is a community health center - performing many of the services of physicians - located at a drug store near you.

rocksteady

11-26-2007, 06:00 PM

guys, why can't we just agree to have both systems of healthcare, a socialized one to take care of people that can't afford, and private for those who want higher quality care, it seems like this would be a good compromise?

I see things in motion that seem to be heading towards a system like this, doesn't seem like a terrible thing to me. There doesn't seem to be one catch-all ideal solution. It can be tedious to read arguments about the nuances of personal/political utopia sometimes!

Lights

11-26-2007, 08:31 PM

That is the most sensible thought I have heard in this thread. Well said rocksteady.

Riverratt

11-26-2007, 09:34 PM

guys, why can't we just agree to have both systems of healthcare, a socialized one to take care of people that can't afford, and private for those who want higher quality care, it seems like this would be a good compromise?

Problem is, we already HAVE that system, and it is rife with abuses..and outright STUPIDITY.

Who says the poor don't get taken care of????

The poorest of the poor, get Medicaid, they pay for NOTHING, They have NO Insurance bill, They have NO Co Pays, Heck, they don't even pay taxes.....These are a large portion of the folks you see LOITERING around emergency rooms. With stumped toes and the like. These people seem to think they are entitled to it. but people that do not contribute to society as a whole tend to abuse it..

After all, to them, it is free.....

We all know, that if something is “free” it tends to be overused, and abused, this is what has happened to our hospitals. We have doctors afraid to turn anyone away, due to the very REAL threat of a lawsuit, and we all know that they “Medicaid” cases, tend to be, very VERY litigious.
And who do you think pays, when they win $100,000,000 because they have a scar where the doctor C-Sectioned baby #6 out of Momma?? The rest of us, in higher medical bills.

They call it “I'm gona gits mine”.. Why do you think they run all those “ambulance chasing lawyer TV spots in the early afternoon hrs?? It is because the welfare cases are sitting at home in front of the TV, feeling sorry for themselves, and blaming other people for their predicament, while, the productive citizens, and by implication, having common sense, are at work.

So the doctors practice defensive medicine, These means they will run EVERY test, at taxpayers expense, just so he can cover his own @ss in case of lawsuit.

Now some one will point out that all poor folks are NOT on “Medicaid” this is true, but have you EVER, EVER heard of a Hospital turning ANYONE AWAY???

NO, you haven't.... If you don't have insurance, and you get hurt, the hospital will treat you, and write it off of their taxes.

Next someone will point out “What about the “working poor”??? there are state programs, in EVERY STATE, that cover folks in that level..

And before I hear whining about drugs, let me point out that you can go to Walmart and get a huge list of generic drugs for about 2 or 4 dollars for a 30 day supply. EVERY DRUG MAKER, has programs, for the folks that cannot afford their drugs, to get them for free, or very inexpensively..

All it takes in half a brain, to find these programs, but alas, we are a nation of sheep, and our collective IQ is as low as “hippy music festival runoff”

Personal responsibility is dead in this nation. Hardly anyone is willing to even accept the responsibility of their own health care anymore....We are doomed...:thinking:

rocksteady

11-26-2007, 11:02 PM

Problem is, we already HAVE that system, and it is rife with abuses..and outright STUPIDITY.

Who says the poor don't get taken care of????

The poorest of the poor, get Medicaid, they pay for NOTHING, They have NO Insurance bill, They have NO Co Pays, Heck, they don't even pay taxes.....These are a large portion of the folks you see LOITERING around emergency rooms. With stumped toes and the like. These people seem to think they are entitled to it. but people that do not contribute to society as a whole tend to abuse it..

After all, to them, it is free.....

We all know, that if something is “free” it tends to be overused, and abused, this is what has happened to our hospitals. We have doctors afraid to turn anyone away, due to the very REAL threat of a lawsuit, and we all know that they “Medicaid” cases, tend to be, very VERY litigious.
And who do you think pays, when they win $100,000,000 because they have a scar where the doctor C-Sectioned baby #6 out of Momma?? The rest of us, in higher medical bills.

They call it “I'm gona gits mine”.. Why do you think they run all those “ambulance chasing lawyer TV spots in the early afternoon hrs?? It is because the welfare cases are sitting at home in front of the TV, feeling sorry for themselves, and blaming other people for their predicament, while, the productive citizens, and by implication, having common sense, are at work.

So the doctors practice defensive medicine, These means they will run EVERY test, at taxpayers expense, just so he can cover his own @ss in case of lawsuit.

Now some one will point out that all poor folks are NOT on “Medicaid” this is true, but have you EVER, EVER heard of a Hospital turning ANYONE AWAY???

NO, you haven't.... If you don't have insurance, and you get hurt, the hospital will treat you, and write it off of their taxes.

Next someone will point out “What about the “working poor”??? there are state programs, in EVERY STATE, that cover folks in that level..

And before I hear whining about drugs, let me point out that you can go to Walmart and get a huge list of generic drugs for about 2 or 4 dollars for a 30 day supply. EVERY DRUG MAKER, has programs, for the folks that cannot afford their drugs, to get them for free, or very inexpensively..

All it takes in half a brain, to find these programs, but alas, we are a nation of sheep, and our collective IQ is as low as “hippy music festival runoff”

Personal responsibility is dead in this nation. Hardly anyone is willing to even accept the responsibility of their own health care anymore....We are doomed...:thinking:

so maybe a little overhaul is necessary, which I think most of us can agree with. The problem is that these problems you mention with our healthcare are all symptoms of a sick political system that has forgotten about the people. I hate to re-hash this idea, but to fix healthcare, we need to fix politics. There are prominent politicians taking steps to work towards this, it just takes time.

I personally think health care is a perfectly reasonable function of government, and if we put some thought into it, we could build a nice socialized system, we just have to get rid of the influence of lobbyists and insurance companies.

Riverratt

11-27-2007, 01:34 AM

I personally think health care is a perfectly reasonable function of government, and if we put some thought into it, we could build a nice socialized system, we just have to get rid of the influence of lobbyists and insurance companies.

Lets see... Let me dust off the US Constitution...

Funny, I can't find the term "Health Care" anywhere?!?!

Odd...That must be one of those new fangled rights, that people THINK they have, you know, like the "right to vote", the "right to an education" etc etc....

Read it, you will find that many of the "rights" people cry about really do not exist.

And those that cry loudest for those non-existent rights, tend to try their best to ERASE a whole section of the Bill of Rights, namely the 2nd Amendment...what hypocrites

Do you realize, the ONLY thing our government is even remotely good at is fighting wars??

Do you REALLY, want to give the same people, power over who YOU, to tell you WHO will be your Doctor, and WHAT procedures they can preform on you in an life or death situation...

Is the same people that gave us the Department of Education, Social Security, the IRS and the TSA?

Have you ever had to deal with the DMV??? Or stood in line to board a flight?? How about those Tax forms???

Do you REALLY want to give the SAME PEOPLE the power of life or death over you???

Actually can you even name ONE government "social program" that has came anywhere close to doing what it was supposed to do?

If socialized medicine is so great, why are Canadians coming by the droves to the US, to have procedures done??

I don't want some butt-munch pencil pusher in Washington, to have say in what me, my wife, and my doctors says that needs to be done. NO WAY....

The only thing these "socialized programs" are good for is, breeding Democrats. Their is a reason, that once a new social program is started, it suddenly becomes an "entitlement"....and their is no way to ever stop it....

Lights

11-27-2007, 02:35 AM

Who says the poor don't get taken care of????

I do. For just walking into an Emergency Room you will usually end up with a $500 bill. How long do you suppose it takes someone working at $7.25 an hour to pay off a bill like that? I grew up in a poor family and you can be damn well sure that if one of us kids got sick, we had to be on the verge of death before we were taken to the hospital. Medical emergencies are part of the reason there are working poor. Once you get sick you can never pay it off. As far as the state writing off expenses and other such completely unsubstantiated bull, I wonder what world you are living in. Medicaid puhleez :rolleyes:. Since you are clearly an expert, why don't you tell me the stipulations of Medicaid, who it covers, and what it covers? I mean, with the claims you make, it's obvious that you should know those details. I mean, obviously there are only 6.5 million poor people in this country, right? And how much does your state contribute to Medicaid? What does it take in your state to be deemed "cost effective"?

If socialized medicine is so great, why are Canadians coming by the droves to the US, to have procedures done??

I don't see droves of Canadians running across the border for better health care. But I do see droves of Americans running across the border for more affordable prescription drugs and medical services. I'm not saying that there aren't Canadians who do come here for better medical care, but they are certainly vastly outnumbered by the number of Americans who run the other way. But hey, clearly you have statistics or some evidence to actually back up your claims, right?

It's actually really amusing watching you folks pretend you know anything about health care just so you can push your political agendas. I would have figured INTJs would be out to objectively challenge their own beliefs and show a little human reason, but I'll just have to settle for the entertainment of listening to these little delusions. :thinking:

Riverratt

11-27-2007, 03:48 AM

You proved my point for me....You evidently got the “care” you needed, if you ended up with a bill like that, and if it was only $500 bucks, you must not have been very sick. You should have taken your stumped toe or whatever, to the “urgent care” center. You know, those places that are open from like 6 AM till midnight, where folks without insurance can go for minor issues...

Went their once myself, walked in with a badly pulled back and leg, and walked out with a $30 dollar doctor bill and a handful of free “samples” of pain meds.... and NO, I did not have insurance at the time.

Okay... Since you asked about “medical help”.... (Virginia Specific)

First off...FREE BIRTH CONTROL....for EVERYONE.... They hand out birth control pills, and condoms like they where lolly pops, almost no questions asked, and they never ask for money, OR income information....They give out condoms by the bag, and birth control pills by the case.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Here is a link to Virginia's WIC program...basically lots of good, free food for your wife, and baby, until they are 5 years old.... Eligibility...for a family of 4, an income under 38,000 a year..

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Actually, they will supply so much baby food and milk, you will not NEVER, need to buy it.

Virginia's FAMAS Program.... Really good FREE insurance, (with small co pays) for those of LOW to moderate, income.. Here is a link to the Eligibility requirements Notice that it goes up to over 40,000 a year for a family of 4....

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Virginia's “Uninsured Medical Catastrophe Fund”..just what it says, I actully know several folks, who have used it.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

You wanted to know about Medicaid...FAMIS is listed their aswell

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ahh, free, or extremely cheap drug information

Here is Walmart's $4 for a 30 day supply list...more than 360 scripts are available..

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Pfizer...A LARGE drug company..nice little program they have their....

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Glaxo Smith Kline.. Another large drug company...more free, or low cost drugs...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

And yes, you could say that I am expert in this field, actully I am married to one.......The resources are their...you just must look for them. I swear sometimes it is like trying to teach Helen Keller how to speak. WATTTTERR...WATER...:suspicious: Feel it Helen!!!!

rocksteady

11-27-2007, 04:06 AM

dude, i hate to say this, but your post are very annoyingly worded, and reek of fanboy spam.

I mentioned health care as a function of government...state level would be fine. Please quit with the huge posts, stick to the point.

rocksteady added 2 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...

It's actually really amusing watching you folks pretend you know anything about health care just so you can push your political agendas. I would have figured INTJs would be out to objectively challenge their own beliefs and show a little human reason, but I'll just have to settle for the entertainment of listening to these little delusions. :thinking:

I agree, something is out of place. Political spam has no place here.

Riverratt

11-27-2007, 04:13 AM

dude, i hate to say this, but your post are very annoyingly worded, and reek of fanboy spam.

I mentioned health care as a function of government...state level would be fine. Please quit with the huge posts, stick to the point.

Actually I could be happy with the state programs, trimmed back a bit from where they are now. I would prefer the government completely out, of the health care business,(except for licensing) but that is never going to happen. I would agree that their is a need for the poor to have help....and they have it...

As for the long post, He made a few comments, asked a few questions so I answered his questions, even though "Google" would have sufficed for him.

Henry

11-27-2007, 04:28 AM

You want the government telling you what is "necessary." I want the government out of the lives of citizens as much as possible. Draw all the graphs you want; you will have plenty of time when you're told to wait six months for your medical care.

...

That's nice that you want them out of "the lives of citizens as much as possible". I want everyone out of my life as much as possible, large corporations that function the same as governments included. The best way to achieve this is to minimize costs and maximize savings. I'd love to put another 6-10% of my income in my pocket, regardless of where that money is going to.

Six months for medical care? Substantiate that with data please. I've seen anecdote that high, but never data.

A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

HillaryCare in Tennessee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Those are wonderful abstractions, but you can't overcome the fact that Europe provides health care for every person for 33-60% of what we do. And they have longer life expectancy. And lower infant mortality rates. Its really sad that 200,000 incidents out of a least a hundred million incidents took over 6 months, but it doesn't warrant 3x's the cost for 80% of the care.

More to the point of this thread - history - the primary reason health care is an issue currently is an consequence of wage caps during WWII by the US federal government. Employers seeking to attract workers at the time couldn't offer higher wages, so they competed on the basis of benefits with health care being one of the most important.

It is well documented that price caps - "cost reductions" for the more politically naive - invariably lead to shortages and quality deterioration.

You really shouldn't be talking about economics when you can't distinguish between a supply or demand shift and a price cap.

I'm not talking about price caps. I'm talking about instituting policies that will place downward pressure on the market price of health care, or providing a public good in the same way roads and police and FDs are provided today. If you knew the first thing about economics, this would have been obvious.

As is often the case, the political system frets and the market is already in the process of solving the problem. If you live in the US, chances are there is a community health center - performing many of the services of physicians - located at a drug store near you.

A nice abstraction but you can't overcome the hard data on this issue - longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, greater levels of equality for 33-60% of the price.

Henry added 8 Minutes and 50 Seconds later...

Lets see... Let me dust off the US Constitution...

Funny, I can't find the term "Health Care" anywhere?!?!

Odd...That must be one of those new fangled rights, that people THINK they have, you know, like the "right to vote", the "right to an education" etc etc....

Read it, you will find that many of the "rights" people cry about really do not exist.

And those that cry loudest for those non-existent rights, tend to try their best to ERASE a whole section of the Bill of Rights, namely the 2nd Amendment...what hypocrites

Do you realize, the ONLY thing our government is even remotely good at is fighting wars??

I don't want some butt-munch pencil pusher in Washington, to have say in what me, my wife, and my doctors says that needs to be done. NO WAY....

The only thing these "socialized programs" are good for is, breeding Democrats. Their is a reason, that once a new social program is started, it suddenly becomes an "entitlement"....and their is no way to ever stop it....

Were you drunk when you wrote this? "Butt munch"? "me, my wife my doctors says"? Rebutting arguments that haven't been made? Random, ill-formed arguments that would make an ESFP blush for lack of coherence? Failing to consider that insurance companies fulfill most of the negative roles you ascribe to a hypothetical public system?

Lights

11-27-2007, 05:32 AM

You proved my point for me....You evidently got the “care” you needed, if you ended up with a bill like that, and if it was only $500 bucks, you must not have been very sick. You should have taken your stumped toe or whatever, to the “urgent care” center. You know, those places that are open from like 6 AM till midnight, where folks without insurance can go for minor issues...

You misread my post as I very clearly said, "Just walking into the emergency room" resulted in $500. The one time I ended up in the emergency room, the actual sum was in the thousands. I also love how you included your "stumped toe" assessment which demonstrates your desire to generalize and simplify the argument for your own benefit. Actually, when I went I was 10 and had an appendicitis which I enjoyed for three days in complete agony because my family made just a little too much to qualify for Medicaid. But of course, details like those don't play nicely into your political ideologies so they must be overlooked for the sake of not conceding even an inch of your convictions. I find it very cute that you insist on playing up "minor issues" as one of your defenses. :thinking:

But I will give you credit for actually taking the time to look into special programs, although it is clear that you have still not got the point. There exists a realm between impoverished and just getting by where a good share of Americans live.

However, as I have found to be typical with these INTJ discussions, this is becoming circular and repetitive. INTJs want to argue, not to listen to reason or critique their own beliefs, so it is inevitable that such discussion will make absolutely 0 progress. I find it absolutely adorable that INTJs don't take too kindly to having their arguments scrutinized and prefer instead to raise countless unsubstantiated points in an attempt to drown out the "competition". It's a rather quaint style of debate. But my own personal belief is that anyone who gives into their convictions on this or any other issue is a fool. There lies a best fit solution for the current situation between the right and left ideologies expressed in this thread. It has become clear to me that INTJs care nothing for moderate truths when it is so much funner to joust on the abstract plane of political philosophy.

Edit: However, that may be me just generalizing the whole type based soley on what I have observed in some individuals on this forum. It would not be fair of me to criticize without critiquing my own beliefs. So I will just have to sit back and observe where this discussion and the others go.

banzai

11-27-2007, 06:43 AM

Riverratt

11-27-2007, 08:39 AM

...

Six months for medical care? Substantiate that with data please. I've seen anecdote that high, but never data.

Ahh, the infamous "wait times" How about 409 days for "hip joint replacement" at North East LHIN or how about 617 days at Hôpital régional de Sudbury Regional Hospital

Don't take my word for it, just look here at the OFFICIAL government ran "Ontario Wait time website"

You can check out some of the times yourself, Gee, I hope I never need an MRI in a hurry up their.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...
Were you drunk when you wrote this? "Butt munch"? "me, my wife my doctors says"? Rebutting arguments that haven't been made? Random, ill-formed arguments that would make an ESFP blush for lack of coherence? Failing to consider that insurance companies fulfill most of the negative roles you ascribe to a hypothetical public system?

Yea, but a person can "fire", their insurance compainy and get a new one.

I was exhausted when I was up posting last night, at 3 AM, I am much better now....When I am worn out, the old Appalachian hillbilly in me "comes out to play" :embarassed:

Lights

11-27-2007, 11:14 AM

No

Come on, can't you summon up just a tad bit of Ti. :laugh:

prometheus

11-27-2007, 01:01 PM

It's actually really amusing watching you folks pretend you know anything about health care just so you can push your political agendas. I would have figured INTJs would be out to objectively challenge their own beliefs and show a little human reason, but I'll just have to settle for the entertainment of listening to these little delusions. :thinking:

It's hillaryious watching you disregard RR's excellent arguments for individual responsibility, and constitutionality like they are some sort of "dated" concepts that have been replaced by your version of glorified socialism.

Lights

11-27-2007, 01:23 PM

It's hillaryious watching you disregard RR's excellent arguments for individual responsibility, and constitutionality like they are some sort of "dated" concepts that have been replaced by your version of glorified socialism.

You assume much, but read little.

But my own personal belief is that anyone who gives into their convictions on this or any other issue is a fool. There lies a best fit solution for the current situation between the right and left ideologies expressed in this thread. It has become clear to me that INTJs care nothing for moderate truths when it is so much funner to joust on the abstract plane of political philosophy.

Though I do much appreciate you proving my point.

Riverratt

11-27-2007, 01:55 PM

But my own personal belief is that anyone who gives into their convictions on this or any other issue is a fool. There lies a best fit solution for the current situation between the right and left ideologies expressed in this thread. It has become clear to me that INTJs care nothing for moderate truths when it is so much funner to joust on the abstract plane of political philosophy.

Between the right and left?? You mean in the middle??

Phooy, anit nothing in the "middle", but ROAD KILL, if you have an belief, at least have the fortitude to back it up...

I refer to our founders.....

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Henry

11-27-2007, 02:03 PM

Ahh, the infamous "wait times" How about 409 days for "hip joint replacement" at North East LHIN or how about 617 days at Hôpital régional de Sudbury Regional Hospital

Don't take my word for it, just look here at the OFFICIAL government ran "Ontario Wait time website"

You can check out some of the times yourself, Gee, I hope I never need an MRI in a hurry up their.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are extremes, no doubt, and Canada's system is clearly the worst of the government systems. Still, I'd prefer to put another 6-9% of my income in my pocket and wait for non-emergency services like a hip joint replacement. On this point, I suppose it comes down to a matter of preference, although its really a shared risk whether public or private so should be a shared decision.

Yea, but a person can "fire", their insurance compainy and get a new one.

Except insurance companies are virtually identical and you can't very well fire them if you can't afford the care in the first place. In personal lines, its very common for every company to use the same policy and just add endorsements to make minor changes to a state's standard policy.

t's hillaryious watching you disregard RR's excellent arguments for individual responsibility, and constitutionality like they are some sort of "dated" concepts that have been replaced by your version of glorified socialism.

I don't think either Light or I are ignoring the points, but recognizing that social responsibility is as important as individual responsibility, and that the constitution is a framework, not textbook, for government and is subject to change when not working as well as alternatives.

prometheus

11-27-2007, 02:05 PM

You assume much, but read little.

Though I do much appreciate you proving my point.

Socialism like a poison isn't something you should take even in small amounts.

Socialism is supported by taxes which are theft, how much theft is acceptable?

Any infringements upon natural rights has always led to loss of liberty. It is indeed a slippery slope. I'm reminded of the boiling a frog analogy.

I'm just some sort of redneck in the woods with too many guns, I can't quote the classical school, the monetarist school, the Keynesian school, or Austrian economics (though, I have read quite a bit of this one) schools of thought off the top of my head. But, I do know what theft is, and understand my rights.

What socialist countries have worked?

CCCP: Nope
Albania: Nope.
(National Socialist) Germany: Nope
Angola, Congo, Bulgaria, Czech, Ethiopia, Poland, Romania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, East Germany: Nope

China, Cuba, N. Korea, Laos, Vietnam: Still playing around with it, but would you want to live there?

Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have been able to adopt some socialist platforms, this acceptance I think is more ethnically based and this theory is backed by the fact that in all other geographic areas socialism has failed.

TANSTAAFL

Henry

11-27-2007, 02:13 PM

Socialism like a poison isn't something you should take even in small amounts.

Socialism is supported by taxes which are theft, how much theft is acceptable?

Any infringements upon natural rights has always led to loss of liberty. It is indeed a slippery slope. I'm reminded of the boiling a frog analogy.

I'm just some sort of redneck in the woods with too many guns, I can't quote the classical school, the monetarist school, the Keynesian school, or Austrian economics (though, I have read quite a bit of this one) schools of thought off the top of my head. But, I do know what theft is, and understand my rights.

What socialist countries have worked?

CCCP: Nope
Albania: Nope.
(National Socialist) Germany: Nope
Angola, Congo, Bulgaria, Czech, Ethiopia, Poland, Romania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, East Germany: Nope

China, Cuba, N. Korea, Laos, Vietnam: Still playing around with it, but would you want to live there?

Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have been able to adopt some socialist platforms, this acceptance I think is more ethnically based and this theory is backed by the fact that in all other geographic areas socialism has failed.

TANSTAAFL

I don't think that he or I are advocating socialism. We're advocating government run health care, which works in every developed country except the US and Japan.

Lights

11-27-2007, 02:21 PM

Between the right and left?? You mean in the middle??

Phooy, anit nothing in the "middle", but ROAD KILL, if you have an belief, at least have the fortitude to back it up...

Yes, we should all have unsubstantiated beliefs that are passed down by tradition and that we follow without question and despite the circumstances of each situation. Religio...er...political philosophy is very important.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson

That quote has nothing to do with compromising your political ideologies. Even in the health care discussion it has no merit since most of the people who would benefit from having an effective health care system are those who are working. And to be frank, it's taken completely out of context the way you have used it here. I could just as easily make the same argument against giving tax breaks to the rich.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

Interesting opinion from the man who introduced Great Britain's first ever income tax. Anyways, I don't particularly understand the merit in quoting someone's subjective argument in order to argue against objectivity and open mindedness.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

I'm enjoying the fact that you continue to quote a known INTJ's subjective beliefs as an argument for you own. Should I go back and start quoting Gandhi to support all my beliefs?

All this fluff and still not a single objective argument about why choosing the "middle" would be bad. What a waste of time even replying.

...

I'm not a socialist and all I have suggested is looking for a compromise between socialistic and conservative ideologies in order to get a "best fit" solution. But I must say, you practice your religion very well. Believing in the absolution of your ideology is almost as admirable as it is foolish.

prometheus

11-27-2007, 02:47 PM

I don't think that he or I are advocating socialism. We're advocating government run health care, which works in every developed country except the US and Japan.

...But, you see it is socialism, hence the name Socialized Medicine.

Well, actually thinking about it, it is actually more Fascist Medicine (seriously) since the means of production are still privately owned, but uber-regulated and their profits are taken to support the social program.

Damn that would be a tough sell.........can't you just see Hillary at the podium speaking of the benefits of FASCIST MEDICINE. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

prometheus added 20 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...

They might have just (wisely) chosen to leave off the NATIONAL before the SOCIALIZED MEDICINE part.

Still giggling.

Lights

11-27-2007, 03:08 PM

I don't think that he or I are advocating socialism. We're advocating government run health care...

I'm not advocating government run health care or socialism. I'm advocating two separate systems, one government and one private, or a comparable situation in which each side gets most of what it wants. If you haven't figured it out yet, I have absolutely no interest in arguing normative causes or political ideologies, only what is the most practical and intelligent decision with the current situation. It's sad that as the idealist of this thread, I'm the one with the foot in reality.

I believe the best results are achieved through compromise and collaboration, you know the kind of skills that went into the drafting of the Constitution, but which are evidently skills well beyond the typical INTJs mental capacity. Those skills require that you have to be able to concede some ground in your beliefs without feeling like you are losing integrity or pride. I don't think a single INTJ (save one) in this thread is capable of separating themselves from their political ideologies in order to objectively understand the situation well enough to make effective proposals for solutions.

I've simply made that observation and am now poking the beehive and watching the predictable behavior play out again and again. It's most amusing.

prometheus

11-27-2007, 03:45 PM

I'm not advocating government run health care or socialism. I'm advocating two separate systems, one government and one private, or a comparable situation in which each side gets most of what it wants.

It might be predictable because it is still relavent. If this program is government run who will be paying for it? The government doesn't produce anything, the funds will be coming from stolen monies from the individuals who produce. This pie in the sky theory that the government will just magically make this appear doesn't wash. Even if they could fire up the presses faster, it would still be stealing the individual's wealth through inflation. [minor threadjack] Which is currently at 11% using the 1980's calculation methods.

And the worst news is that it is going to get worse, as John Williams' of shadowstats.com reports, "The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported the seasonally-adjusted CPI-U" in October was a reading 3.5% inflation in prices, but Mr. Williams figures that "Adjusted to pre-Clinton (1990) methodology, annual inflation was about 6.9%, up from 6.1% in September, while the SGS-Alternate Consumer Inflation Measure (1980 methodology) showed October's annual inflation at roughly 11.1%." Eleven freaking percent inflation!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/end threadjack]

prometheus added 11 Minutes and 8 Seconds later...

[quote]I don't think either Light or I are ignoring the points, but recognizing that social responsibility is as important as individual responsibility,[quote]

I have no desire to watch people starve or die from illness on the street. That is why I volunteer my EMT skills FOR FREE. My problem is when my wealth is stolen from me to provide these same services I would VOLUNTARILY provide (with 0 bureaucratic waste) for free. It all comes down to who owns me....ME!

Lights

11-27-2007, 03:49 PM

It might be predictable because it is still relavent. If this program is government run who will be paying for it? The government doesn't produce anything, the funds will be coming from stolen monies from the individuals who produce. This pie in the sky theory that the government will just magically make this appear doesn't wash. Even if they could fire up the presses faster, it would still be stealing the individual's wealth through inflation. [minor threadjack] Which is currently at 11% using the 1980's calculation methods.

:laugh: You are not making INTJs look very good. I just made the direct challenge that INTJs aren't capable of backing down from their political ideologies long enough to even think about compromise. I even left it open to a comparable situation that did not necessarily entail government run heath care. And like a rat running for cheese, you continue to prove my point by arguing your ideology instead of making non-normative arguments of why a compromised solution would be anymore ineffective than our current situation. You have made my afternoon my little mouse.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

prometheus

11-27-2007, 03:58 PM

[QUOTE=Lights;18794]:laugh: You are not making INTJs look very good. I just made the direct challenge that INTJs aren't capable of backing down from their political ideologies long enough to even think about compromise. I even left it open to a comparable situation that did not necessarily entail government run heath care. And like a rat running for cheese, you continue to prove my point by arguing your ideology instead of making non-normative arguments of why a compromised solution would be anymore ineffective than our current situation. You have made my afternoon my little mouse.

Ah, but you missed the merged post. Note the date stamp shows it was there prior to your last post.

I showed my compromise I voluntarily help. See, O' Great Puddy Cat, I won't steal from others. How would you, O' Wise One, set up a government medical program without stealing from individuals?

Lights

11-27-2007, 04:15 PM

Ah, but you missed the merged post. I wish there was a date stamp to show it was there prior to your last post, but.............

I showed my compromise I voluntarily help. See, O' Great Puddy Cat, I won't steal from others. How would you, O' Wise One, set up a government medical program without stealing from individuals?

Now you are talking. Nice to hear that you can at least be solution oriented.

I mentioned one already. A government ran health care program with limited capacity and a private health care system not unlike we have now. The government care could be funded by donations while giving tax breaks to contributors as well as whatever each state wanted to contribute. The private sector could contribute supplementary insurance to go along with the basic government package provided by each state. That would provide some competition between states to provide effective health care at the government level. But that was just one possible situation off the top of my head. I'm sure if people who actually knew the system inside and out were to get together and compromise then they could come up with much more attractive looking compromises.

prometheus

11-27-2007, 04:26 PM

Now you are talking. Nice to hear that you can at least be solution oriented.

I mentioned one already. A government ran health care program with limited capacity and a private health care system not unlike we have now. The government care could be funded by donations while giving tax breaks to contributors as well as whatever each state wanted to contribute. The private sector could contribute supplementary insurance to go along with the basic government package provided by each state. That would provide some competition between states to provide effective health care at the government level. But that was just one possible situation off the top of my head. I'm sure if people who actually knew the system inside and out were to get together and compromise then they could come up with much more attractive looking compromises.

Why even have the government involved if it was fully funded by donations? Why not a 501(c)(3) charitable organization like a lot of clinics now are?
Your solutions seems to be just shifting titles and words...unless you are proposing even more regulatory noseyness in these already over regulated clinics. No good deed......................You know as a (state not national cert) EMT unlike anyone else, I cannot help someone bleeding out on the road if I am in another state. :yuck:

Less laws and regulations, not more.

Riverratt

11-27-2007, 04:34 PM

There are extremes, no doubt, and Canada's system is clearly the worst of the government systems. Still, I'd prefer to put another 6-9% of my income in my pocket and wait for non-emergency services like a hip joint replacement. On this point, I suppose it comes down to a matter of preference, although its really a shared risk whether public or private so should be a shared decision.

6% or 9% of income huh?!?!

Lets compare the data....

Here is the tax rates for a Single Person, of AVERAGE means, and the tax rate for a Couple, and one child, of AVERAGE MEANS...

The columns will read like this...

Nation---single rate----married with child rate

USA---29.1 %----11.8%
Canada-- 31.6%---21.5%
France--50.1%---41.7%
Germany---51.8%--35.7%
UK---33.5%--27.1%

Source: OECD, 2005 data

Socialized medicine WILL, make us all equal....by dragging us ALL, down to the lowest common denominator. Not by lifting the poor up...

banzai

11-27-2007, 04:35 PM

Come on, can't you summon up just a tad bit of Ti. :laugh:

I just can't waste the time studying history when its affects seem to be so apparent in the present. ;D

I see a rock on the ground, I do not really care for the history of the rock, because it's quite obvious that now, here, the rock is in front of me and I can either integrate said rock into my future by interacting with it somehow, or the rock and I can go our separate ways.

Unless I can specifically see how a given piece of past information would be helpful in the future then I consider it completely useless.

Lights

11-27-2007, 04:55 PM

Why even have the government involved if it was fully funded by donations? Why not a 501(c)(3) charitable organization like a lot of clinics now are?
Your solutions seems to be just shifting titles and words...unless you are proposing even more regulatory noseyness in these already over regulated clinics. No good deed......................You know as a (state not national cert) EMT unlike anyone else, I cannot help someone bleeding out on the road if I am in another state. :yuck:

Less laws and regulations, not more.

I'll clarify it for you then. My little guess work proposition is a mixture of liberal, conservative, and libertarian ideals that works on three levels.

1. Federal level government health care- private contributors donate to health care and get tax breaks from the government. In essence, they get to choose where their tax dollars are going. This federal money is then distributed between the states. This system is so the private sector doesn't get too much influence over health care. This is my liberal/conservative compromise, where the rich who pay the majority of the taxes get the benefit of choosing whether or not they contribute but are limited at the federal level at influencing the system.

2. State level government health care- each state can then choose how to distribute the federal money. Perhaps they will do as you suggest and set it up through a charity, or maybe they will choose direct state government control. The state will then decide how much to tax its particular populace for it's health care. This is beneficial because it allows individuals in the state to effectively decide how much they are willing to be taxed for health care. Conservative and Libertarian states may have little or no taxes, whereas Liberal states may have substantially higher taxes. Of course the populace can move between the states and pick the health care package they like best, and that provides competition between states to provide for the best basic health care. This is my libertarian/liberal compromise where the individual has the far more control over how they are taxed while providing for the best free market opportunity. However, everyone will have the benefit of the money contributed to the state by the federal government.

3. Private level health care- provides supplementary insurance (and full package insurance if need be) so that people can get higher quality health care. In states where they choose not to tax the populace, there will be more demand for private insurance. In states where they do tax and provide more state level insurance, the demand will be lower for private insurance. If state level care begins to become ineffective, then voters will move toward private care. If private care becomes too expensive, then voters will move toward acquiring more state care. This is my libertarian/conservative compromise.

So I set up three levels with my compromises to allow for a check and balances system between the federal, state, and private levels. But of course, this is a proposed system that requires stepping away from your ideology in order to get the "best fit" situation. I don't think INTJs are very adept at that from what I have seen.

prometheus

11-27-2007, 05:16 PM

I'll clarify it for you then. My little guess work proposition is a mixture of liberal, conservative, and libertarian ideals that works on three levels.

1. Federal level government health care- private contributors donate to health care and get tax breaks from the government. In essence, they get to choose where their tax dollars are going. This federal money is then distributed between the states. Bureaucratic waste This system is so the private sector doesn't get too much influence over health care. This is my liberal/conservative compromise, where the rich who pay the majority of the taxes get the benefit of choosing whether or not they contribute but are limited at the federal level at influencing the system.

2. State level government health care- each state can then choose how to distribute the federal money. Bureaucratic waste Perhaps they will do as you suggest and set it up through a charity, or maybe they will choose direct state government control. The state will then decide how much to tax its particular populace for it's health care. Bureaucratic waste This is beneficial because it allows individuals in the state to effectively decide how much they are willing to be taxed for health care. Conservative and Libertarian states may have little or no taxes, whereas Liberal states may have substantially higher taxes. Of course the populace can move between the states and pick the health care package they like best, and that provides competition between states to provide for the best basic health care. This is my libertaria